Why was the MIT license chosen for Bitcoin? Given that an open, transparent, distributed p2p network is a central element of Bitcoin project it seems unusual that it is licensed under the MIT license which allows proprietary closed source derivitives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

Does anyone know if there was a stated or expressed reason for not chosing a free software license?

Has there been any discussion to license future versions of the Bitcoin client under licenses which have "copy left" and "patent retaliation" provisions such as GPL?
Satoshi:


  If the only library is closed source, then there's a project to make
  an open source one.
  
  If the only library is GPL, then there's a project to make a non-GPL
  one.
  
  If the best library is MIT, Boost, new-BSD or public domain, then we
  can stop re-writing it.
  
  I don't question that GPL is a good license for operating systems,
  especially since non-GPL code is allowed to interface with the OS. 
  For smaller projects, I think the fear of a closed-source takeover is
  overdone.