It's the best license because choosing anything else means enriching corporations for free. I've come to think of open source software as just a wealth transfer from developers to corporations at the former's expense. It just makes no rational sense to release code that isn't free as in freedom. It's either that or fully copyrighted, all rights reserved.
> I've come to think of open source software as just a wealth transfer from developers to corporations at the former's expense.
It's the reverse: corporations pay for most OSS software development. Where individual developers do it, it's voluntary. If your summary were true and complete, how would you explain either of those sentences?
Even if that's the case, it doesn't change anything. They should all be paying for free as in freedom software development instead. Like the Linux kernel where 80% of patches come from people hired to work on it.
> Where individual developers do it, it's voluntary.
I used to do it voluntarily too. Now I believe we're working against our own best interests and therefore I'll use AGPLv3 in all of my new projects.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm recognizing the fact that permissive licensing benefits corporations disproportionately and destroys our leverage as free software developers. I'm advocating against their use and noting that I myself will no longer use them from now on.
