3 ms·
Have to agree with this. There's an endless list of open source maintainers who publish an MIT-licensed project then are surprised when it is treated as an MIT-
by paxys 2y ago
Have to agree with this. There's an endless list of open source maintainers who publish an MIT-licensed project then are surprised when it is treated as an MIT-licensed project. If you want rights, assert them. No one else is looking out for you. Especially not Microsoft.
- alganet 2y agoMaybe many MIT license users want a big company to take in their projects. Big companies have resources to mimic it anyway, right? If they really want some tech, they can reproduce it. Having a good idea flourish, whether it is in Microsoft's hands, manifested within Clojure, or in any other fruitful form, is good enough. There is no license for a raw idea anyway. For the essence of it. Seeing it used means success, it means "you were right". The secret counsel of idea honor keepers will eventually figure it out and make some kind of repairs.
- pyrale 2y agoIn this case, there's an open source maintainer who was fine with a MIT license, and even helping onboard people from a big tech firm, only to realize that even attribution was too much to ask. Since the terms of the license were violated, there's not much to learn about which license was chosen. The only lesson to learn is that big tech will steal everything that isn't nailed to the ground, and then some.