[charliermarsh]

The piece of this apology that I have trouble understanding is this:

> We thought the license in the root repo wasn’t that important, so we just generated one that we thought was open.

The root repo already had an Apache license in it. If you thought it wasn't important, why replace it in the first place?

[morpheuskafka]

I think this comes from Github asking people to choose a license when they first create a repo, they may be just viewing it as some sort of automatic box to check when making a new repo. I think these guys honestly have no idea what a license even does or what copyright is, based on their other statements about it. I bet they don't even have any idea of the differences between GPL vs Apache/MIT/et al vs AGPL, SSPL, etc. and that's been discussed to death on here and all over the open source world.

[DonHopkins]

His apology would sound more authentic and consistent with his previous communications if it were in all lower case with lots of kewl words like "dawg" and abbreviations like "lol" and missing punctuation like kids these days use in their text messages.

Those capital letters and correctly spelled words and full stops come off as so passive aggressive.

Otherwise it painfully looks like he tasked ChatGPT to generate his apology as well as his license.

[keskival]

No, the root repo had an MIT license from Microsoft in it. And they have now changed it to Apache, and removed the Microsoft copyright clause.