Ha, maybe I should have licensed my comment.

You’re wrong though.

Using code from an MIT licensed project will not allow others to exploit your work. MIT is compatible with almost all other licenses, so you can incorporate the code without needing to relicense your project.

If you meant that choosing to license your entire project with MIT would allow others to exploit your work, then yes, that’s the whole point of the license.

For some small projects, I’m completely fine with throwing it out into the world with no expectation of anything in return.

If a company ends out using my 50-line file conversion tool in their commercial product, I see that as a bonus thing to put on my résumé.

They’re talking about standardisation. Unfortunately, many manufacturers use different pinouts on the psu side. Sometimes they’re identically shaped but have the polarity reversed, or 12v on a 5v rail. Pure evil…

There’s a fair bit of bias in those terms, which make GPL seem like a ‘better’ choice than an unrestricted license like MIT.
The truth is, GPL is restrictive to developers. Copying just one line from a gpl-licensed project will automatically restrict you to using only gpl-compatible licenses. I’d prefer to advocate for LGPL and similar licenses, as they seem to offer a better tradeoff between user and developer freedom.

I mean there was that whole ‘garden of eden’ thing with the apples…

But bananas are also kind of dangerous

Blender has also undergone multiple UI changes over the years to make it more usable for new people.