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.
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
Read the article first.
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.