That's not the assumption. The assumption is that when you use the GPL and spread the word about Free Software, you will help build up a community of people who care about Free software, see the issues with proprietary software, and will help build up the Free Software movement around you by contributing code, donating money, and getting people interested in Free software alternatives to shitty locked-down trash -- and in the end, you will have more and better software that respects user-freedoms than if you just ignore user-freedoms and go with the flow and use MIT or whatever other license Microsoft and other megacorps want to shove down your throat.
It has now been roughly 40 years since Stallman began his tard crusade to displace BSD with the Mach kernel + some garbage he found in a dumpster. He soon abandoned his attempt to acquire the Mach kernel (and by soon I mean "wasted years of effort e-begging") and began writing his own (and by began I mean "wasted years of effort until he got scooped twice by the BSD crowd and by some fag from Finland no one had ever heard of"). The end result of all this effort? A wet fart fashioned into software that's barely usable, but gosh, it "respects my freedoms" -- or some such nonsense. Except really it doesn't. It wastes my time with bad user interfacing, bad design, terrible performance, an unwillingness to cooperate with anyone, and ultimately not giving a shit when the rights of users get trampled on by corporations... just as long as they made the source code available.
People like to make fun of the Free Software Movement for being cultists, being full of furrys and fags, whatever. But the Free Software Movement won.
If the infinite tower of dildos that is the many flavors of Linux (excuse me, Guh-noo Slash Linux) is winning, where do I sign up for the losing team?
You can use entirely Free software on an entirely Free operating system running on a BIOS that is completely Free if you really want to go that far. The only things left to do are to make sure that the unbelievable success of the FSF isn't allowed to rot from a lack of software updates and maintenance, and to try and grow the movement enough to push back or work around companies making proprietary code necessary or forced on people.
I could use entirely Free software before the Stalliban decided that BSD wasn't free enough... whether it was people giving away their stuff on net.sources in the public domain, or Andrew Fluegelman publishing his source code and encouraging modifications under his Freeware brand, or any of a dozen other campaigns to continue the pre-CONTU state of affairs that sprung up before Stallman decided he wanted to be the world's software commissar.
Cuck licenses are a meme, and they're being pushed by Microsoft, whatever shadowy entity put chemicals in the FSF's water supply and turned it gay, and the new-wave of chud Omarchy/Hyprland vaguely right-wing open source devs. Just like importance of "Free" software isn't that nobody gets paid for it, the importance of an open-source project isn't that it's source code is available, it's that your freedom is respected by the software you use.
Freedom to fucking
WHAT, though? To download crapware that happens to come with source code that's utterly incomprehensible because it was written by a pack of degenerates more concerned with whether their latest patch can fit up their ass than whether it works or not?
I don't know why so many disparate groups are pushing MIT and other cuck licenses, but I do know that none of them ever mention user-freedom. There's no concern for maintaining or bolstering user-freedom in the future. The argument is always something about project efficiency, or how freedoms don't matter goy just use the cuck license, or some other nothing response that totally sidesteps the foundational argument about user-freedom that is the bedrock of the Free Software Movement.
Perhaps because they understand what you don't: Corporations can steal your work and give the finger to your supposed freedoms, and they can do it nice and legally and there isn't shit you can do about it. The GPL amounts to an unenforceable rant by a homeless bum written in feces on discarded newspaper. It no more secures your freedom than an unloaded pistol in a locked filing cabinet secures your home in the event a pack of niggers breaks in to rob you.
Realistically, the point of the GPL is political -- and not political in the gay "add black girl-bosses to every new show" kind of political, it's political in the "art of controlling your environment" kind of way. The more people avoid or downplay the importance of you having total control of the software that's running on your computer, the farther you get from securing your computer as a tool that you own instead of a glorified spyware box that generates money or influence for some corporate dick-suck.
No, it really is political in the "jolly band of faggots parading down Market Street waving their dicks at children" sense. It doesn't stop any company from, for example, engaging in any of the anti-consumer practices identified by FUTO / Louis Rossman. In fact, the FSF seems remarkably silent in the face of Rossman's work. Arguably he's done more for user freedom in the last five years than the clowns of the FSF have done in 40. So while the FSF continues to bury its head in the sand when it comes to anti-consumer practices, other people get the actual work done, and they don't do it by mentally masturbating over a dead license for fag software that anyone can steal... because unlike Stallman and the FSF, they actually mean it when they say they care about freedom.
