MIT license all the way. It doesn't make me pay through the nose to be 'free' by following some arbitrary rules from elsewhere to fit into something I can only realistically see as a 'club'.
For a reader who is not a journalist, what is the value of free speech? Is there one?
Devil's advocate: The journalist loses his job and livelihood. I had nothing to say anyways. Clearly to him it had much more value.
I obviously agree that free speech is valuable for everyone (and so is free software), but how do you best explain why?
a company can take something that is MIT licensed and make part of their closed source application. or they could start out as open source project and then later decide to close source it.
with GPL they could do pretty much the same thing, but the only caveat is they would have to share back any improvements they make to the parts that were gpl licenced.
the first example would cut off a user from being able to access the source and modify it themselves or even worse they might have to start paying a fee to use it.
although I think a company can still charge a fee even if they are using something that is under gpl, but with this scenario people are free to take the source and use it in another project if they wish. if an MIT licence was used then that company is under no obligation to share any improvements they make