[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.

[chris_wot]

It does seem like you are doing this. I have tried to answer you. Instead of asking questions, just state how you believe I’m wrong. I’m ok with this, if I’ve not understood something or made a mistake, I’m happy to concede.

Asking questions until you get an answer you want worked for Socrates, but for everyone else it is better to just state what is wrong about my and other’s argument and the reason why.

[tptacek]

As was pointed out upthread: your theory about what Microsoft stood to gain from this license change was simply incorrect. I'm not sure what we're still discussing at this point.

[chris_wot]

You said I hadn’t answered your question. What I said was incorrect. Ergo, I answered your question. You told me I hadn’t answered your question, now you say I answered your question but I was wrong. Try to make up your mind.

If you are confused what is being argued about, perhaps stop.

[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.

[tptacek]

The copyright ownership isn't the real flaw in your argument!

[chris_wot]

What is the flaw? Perhaps you should actually say what it is.

[tptacek]

Again, as was pointed out to you upthread, the license terms on that project already allow them to do the thing you claim Microsoft was hoping to do by altering the license. It's a MIT license! It's practically the least you can do beyond writing "these files are placed in the public domain".

I'm sorry to beat up on you. It's not your fault, but someone upthread wrote that Microsoft's developers should have known better than to have this bug, because developers should all understand licensing. That set me off, because in hate-reading this thread (something I should obviously not be doing), it's clear that a lot of Microsoft detractors here simply don't know what the MIT (or Apache) licenses do.

But then, the reason I started hate-reading this thread in the first place was that I clicked on the story link, saw an authorship edit to an MIT-licensed file, and thought to myself "how can so many people here give a shit about this?"