@maija @nyanide Repeating a lie over and over again doesn't make it the truth.

No version of GPL is a EULA.
GPLv2; "5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it."
GPLv3;
"9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance."

Meanwhile, if you actually read MIT expat or BSD 3-clause, you'll see something interesting;
MIT expat; "***use***, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, ***subject to the following conditions:***"

BSD 3-clause; "***use*** in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted ***provided that the following conditions are met***:"

Which licenses are closer to an EULA?


If you care about freedom, it is your duty to license under the GPLv3-or-later or AGPLv3-or-later, as those licenses are more free and do not grant the power to take freedom.

Those licenses ensure that the software remains free for *all* of its users.


Weak licenses grant the *power* to *take freedom* and if the software is any good, that freedom is taken hard, resulting in the software being proprietary for *most* of its users - so if you care about freedom, *never* license nontrivial software under weak licenses, not even once.