This is incorrect; all OSS licensing including the MIT licence is a hack which defeats and circumvents the current automatic copyright regime. The issue in thi

This is incorrect; all OSS licensing including the MIT licence is a hack which defeats and circumvents the current automatic copyright regime. The issue in this case is that for any software which is released by anyone, for free, no matter the licence attached to it, the UK courts are contemplating doing do may create a fiduciary duty between the author and the user based on the user's actions entirely. The fact that FLOSS types both view this as an absurdity that couldn't possibly affect them, and in some cases that since Bitcoin is unfashionable in certain circles it is somehow just punishment in the form of psychopaths with money trying to ruin the Bitcoin developers and their families, while talking openly of shooting them all in the backs of their heads, on video, while fondling an illegal weapon that the cops in the UK are doing absolutely nothing about—well, this kind of blind eye they're turning to the developments in this case are astounding to me since there's no logical/sensible way to disintangle the notion that a user's actions are what create the fiduciary duty, from literally every other project on the planet. lol