Hacker News Reader

Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements, this is my same approach with using the MIT license. I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit. The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement. That's why in this case, I'd reach out to Microsoft to fix that issue, and nothing more.

View on HN

> I create open source software for the benefit of everyone, for profit or not for profit.

I have the same reasoning as to why I pick the AGPLv3 license as the default for my new projects. I want any benefits from my code to continue to benefit everyone, even if someone is profiting off of it.

> The only thing I do wish in return is acknowledgement.

Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then.

> Make sure you pick a license that reflects what you want, then.

The MIT licence already requires attribution, and that is what the author picked.

The person I was responding to began with "Ignoring that Microsoft isn't following the MIT licensing requirements", and it is clear in his comment that he's not referring to the OP's issue, but the issue in general.

In other words, he's saying that even if it had been some other license, he wants attribution.

That's silly. If you want attribution, say it up front (which could simply mean picking the MIT license).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com