The MIT approach can equally well be seen as an optimistic approach
(where ‘optimist’ is neither a better nor a worse thing to be than
‘pessimist’, but simply the half-empty/half-full mirror-twin).
I don’t think it’s safe to assume that there’s anything culturally
tranformative about open source. Give people enough financial incentive,
and they will quickly attempt to own something they got for free. Most
open source projects don’t present enough financial temptation, but the
ones that do, can be destroyed very quickly by a too-permissive license.
Imagine the alternative history of Linux if it had been licensed under
MIT instead of GPL…
The GNU GPL can be seen as a pessimistic approach: if we do not
enforce lock-out, all code will soon be locked-in.
Maybe this was correct ten years ago, but I do not think it like this
now as open source is becoming some kind of culture (things can change