>>65
The AGPL block is there to show that the worth of "compatible with the GPL" from >>61 has to be judged in the light of the fact that
Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense:
The rationale for the AGPL >>55 is there for a similar reason. Just because a license is labeled "free" in a text doesn't mean every text will go into every intricate nuance that companies have used and will use to respect the letter but break the spirit. This has already happened with the GPLv2 -> GPLv3 switch. Companies have exploited loopholes later closed by GPLv3 to release software under GPLv2 that did not have "the four essential freedoms". The letter of the GPLv2 was insufficient to guarantee that software released under it had "the four essential freedoms". This is why GPLv3 was needed. GPLv2 remains a free license in spirit, but it is exploitable in its letter. The four freedoms state that source and permissions are needed, but they are correct in not claiming them to be sufficient.
MIT is even weaker than GPLv2 in its protections. It is not the aspect of "the free project spawns more free projects" that you are focusing on that is the problem. The GPLv3 did not add propagation requirements on top of GPLv2, it added anti-loophole requirements. Software can be released under MIT that does not respect "the four essential freedoms", because this has already been done with GPLv2 that has much stronger protections.
The MIT license, and other permissive licenses, fulfill all of the requirements that make a piece of software free.
In a rose-tinted fantasy world this is true. In our world, taking your "it is defined as software following the four essential freedoms" from >>65, MIT allows respecting its letter but breaking its spirit by releasing software under MIT that does not "follow the four essential freedoms" and is therefore not free software by your own definition. We know this because this has already happened with the much stronger GPLv2, and made GPLv3 necessary. By choosing a weak license like MIT for some project, you are saying that you are OK with a license that allows respecting its letter but breaking its spirit by releasing software under it that is not free. This choice, in a world where those exploitable loopholes have already been exploited and made GPLv3 necessary, means that your stance on "the four essential freedoms" is mere lip service. If you live in the real world where the difference between spirit/intent and practical application matters, you can only choose the license with the strongest anti-loophole protections, the one that best guarantees that free software is released. Currently for network software this is AGPLv3.