• JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    This is clickbait. tl;dr a guy released MIT-licensed software, Microsoft forked and renamed it as they’re legally allowed to do. Hell they could even close the source and sell it if they wanted to.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      11 hours ago

      That sounds less like clickbait and more an object lesson in the importance of copyleft to me.

      • JTskulk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It’s clickbait, the title implies that something wrong happened in this situation when no such thing occurred.

    • brax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Forked it, renamed it, and changed nothing but the license on it.

      What’s stopping it from becoming the defacto version putting the original into the point where it’s no longer worth maintaining, then Microsoft pulls it and sells it as a subscription service?

      • JTskulk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Nothing, because the author explicitly chose to allow this kind of behavior. Paraphrasing one of the Youtube comments on the video: the author picked a cuck license and then got cucked, what a shock!

        It’s funny how apropos cuck really is here. We all recognize that a woman (Microsoft) cheating on her husband (the guy in question) is a bad thing, but we no longer view it that way when we learn that the man consented, video taped, and gets off to it. If you really want to stop this kind of thing, simply choose a better license like the GPL that forbids this behavior.