[fxtentacle]

In some cases, they changed other licenses to MIT. That would then allow them to train their AI models on this source code, or redistribute a closed-source monetized GPL rip-off.

Team A) makes a mistake and changes the license. Team B) uses the fork under its new license and forgets to check the original branch's license.

Two honest mistakes leading to a de-GPL-ed library.

[tptacek]

Here, they're changed the name on an MIT license. What financial benefit do they stand to accrue from doing so? That's the question I'm asking.

[fxtentacle]

I was talking not only about this specific instance of it happening, but Microsoft had similar mistakes throughout the past 6 months. Here's the one from CUPS, a Linux printing library:

https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/ad69bcc78bdea3fea3f...

It used to be Apache License, then it became "MIT License (c) Microsoft Corporation". Thanks to the attention that this thread got, it has now been fixed:

https://github.com/microsoft/cups/commit/3859d70160010c61fd7...

But that source code was online with the wrong license for more than 6 months. Imagine if you had hosted Windows source code with a misattributed MIT license for 6 months... They would also bring out the pitchforks ;) Or even worse: well-paid lawyers.

[tptacek]

I asked what Microsoft had to gain from altering an MIT license. You're answering a different question. But, fine, I'll bite: tell me how Microsoft stood to make a nickel by modifying an Apache license.

[chris_wot]

Um, it changes the ownership? If they wanted to relicense it, then they could say "well, hey, it's our license!".

[tptacek]

The MIT license puts essentially no restrictions on them that they would need to relicense out from under. They can't un-MIT it. So I'm still not clear on how you propose for them to make money by doing this. Do you have an answer to my question?

[chris_wot]

If they can change the copyright ownership from an individual to themselves, then they could (however unlikely) change the license on subsequent revisions to no longer provide the software free of charge, and could prevent anyone from using the software and associated documentation files in an unrestricted form.

[mlyle]

> then they could (however unlikely) change the license on subsequent revisions to no longer provide the software free of charge,

You don't need to change the "ownership" to do this. MIT licensed software can be put under more restrictive licenses for subsequent revisions by anyone.

[m3047]

I think the OP is playing 20 questions for their own entertainment. I think what they're not telling you is that there's nothing to prevent someone from making a closed-source product incorporating something which is MIT licensed (but they're still supposed to give credit where due). That's also not the whole story. Squirrel!

[tptacek]

If they don't know the answer to the question I actually asked, all they have to do is not answer it. I object to the notion that I'm the one playing games here.

[Dylan16807]

Putting the wrong info in a file doesn't change the copyright ownership.

[chris_wot]

And thus the flaw in my argument. I concede the point. Thank you.