this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
33 points (97.1% liked)
Opensource
2575 readers
25 users here now
A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!
⠀
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.