Sorry, I should have been more specific and said FOSS. VSCode is still encumbered by the weight of a mega corp. It's like saying Chrome is open source. Sure it is, but it still exists to serve the corporation that owns it.
There is some sort of vendor lock-in VSCode. It at least used to be extremely difficult to make GitHub Copilot to work with codium. There is something closed source in VSCode that makes the difference.
It was so difficult to maintain, that I ended up switching to VSCode. So the ”lock-in” worked.
It sounds like you are trying to define freedom as Stallman would. Based on that, here are his “4 freedoms”…
1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Which of the above does MIT not provide? Honestly, which one?
What you seem to be looking for is to take away the ability for somebody who writes NEW code to be able to choose a license for it. You want to take away their freedom?
And why exactly? What “user freedom” does this serve?
Well, it forces that users will get access to FUTURE code that developers write.
I think it is a stretch to suggest that a developer writing new code makes existing users less free. Forcing a license for the new code certainly does make the developer less free though.
If “having the freedom to take away freedom does not make a society more free” then the only morally acceptable choice is to stop using the GPL. Is that what you were trying to say?
I mean look at the case of Spotify's Car Thing. They sell you a hardware product, and then they can discontinue it in the snap of a finger. Users are out money with little to no recourse. Luckily Spotify is refunding customers, but only if they ask for it, but that isn't always the case for the discontinuation of hardware. Without free, as in freedom, software customers become enslaved to capitalism where they have to buy the newest hardware because their OEM only supports hardware for a certain amount of time. With free software, I can take the software from the vendor and provide updates to the product for much longer amounts of time. But because people want to use MIT, BSD-2/3-clause, Apache-2.0, et. al., consumers cannot reap the full benefits of what Free and Open Source Software truly means.
It uses indentured neural networks to write code for you. You're a neural network! You just have rights because you ain't digital (and way larger and possibly using quantum effects). Smh
