[pytrin]

You're completely off on this subject. The copyright holder can do whatever he wants with it - including releasing it under multiple, different licenses. The onus is on the licensee - a person who obtains the licensed code, to honor the license given to him. It's the responsibility of the licensee to comply with the terms of the license and republish whatever needs republishing when (if) he redistributes the code.

[niggler]

None of your statements contradicts points from my comment, my post, or the coding horror post. If you are releasing code and not putting in a license or doing so improperly, don't expect others to use it. CH focused on one facet (missing a license) while I focused on a different facet (how to add a license properly)

[pytrin]

> And to be clear, just writing that your project is MIT licensed or sticking it in a package.json or making a small remark in your README doesn't cut it.

My point is that it does cut it. It's up to the licensee to include the license, not the copyright holder. There is nothing improper about specifying the license and not including it in its entirety. That's just your personal interpretation of it, that has nothing to do with copyright law.