"uutils is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details" - funny to see GNU software reimplemented in another open source license.
I did not mean to hurt any feeling. I was just surprised to see the license of a software where "GNU" is in the title. I naturally assumed that it will be in GNU license. So it was a surprise to discover MIT.
Now I understand. I should have written "surprising" instead of "funny". Sometimes writing about a subject gives you the answer.
Sorry for those that I hurt.
GPL has neither of those goals and actively works against the latter.
For your definition of 'anyone.' BSD software often does not let the end user use it as they see fit, as they no longer have access to the source code.
Someone else may add some modifications to my code and I may not be able to see those modifications, true. But nothing's been removed.
If I'm going to release code under a license, I need to understand every line in that license. GPLv2 is pretty understandable, GPLv3 is ponderous in places and ambiguous in others (needs lawyers and lawsuits to understand), and AGPL is simply around the bend. Loopholes you could drive a truck through.
I don't want to use GPLv3 or AGPL until their ambiguous bits have been clarified, but their adoption has been pretty low so that may never happen. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view.
Also, the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 fragmentation has turned off a lot of people.
I want to spend my time coding, not worrying about license issues and lawsuits.
EDIT: Thanks for the informative responses! This sort of effort might ought to receive the occasional audit, which probably could be done in semi-automated fashion.
[1] in a copyright infringing way, as defined by the courts in your preferred jurisdiction