Holding the use of a less restrictive license against the project because some unrelated party could come along and fork it without contributing back seems like a strange position to me.
While I’m not sure how to interpret this, I can answer the second which might help answer your first statement.
I’m also not really sure what that criticism of MIT is trying to say. Third party contributors don’t get paid for their work? GPL projects also don’t have to pay people submitting changes.
It’s not about payment but primarily about reciprocation:
[Case 1] I have a project licensed under MIT
P1: “Hey thanks for the contributions I’ll add your name to the MIT license.”
P2: “Dope, btw I see your company uses it for xyz can I see what the new project looks like?”
P1: “Fuck no”
P2: “You’re joking right”
P1: “MIT license, read it and weap”
End scene.
[Case 2] I have a project licensed under GPL-v(2,3 or AGPL-3.0)
P1: “Hey thanks for the contributions! Here’s the new changes.”
P2: “No worries and thanks! I hope the project improves even more.🫡”
End scene.
While I’m not sure how to interpret this, I can answer the second which might help answer your first statement.
It’s not about payment but primarily about reciprocation:
[Case 1] I have a project licensed under MIT
P1: “Hey thanks for the contributions I’ll add your name to the MIT license.”
P2: “Dope, btw I see your company uses it for xyz can I see what the new project looks like?”
P1: “Fuck no”
P2: “You’re joking right”
P1: “MIT license, read it and weap”
End scene.
[Case 2] I have a project licensed under GPL-v(2,3 or AGPL-3.0)
P1: “Hey thanks for the contributions! Here’s the new changes.”
P2: “No worries and thanks! I hope the project improves even more.🫡”
End scene.
Or maybe people don’t care about what their project looks like after releasing it?
P1 : Hey, I’ve used your code in my company project! P2 : Cool. I’ve got another job to do.
End