MIT licensed projects can be taken and sold by others without sharing any changes made to it. With GPL, all changes when taken by a third party need to be openly available for everybody. So the hardcore FOSS community (which GNU certainly counts to, see Richard Stallmann) is against using MIT and alike as it enables others to profit from your work without giving back any improvements to the open community.

(hand wavy, non-detailed explanation - read other sources for clarity)

So the MIT license is less restricted for users, but ultimately only in the interest of people looking for profit, not consumers

Specifically, if you are making a widget with embedded linux, the anti-tivoisation clauses in GPLv3 are a bit of a pain (even if you are not particularly trying to lock down the system from tinkering): they effectively mean you need to develop and provide an extra partial-update mechanism.

That's kinda the point - owners of devices should be in control of software their devices are running. Or they are not owners.

The MIT license is two paragraphs long. The GPL is little more than a page, plus a very informative preamble.

Don’t take anyone’s word for what they say or which is better. Read them.

The terms and conditions part of the GPLv3 is 4,600 words long, which in typical formatting will be about 7–9 pages long. Not one.

I’m not sure I value the opinion of (or want to use software written by) someone who couldn’t read nine pages.

To consumers, it isn’t. It removes beneficial terms from users.

Conversely, it means that the software can end up in places it wouldn’t otherwise. This could be better for consumers if the alternative is a poorer quality library with a more permissive license.

This is an ideological view that I would oppose. GPL is beneficial for the user compared to MIT because any improvements made by users of a project will be open for everybody again. With MIT it's just easier to make a profit without giving back. That is not in the interest of consumers

It sounds like we agree? With the GPL all users have the right to look at the code. With MIT none do.

This seems like a pretty straightforward consumer benefit that anyone should be able to acknowledge regardless of which license they develop with.

indeed, sorry, not sure why I got this wrong

yeah seems like they read your comment wrong