But using MIT doesn't make it any easier for my users to install custom software on their devices. Any problems which exist compiling GPLed software apply to compile MIT-licensed software.
There's simply no way that MIT-licensed software is superior from a user's perspective.
Users wanting to install custom software can always root/jailbreak their devices and "get their freedom back", including the freedom of screwing their device if they don't know what they're doing.
But what about users who exclusively care about USING the software? This group of users is broader by a great margin.
The ability to use MIT Software is a better option for this kind of users than telling them "sorry guy, no software for you because of <legal yadda yadda>".
There are several reasons why a distribution channel would prefer to deprive users from certain types of rights (ex. their right to install malware), and the chances of a company to change their policies to comply with the GPL's requirements is effectively zero.
The root of this issue is merely ideological and both sides of the coin (the FSF and the companies who control distribution channels) are known for NOT ceding, so this issue is effectively unsolvable.
> Users wanting to install custom software can always root/jailbreak their devices and "get their freedom back", including the freedom of screwing their device if they don't know what they're doing.
Users of Android devices just say, 'I want to install what I want to install.'
> The ability to use MIT Software is a better option
The ability to use MIT-licensed software is better for users who wish to restrict their own rights, yes.
It turns out that I was wrong, and that Apple have chosen to forbid GPLed applications outright. Yet another reason not to use Apple devices.
There's simply no way that MIT-licensed software is superior from a user's perspective.