Quote:

First of all you shouldn't use the term "free" with GPL, contrary to what people like RMS would like you to believe GPL does not give you "free"dom (even less so in its upcoming new version), licenses in general set restrictions (but usually give you more freedom than you would have had without that license), GPL being one of the harsher ones (the only license giving complete freedom is PD), but enough about that. ;)

While it might seem like a good idea to try to force people who want to use the MCC (or parts of its code) into making their own code GPL compliant there has been enough evidence during the years that there are people who don't understand, don't want to understand, or completely disregard such licenses (I don't think we need to name names), they simply see sources or library entrypoints there for the taking to make their lives easier betting on the fact that the author and/or the FSF consider them too small-fry to be worth prosecuting should it ever be noticed (and when it does you can be sure to be scoured with attempts to muddy the effects of the license and insults upon insults). And then there's the collateral damage of the project itself by using such a restrictive license, ie the fact that those that do abide by it simply won't use it, thus comletely obliterating the point in making an MCC in the first place...

Quote:

Closed source does not necessarily equate non-public API, and infact having an MCC with a private API is kind of self-defeating since it means only one program will be using it.


- CISC