It is your opinion that it is that and I did not say the GPL is not freedom-centric. I said the freedom it grants is incomplete because of restricting my freedom like it does. If everyone's freedom restricts my freedom then that "everyone's freedom" is by definition not "everyone's" freedom since I too am included by definition in the circle of people that constitutes "everyone".

I could(only in a sick theory though), regardless of the fact that I would not and regardless of the fact that I find it disturbing to see your mind coming up with that idea and bringing it into this for whatever odd reason.

To use your words (and to continue the twisted nature of that unrelated example): The definition of freedom does not care what you consider fair or logical or in this case, acceptable and sane by certain commonly accepted moral/ethic standards (to which I do subscribe, do not ever think I would be capable of committing an act like that but that particular attempt of yours to make a point is moot because the described act is unrelated to the topic of software licenses and fails to render the definition of freedom invalid (which is what I assume it was trying to do) or to have any logical connections/consequences for the way the MIT license or the GPL works).

Those, contrary to your other (invalid) example involving the pointless murder of another living being, seem to be valid points and work much more towards me understanding what the GPL is about at this point in time.

I do however, still think the MIT license also protects me/my software from that to happen because of all the strictly logical derivations of its exact structure/wordings and their implications on what is in theory permitted and what is not, depending on the model of re-use that is being applied, as described earlier.

I am now, actually considering GPL though, as it seems like it does more to ensure those implications can not be misunderstood within the system of law as it works in practice(despite being highly illogical and in that regard insane in my opinion). It would limit my freedom but at the same time protect parts of my freedom against those who might like to take it away from me which would be important for me to always be able to continue to use/develop my software and to permit everyone else to so as well (with certain restrictions to their and my freedom though).

I am starting to wonder whether those restrictions of my freedom (by the GPL) are actually important for any practical reasons. I may join the FSF after all... but I do not like the way that the suggestion of fear (having to fear being ripped off by some corp)... is driving me towards considering the GPL. It feels like being manipulated with fear by the FSF (or one of their members in this case) in much the same way as religious people, questionable political figures and insurance brokers use fear to manipulate people.

One question: if the GPL is that great, why is Allegro not GPL'd?

Yes but only in that version of yours and only the code that you wrote. It does not change anything about the MIT licensed code upstream, not even within your project. The MIT licensed pieces will always stay MIT licensed no matter how many different other licenses you put in for other parts.

Well, but still SDL is not licences under GPL proper, surely that's not the main reason one should fear scarcity of adoptions.

Praise Him!
{"name":"609068","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/f\/0f487dc71105bb55a9f3b577eaf3359e.jpg","w":709,"h":980,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/f\/0f487dc71105bb55a9f3b577eaf3359e"}

The part that's stupid is that Microsoft essentially gave anybody anonymous access to the software, but then tried to claim that it was a "trade secret" because they prompted you to agree to keep it secret. There's nothing particularly secret about something you give to anybody at all without knowing who they are just because they checked a checkbox in a Web browser. They then apparently tried to prevent people from discussing the differences between the open source software and the extensions or changes that Microsoft had made.

To tip it further against them, it was another example of them taking something standard and open and trying to add proprietary extensions to take control over it. Which may have been perfectly legal, but it was and is completely unethical, greedy, and selfish. And it's also a very fine example of exactly why the GPL is needed and good.

Heh