Syke: While I understand some of the community may not appreciate the manners in which a seemingly friendly community member has established their proprietary product, consider businesses that offer products or services for profit. Now consider that one of those businesses or entrepreneurial individuals has established a kind of closeness within the community. Instead of focusing negatively on their activities, they should instead be appreciated that they are nice enough to participate amongst the community directly. From my observations, puddinpop is providing a valuable service and is handling the negative reviews/feedback as an accepted or nonevil organization/business would.
While I particularly advocate and look forward to an open source implementation, it isn’t necessary to aggress on those that conform to such expectancies. To do so establishes bad reputation for the consumer. Consumers can be evil too. ^_^
In regards to your comment, an MIT license allows the code to be open source and for anyone and everyone to use and implement bitcoin into anything and everything, whether it is released as open source or established into a viable for-profit product. To aid in the acceptance of Bitcoin for already-established businesses, MIT is a convenient license that will allow a business to consider Bitcoin. If the license were GPL, then it would hinder growth/acceptance of Bitcoin throughout well-established businesses.
The particular friendly community member that is offering a product that generates profits is not a well-established business and perhaps the product isn’t a kind of product you would expect to pay for, but it is a product nonetheless, and therefore, you must consider evaluating it as such and handle responding, considering and associating with the individual as you would any other business. Blah blah blah, I’m sure you get my point.