The joke is that permissive licenses allow you to make less permissive forks, whether that's proprietary or copyleft or anything else. So it's hard to see what the problem is. Anytime someone complains about the license for this or that project being too permissive, it's ironic because:
(a) it's someone trying to force their values on someone else in the name of "freedom" (in scare quotes because it's a very specific definition of the term that requires political buy-in to even see it as a form of freedom)
and
(b) as stated, the people complaining are free (no scare quotes) to take the permissively licensed code and incorporate it into their "free" code to their heart's content. The ability to do this is one of the reasons people choose permissive licenses in the first place.
I don't care if people choose freedom or "freedom" or anything in between- that's their right as authors, and no one license is appropriate for all communities or goals or projects. I only object to anyone who claims that there is a One True Path that everyone should follow and that anyone who doesn't follow that path is somehow morally inferior, which is usually the template that these discussions follow.
The problem is that allowing proprietary forks is shooting yourself in the foot if you believe in free software being a net benefit to society. Allowing proprietary forks of your software to exist means that you are fighting against yourself to produce free software. Not to mention that it means that users of your software might not have the freedom you intended them to have if someone else packaged your software.
> "freedom" (in scare quotes because it's a very specific definition of the term that requires political buy-in to even see it as a form of freedom)
Which of the four freedoms do you think are restricting users? If you're referring to copyleft (this is not the same thing as freedom), then please understand that copyleft software ensures that all users that receive the software will have the benefits of free software. That's the whole point.
> ... The ability to do this is one of the reasons people choose permissive licenses in the first place.
It also allows for proprietary forks, which is why some people have a problem with it.
> I don't care if people choose freedom or "freedom" or anything in between-
Seems like you do. I don't get why you quote the word "freedom" when referring to copyleft but don't quote it when referring to the "freedom" to make proprietary forks of free software. It should be the other way around IMO.
I use the term freedom as established by all major philosophers in the last 300 years or so. No one really believes that the true definition of freedom is the law of the jungle where anyone is "free" (scare quotes indeed) to do what they want with no restrictions.
John Locke describe freedom as a synonym to agency, where none is under any restrictions except the standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society. Share and share alike a perfectly fine example of a rule that is common to everyone where no individual are be subjected to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others.
