&gt; So it&#x27;s hard to see what the problem is.<p>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.<p>&gt; &quot;freedom&quot; (in scare quotes because it&#x27;s a very specific definition of the term that requires political buy-in to even see it as a form of freedom)<p>Which of the four freedoms do you think are restricting users? If you&#x27;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&#x27;s the whole point.<p>&gt; ... The ability to do this is one of the reasons people choose permissive licenses in the first place.<p>It also allows for proprietary forks, which is why some people have a problem with it.<p>&gt; I don&#x27;t care if people choose freedom or &quot;freedom&quot; or anything in between-<p>Seems like you do. I don&#x27;t get why you quote the word &quot;freedom&quot; when referring to copyleft but don&#x27;t quote it when referring to the &quot;freedom&quot; to make proprietary forks of free software. It should be the other way around IMO.