wagesj45

Because I don’t know why it is closed source. Is it a personal project? A private project? A sensitive project? I don’t see a moral imperative for any of those to be free and open to all users.

If I release something free of restrictions to the world as a gift, that is my prerogative. And a third party’s actions don’t affect my ability to do whatever I want with the original code, nor the users of their product’s ability to do what they want with my code. And the idea of “property” here is pretty abstract. What is it you own when you purchase software? Certainly not everything. Probably not nothing. But there is a wide swath in between in which reasonable people can disagree.

If you are an intellectual property abolitionist, I doubt there is much I can say to change your mind.

I’m not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?

I’m going by the vibe of the comments of people here who are generally anti-MIT. That the very nature of allowing someone to use your code in a closed-source project without attribution is bad. Phrasing it as “hiding their copyright infringement”, for example, implies that it is copyright infringement per se regardless of the license or the spirit in which it was released.

Not all of us write code simply for monetary gain and some of us have philosophical differences on what you can and should own as far as the public commons goes. And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.