Copyleft is the Way to Go (Unless You're an Unpaid Volunteer of GAFAM)
A reader recently suggested revisiting "non-reciprocal (NOT 'permissive') versus copyleft [licences]," and "how to choose the right tool for the job".
Later today Richard Stallman (inventor of copyleft) will be giving another talk in India (apparently it's only a few hours away; 11:00 AM India time). We cannot find an announcement from the National Institute of Technology Karnataka (NITK), also known as NITK Surathkal. We've tried. We don't even know the title of the talk.
In any event, copyleft (e.g. GPL) means a reciprocal licence. What does that mean? Well, it means that code bearing a copyleft licence can and will be improved if others adopt it and change it. If it does change, the changes will be made public. Any improvements will be shared back, not only with the original author/s but also with all the users. That basically prevents the code going proprietary or the work going "private".
Why is that done? Well, copyleft recognises corporations' desire to hoard other people's work, especially volunteers'. There's risk they'll replace the originals with their proprietary versions.
In the case of Microsoft, there's a war on copyleft going on. Developers are encouraged to adopt licences that help Microsoft and they're moreover misled into thinking that Git is GitHub and one must adopt GitHub to "look professional" and find a job (they spread the same lie about LinkedIn).
The GPL 'family' of licences is very old and those licences were last revised in 2007. The very fact that Microsoft detests those licences and spread FUD about them (usually by paid proxies like Black Duck and Redmonk [1, 2]) ought to be a reminder of who gets served and who isn't. █