Do you think Douglass Crockford didn't know that? He was being cheeky and doesn't care. This was also a huge pain point for JSHint and a lot of work went into undoing that by finding a single commit that didn't have the clause iirc.
But, I don't understand why all changes before that (from JS Lint Day 1 until it was forked into JS Hint) aren't subject to that same clause. Why is the Eclipse Foundation not subject to it?
> Meanwhile, the author of JSLint permitted the Eclipse Foundation to relicense a version of JSLint using the MIT Expat license so that it could be included in their project named Orion
Plainly untrue. Various companies (including Google and Apple) have strong opinions on the GPL licences, especially the GPLv3.
Many of us see it as a red flag when a seemingly Free and Open Source project turns out to use a licence approved by neither the FSF nor the OSI.
> Who isn't violating the attribution requirements of 1000-odd npm dependencies?
You may be right that much web frontend development is a sloppy free-for-all with no regard for compliance and no contact with the legal department, but not all software is developed on this basis.
People who aren't doing evil can use it. It's not compatible with FOSS. It's a linter, it doesn't require being incorporated into people's projects.
Making it proprietary would be more limiting, making it Free would also be limiting (in a good way imo.) He chose to make it his way.
> It's a linter, it doesn't require being incorporated into people's projects.
Many things do want to depend on tools that process source code, such as bundlers, IDEs, transpilers, and similar.
The correct attitude to have.
If the licence is not compatible with our desired use we have the choice to move on our try negotiate different terms (or both: try for different terms and move on if compromise cannot be achieved).
No creator is under any obligation to make their stuff useful to us.