It is true that the two licenses differ significantly, but not in the way you are asserting, namely, that one is an open-source license and the other is not, or that one is a free-software license and the other is not.
The so-called "MIT license" (one of many licenses that have been used by MIT at different times) is also both a free-software license and an open-source license.
> “Open source” is something different: it has a very different philosophy based on different values.
> Its practical definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are in fact free.
> We explain the difference in Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software.
Which is the article I cited in a previous comment. It contains:
> a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of “open source”
> it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement
> The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values
> We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy
> we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters
> What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.”
They are not the same.
In any case, this disagreement has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make. I'm simply comparing the amount of leverage provided by different categories of licenses.
Viral copyleft licenses ensure the free software values are propagated. Corporations want to avoid that and this gives developers leverage. Companies must either publish code or negotiate a deal with the copyright holders.
Permissive licenses give developers no advantage. They don't get paid. Freedoms aren't guaranteed. Corporations can take the code and run. They could wake up on day and realize they dedicated parts of their lives to enriching billionaires for free.
The so-called "MIT license" (one of many licenses that have been used by MIT at different times) is also both a free-software license and an open-source license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License "This is a lax permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL."
It's also listed without comment on https://opensource.org/licenses, the list of OSI-approved open-source licenses.
Like the AGPL, it does not represent a difference between the set of open-source licenses and the set of free-software licenses.