Maybe they should have stated this a bit clearer, but I believe "attempts to exploit our permissive licensing to hijack our work" does not mean that a fellow developper tried to distribute a modified version of their work under an open license to the benefit of users.

I believe instead it means: some shaddy businesses tried to hastily build a clunky, closed source product with which to fool less technical users into some sort of technical dead-end that could be commercially (or politically, it's 2026) exploited.

Or maybe I project on them my own frustrations with the MIT license. In any case, I welcome the change consisting on puting freedom back in the front seat.