The open code to the software we use should not be a handout or a gift ex post facto.
The open code to the software should be an invitation: to collaborate on it, audit it, or frankly do anything you want with it (e.g. WTFPL); before, during, and after using it.
Open source should be a big tent - it should be an answer to questions people have many different motives for asking. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're not wrong, but given the world we live in the incentive would be better. And I would say that's the sort of "non-reformist reform" that's liable to push towards the ideal, not appease and reinforce the status quo.
> You're not wrong
"Not wrong" seems like a... generous... description of this viewpoint. Lots of places tried the system of "all housing is publicly held"; it was not a success.
https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#wtfpl-no...
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29718/is-the-wtfpl-g...
I mean, really. It just seems batshit insane to me that this is problematic.
> Third-party software made available under one of these licenses must not be part of Google products that are delivered to outside customers.
This policy covers all 3 versions of the GPL. And yet they made Android, based on the Linux kernel.