Ok, but this is still illegal, right?
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
MS would be in the wrong to redistribute this code without the notice that includes '(c) 2020 LesnyRumcajs' - however, just changing the line doesn't constitute copyright infringement or fraud if MS reverses the change and/or simply appends the original MIT license above their MIT license (since MS does indeed have '5 commits ahead' of the origin repo, all of those changes are copyright MS but still MIT licensed). They could even simply have a file called 'LICENSE2' with the original notice, if they can't easily exclude this repo from the bot.
Given that this change was committed to the main branch, if I download the code right now, haven't Microsoft redistributed it?
There’s a whole philosophical debate we can have where we quibble over the definitions of words as they deal with technology, but the (US) courts generally don’t care about technicalities. An analogy is stolen property. If you purchase something that is stolen property, you have (almost) no legal right to it; the courts will often order its seizure for return to the original owner. By “hacking” (according to the CFAA), you “stole” the EXE.
But you cant make that argument here, as its a public repo, as such Microsoft did have the intent to redistribute.
Your argument is that a misconfigured FTP server isn't intent to distribute.
What if this was a misconfigured fork that was meant to be private but was set public? Not intent to distribute either.
But if you're one of the largest corporations in USA, the law tends to go easy on you for making accidental mistakes.