I feel like MIT license will prevent this from ever becoming a linux alternative unless of course they switch to something more sane later on.
That doesn't mean that I'd rather see some form of copyleft in place (like the MPLv2) or at least a licence with some kind of patent protection baked in (like the Apache 2.0), the X11/MIT licences are extremely weak against patent trolls
That we have Linux as we have it today is the result of
- being under GPL
- having a large enough and diverse enough group of contributors to make re-licensing practically impossible
- no CLA, no Copyright assignment
It can mean both of the options might be sane (reasonable) one is just more reasonable. It might also mean both of the options are insane (unreasonable) one is just less so.
MIT is for education not cooperation.
Unfortunely the license is seen as tainted by all businesses, and plenty of OSes are already seen as Linux alternative in some spaces.
In others Android is the only being used, where the only thing left from GPL is the Linux kernel itself, and only because Fuchsia kind of went nowhere, besides some kitchen devices.