From TFA:

> Some time ago, we were made aware of multiple attempts to exploit our permissive licensing to hijack our work, with a direct view to replacing the project and aggressively monetising Linux on Apple Silicon. In some extreme cases, in-development feature code was being lifted straight out of our personal forks and published without attribution or lazily rewritten with LLM assistance to obfuscate its origin. The MIT licence explicitly allows this, and has no carveouts to protect against bad faith actors.

▲

geerlingguy 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's one reason I've favored GPL of late, after many years using MIT. Not that many people these days would explicitly follow the terms of any license.

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

saghm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are licenses that require attribution without being copyleft though. I'm not saying the Asahi developers are wrong to use copyleft, but it's weird to me to mention "without attribution" as a sticking point when there are fairly standard permissive licenses that require attribution like Apache and BSD.

	▲	tredre3 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		MIT isn't copyleft and it does require attribution, it's basically the only requirement of it. I guess they just don't like that attribution means "put the license snippet deep in a secondary readme file hidden somewhere, along with 50 other licensees used in the project". I think it's clear that they don't want people to use their code and close the door behind them. They also clearly want clearer attribution. I'm sorry but if those are things you desire, then deliberately choosing MIT because of a GPL hate-boner was plain stupid.