[johnnyfaehell]

> It's not OK to say: well you didn't make your project GPL, so you don't get to complain.

I kind of agree with you and kind of disagree with you. You should be able to complain all you want. However, if explictly decide to give people certain rights when you complain about them using those rights it shouldn't hold much value. Which is what I think was the original point in the sentence you replied to.

[reitzensteinm]

Well if you complain about a "hostile fork" that's just somebody stripping your branding and releasing a commercial fork, that should fall on deaf ears. That's in the spirit of MIT, and you've just picked your license poorly.

But what's being alleged here is actual hostility and deception. If it's true, Zig being MIT licensed in no way removes their "moral high ground" (as GP put it) to make a post like this.

[falcolas]

Here's my point of view - why does Zig even care what Zen is doing? Zen's shortcomings don't impact the userbase or development of Zig in any real fashion.

The fact that the Zig foundation wrote this letter condemning the actions of Zen's founder/employees - especially when they closed the letter with a call to action to return to Zig - shows that Zen's fork actually matters to them, that they don't believe it should remain functional.

[darthrupert]

I suppose they're doing this as a public service, so that fewer people will fall for this total scam.

[mStreamTeam]

Ironically, its just giving a lot of free advertisement to Zen.

Before this post I never knew Zen existed. Now I know it exists and am emotionally invested in it. And there's no such thing as bad publicity.

[sigzero]

Because Zen is a bad actor and they want to make sure there is a clear line of demarcation between Zig and Zen.