MIT is not copyleft. The copyright notice must be included for those incorporated elements, but other downstream code it remains part of can be licensed however it wants.

AGPL and GPL are, on the other hand, as you describe.

Modifications can be licensed differently but that takes extra work. If I release a project with the MIT license at the top of each file and you download my project and make a 1-line change which you then redistribute, you need to explicitly mark that line as having a different license from the rest of the file otherwise it could be interpreted as also being MIT licensed.

You also could not legally remove the MIT license from those files and distribute with all rights reserved. My original granting of permission to modify and redistribute continues downstream.

Not quite. You need to include the MIT license text when distributing the software*, but the software you build doesn't need to also be MIT.

*: which unfortunately most users of MIT libraries do not follow as I often have an extremely difficult time finding the OSS licenses in their software distributions

No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public.

Citation?

On the contrary: https://opensource.org/osd

I mean, I can buy opensource.co.net but that doesn't mean I can tell you how you can use the term.

Need more of a citation to understand that..?

> I mean, I can buy opensource.co.net but that doesn't mean I can tell you how you can use the term.

> Need more of a citation to understand that..?

This nonsense is not at all relevant to the claim for which I asked for a citation: "No, the original definition of open-source is source code that is visible (open) to the public."

No support for that claim has ever been offered.