My posts from a year ago are too cringe, man (I no longer feel that permissive licensing is lesser than, even when I personally don't use it; Bluesky, Osu, and many other software projects have been successful while using it - Open-source extremism is just not my thing anymore :neofox_shocked:
My lolbert ass 2 years ago preparing to say some transphobic shit about Chris Chan: :neofox_hyper: My shitlib ass 4 years ago preparing to make the most Buzzfeed-coded meme in my life: :neofox_hyper:
"open source" was solely defined to cover up and try to eliminate free software extremism to not hurt the corporate masters feelings; http://catb.org/~esr/open-source.html
The more people proprietary software projects sucker in, the more popular they become, making them seem more and more successful, but in reality, more and more people are losing part of their freedom.
Many weak licenses predate the "open source announcement" (1998), for example the MIT expat license was written in the late 1980s.
Weak licenses are anti-freedom, as they grant the power to take all 4 freedoms away and deny freedom.
Weak licenses are popular as it's as easy way to get popular, as the software become immensely popular if a proprietary software company decides to use it to enhance their proprietary malware and installs their malware on millions or billions of machines - but any of such cases are clearly a massive loss of freedom, as it's proprietary software for >99% of users.
Free software under a strong license may be less popular, but you can confidently know that it grants freedom in all places it is used, as for any case where it gets put in proprietary software, you can enforce the license to get it taken out, or to make that proprietary software, free software and respect the users freedom.