It would be interesting if it was further explained why it is believed that picking the MIT license (rather than a copyleft license) was a key to success. Is there anything Rails could not have done had it been GPL licensed instead of MIT?
Wasn't Rails the first major OSS to move to Github when Github first appeared? IIRC it's the other way around: everyone started using MIT because Rails did.
Things were going quickly on the run-up to Rails moving over, but even so, Rails was pretty aggressive at jumping on GitHub when they did, and it was one of our first real "major" open source projects on the site, in hindsight. There was a huge difference pre-Rails and post-Rails.
But they were using Linux anyway (that's GPL 2, plus all the userland sw) especially with Rails which used to be a nightmare to run on Windows. Macs were OK.
AGPL could have been a problem though. I wonder if monkey patching a Rails class would be derivative work.
ActiveRecord was neither the first ORM nor the best. Hibernate in Java was years ahead when AR came out - but arguably, Ruby (as opposed to Java/Spring) made it a lot more accessible.
In my case it was 3 weeks of work on Java redone in 3 days of Rails without even knowing Ruby yet. Hibernate could have been wonderful (I don't have fond memories of it) but AR was much much better to use.