@thatbrickster >There's a reason why most GPL code isn't adopted
We frankly don't care in the slightest about popularity.

It's a good thing how hard proprietary software developers seethe because they can't use free software unless it remains free.

If a single program has became free due to a license in the GPL family, that has made all the defensive licensing worth it - but it has happened many times.

>Unfortunately this ties devs back from using it in the first place
It's a good thing that developers aren't able to turn free software unfree.

>MIT/BSD/ISC is therefore desirable as it avoids a legal minefield.
You've got it backwards.

Those licenses are very badly written and are legally questionable - it's just that most people who select pushover licenses tend to not enforce their copyright.

The GPLv2 and GPLv3 are very carefully written to be legally clear as to what the license conditions are, so it's legally trivially to comply with the terms.

You only run into a legal minefield if you're a scummy proprietary malware author who tries at getting away with intentionally infringing copyright and that's a good thing.