Permissive licenses are about contributing to the trade as a whole, rather than individualism. Some of us don't believe that the code we write is "ours" in any

Permissive licenses are about contributing to the trade as a whole, rather than individualism. Some of us don't believe that the code we write is "ours" in any meaningful way, and don't think strangers using it have any obligation to us just because we typed it once long ago. Personally, I am happy if my code is of use. If people are using it for evil I'll fight the evil, not try to withhold good things from the world to avoid that possible case. It is an approach that is rooted in sufficiency mindset, rather than capitalistic notions of false scarcity. My project being forked doesn't cost me anything at all, but caring about it being forked or enforcing a license would cost me time and energy I have no desire to spend. Permissive licenses accurately communicate the levels of fucks I give, while keeping assholes from trying to sue me over having used my contributions to the collective wealth of the profession. If I make the world better for everyone, of course a bunch of people who never did anything for me are going to be a part of "everyone", basically by definition. What is wild here is that Microsoft didn't follow the extremely minimal requirements of the permissive license.