> Shitty is moving from the imported GPL baseline to an MIT-only codebase. It does not intend to retain the GPL as the final project license.

An interesting, and disappointing choice. Shitty, one may say.

I never understood this stance. I’ve heard this for 30 years and I still don’t understand why people feel entitled enough to enjoy the benefits of someone else’s work without giving anything back.

Forcing someone to release their code for free isn’t freedom, that’s a lack of freedom. Oh, you want the code to be free. Well guess what? MIT licensed means you can have it. Oh, you want a third party’s changes to be made free. No. Expecting that is batshit insane.

If someone forks this, changes it, and doesn’t release their changes, this still exists. Nothing is lost.

When something is released under MIT, it is “released”. When GPL software is released, it “binds” anyone that works on it, adding requirements to the entity doing the work. I.e. not free.