Then, why not license uutils in GNU/GPLv2+ (or v3+) again as a spiritual successor to GNU Coreutils, but use a "permissive" license like BSD to allow "free for all" incl. but not limited to closing the source?

What happens if the uutils team says that they're not releasing the source of the latest version but the $CURRENT-5 from now on, moving to a closed source, open baggage model? What prevents them from pulling an effective EEE?

> What happens if the uutils team says that they're not releasing the source of the latest version but the $CURRENT-5 from now on, moving to a closed source, open baggage model? What prevents them from pulling an effective EEE?

I don't follow this argument. This can happen under GPL as well. Nothing stops the copyright holder from relicensing future versions of the software under a different license. The existing versions already out there under GPL/LPGL/MIT/BSD, there's no take backs, but the copyright holder is free to do whatever they want with future versions.

What would happen in your hypothetical scenario is that everyone would get really really angry with the uutils team and the latest open source version would get forked by the community. The proprietary one would wither and die, because who in their right mind wants a proprietary set of coreutils?

Fundamentally, the choice between copyleft and permissive is simply if you care that someone takes your software and incorporates it into a proprietary package. Clearly, the uutils team doesn't care if eg. Apple makes a proprietary fork of uutils for OS X. And that's their prerogative.

> Nothing stops the copyright holder from relicensing future versions of the software under a different license.

Accepting contributions without a CLA does, because then there's too many copyright holders to do so.

Doesn't the GNU project require copyright assignment?

Yes, but I trust the FSF to not do that. There's basically no other entity I'd give the same trust to, though.

...and a single veto stops everything on its track (which is good).

Armin Ronacher once put it like this (quoting from memory), why should I choose GPL if I don’t plan on enforcing copyleft?

The GPL is an attempt at software freedom by restricting freedoms to have a lever that leads to greater overall freedoms.

In some way it has worked for the Linux kernel if you look at contributions wrt drivers. But I am not sure so much that it worked so well for other aspects

Because first, it's self enforcing since GPL is court tested, second it's also a stance.

I choose GPL, because I do not code these tools with my programmer hat. I code them on my free time, primarily for myself, to be used by people who appreciate the work went into them and find these tools beneficial.

These tools, while vary in sophistication, are high quality items which are built for their users, and not open to be monetized by another company just because they can build something with or on top of it.

I have no qualms with Open Source software when done honestly. Most of today's Open Source projects are not honest.

Try to deploy a service or compile an Open Source tool solely from the provided source code. 99.99% of the time you'll wish that you land flat on your face, which would be easier and less painful.

I choose GPL, because not only I promise that you'll be able to build the thing I released, I promise that I'll make it buildable with minimum fuss and effort as much as possible.

What I put out is complete opposite of a run of the mill Open Source Software. Free, easy to understand, easy to build, no moats whatsoever. It's a gift instead of a window dressing. It's a free offering with no strings attached instead of "fix our code, so you might get internet cookie points in return". It's crafted instead of produced.