I completely agree, but isn't this what the developer signed up for when they chose the MIT Licence? not that ms couldn't just ignore a GPL Licence, but still
I've heard enough other horror stories to know not to publish anything under the MIT license. Granted they are different, but what happened to BSD should be enough deterrent to not use those types of licenses.
We really need a license that works out compensation for opensource projects used by companies or anyone generating revenue from it. This stuff will keep on happening at the same scale it does otherwise.
Getting f***ed by Microsoft.
I completely agree, but isn't this what the developer signed up for when they chose the MIT Licence? not that ms couldn't just ignore a GPL Licence, but still
That's my takeaway even after reading the article. MIT license bad.
But they didn't follow the MIT license either, at least from my understanding. And yes, GPL would have been a better choice.
I've heard enough other horror stories to know not to publish anything under the MIT license. Granted they are different, but what happened to BSD should be enough deterrent to not use those types of licenses.
Forked works better when it comes to FOSS imo.
We really need a license that works out compensation for opensource projects used by companies or anyone generating revenue from it. This stuff will keep on happening at the same scale it does otherwise.
https://postopen.org/ might be one of those licences and they need funding.
Anti Commercial-AI license
In today's episode of What happens when you don't use the GPL
They added the attribution
https://github.com/avtakkar/peerd/commit/15aa104827b5552d48a7462eef6d040eca2ad582
https://github.com/Azure/peerd/issues/109