[roenxi]

The MIT license is explicitly designed to be compatible with building proprietary software. The key point of difference from the GPL is that you can use MIT code to create proprietary software.

I'm no lawyer, but it isn't even obvious to me that you have to MIT license a binary created directly from MIT licensed source code. "Software" seems to be the source code and therefore the binary probably isn't a copy or substantial portion of the MIT licensed program. Unless lawyers are redefining words on me it looks like I can compile MIT licensed source and distribute it under whatever alternate license I like.

But regardless, if the point of the license is to enable creating proprietary software, it is no stretch at all to speculate that it'll be used to create proprietary software.