I'm not trying to say that some licenses are better than others. They just have different implications. And I often see that people fail to properly think about those. Yes, MIT implies that anyone can just take your code and run with it. But so can you.

APGL on the other hand requires more upfront thought about how you're going to organize the project in general and what you might do with it later on.

With the MIT license you must still keep the copyright notice in the source files.

So no changing the license per say. But no way from a binary to tell if this has been adhered to.

You can distribute derivatives under a different, compatible license, and almost everything is compatible with the MITL.

> work for free

That is a very odd framing of the choice. Using the MIT license is not a zero-sum game. If AppGooFaceSoft choose to use your software without paying you anything, the only costs would exist within your own mind and depend entirely on your beliefs, not some external standard.

When I use (L)GPL license, a) I want to use their fixes and contributions to my code for free, even if they prefer not to share, and b) I don't want for them to limit my freedom to modify MY code in THEIR product.

I cannot achieve my goals with MIT license.