The MIT license is better than any proprietary software license, yet MIT-licensed software attracts so many more negative license-related comments than proprietary software.

Seems a bit counterproductive.

I think its because those who license software with MIT where GPL could be used are considered "traitors" and as some people believe "traitors are worse than enemies.

False equivalency. I'm comparing permissive licenses with copyleft licenses. I'm not comparing MIT license with any proprietary licenses. And if uutils is proprietary, you won't see this discussion happn at all.

Or maybe they do understand the licence and simply decided they did not agree with its ethics.

And you're not educating them.

> Folks still don't understand why copyleft is so important nowadays.

True, it's incredible how badly the FSF has done in terms of actually marketing their licensing structure. At this point I doubt most developers care much.