[hbz65]

“Free and open source, assuming I approve of the usage” is a common sentiment among people who paste Apache or MIT and don’t think about the ramifications. It’s increasingly common.

I think this situation is slightly more complex but that sentiment is at the heart of a lot of pushback against things like this.

[iotku]

Dev: "Anyone can use my code for any purpose including commercial purposes."

$BigCorp: "I want to use to use Dev's code for commercial purposes as he has explicitly granted me the right to do so."

Dev: "Wait, no not like that."

As much as I am a proponent of permissive licenses (my favorite is the wtfpl), you have to pick your license wisely especially if you're going to be picky about usage (Be it by $BigCorp, government agencies, or other companies that you might not be fond of).

If you really want "full control" over your code you have to make it proprietary.

[mcbits]

This is why I think AGPL is a reasonable default for personal projects where the dev doesn't want to fuss over licenses or sue anyone, but would be uncomfortable with $BigCorp exploiting their work. Even though it doesn't explicity prohibit them from using it, it tends (or tended) to have that effect.

[dopaminefasting]

All the people in this thread angry that GitHub is using MIT software in a way permitted by its license... depressing.

The MIT license doesn't require attribution for small snippets, only for full copies or substantial portions.

[fartcannon]

As others have already told you in this thread, substantial portions can mean the few lines of significant algorithm wrapped in boiler plate. So either way, Microsoft would have to prove the MIT code was not substantial.