[tentacleuno]

> As an aside, I've noticed a huge drop off in license literacy amongst developers

What do you mean by this? I always assumed this was the case anyway; MIT is, if I'm not mistaken, one of the mostly used licenses. I typically had a "fuck it" attitude when it came to the license, and I assume quite a lot of other people shared that sentiment. The code is the fun bit.

[duskdozer]

The chardet debacle is probably one of the most recent and egregious.

[_zagj]

> I always assumed this was the case anyway; MIT is, if I'm not mistaken, one of the mostly used licenses

No, it wasn't that way in the 2000s, e.g., on platforms like SourceForge, where OSS devs would go out of their way to learn the terms and conditions of the popular licenses and made sure to respect each other's license choices, and usually defaulted to GPL (or LGPL), unless there was a compelling reason not to: https://web.archive.org/web/20160326002305/https://redmonk.c...

Now the corporate-backed "MIT-EVERYTHING" mindvirus has ruined all of that: https://opensource.org/blog/top-open-source-licenses-in-2025

[khalic]

... you think It was good time?

Not being able to publish anything without sifting through all the libs licences? Remembering legalese, jurisprudence, edge cases, on top of everything else?

MIT became ubiquitous because it gives us peace of mind

[kuschku]

You have to go through all the dependencies anyway, to roughly judge their quality, and the activity of their maintainers. Quickly looking at the license doesn't take any more effort.

[khalic]

Totally realistic expectation

[kuschku]

Considering you have to list all used open source software, their authors, and their licenses in your UI anyway, sure.

Or how are you handling that?

Sure, sometimes you can automate some of it, but you'll still have to manually check the attributions are correctly done.

[_zagj]

> ... you think It was good time?

Yes, as do, probably, most people who remember it.