Regardless of the legality of a thing, the foundation might of course recommend against using it. Imagine that someone wrote a shitty book (without stealing any content) which ends up as the only result on Amazon. It’s perfectly legal to release such a book and it would be sensible for the foundation to warn the Zig community about the lacking quality.

Just because the license allows anyone to fork it and sell it doesn’t mean that Zig is obliged to endorse it.

did you read the description of what happened?

Of course there is a difference, but again that's what I love about open source. You put something out there, and then it has a life of its own. So what if some people come along and try to sell your code with a new name? Good luck to them, I hope they become very rich off my code (are there any examples of this actually happening?). Personally I write open source code because I like writing open source code, not to get rich.

> It's a good way to support a project

I disagree. GPL/Commercial dual licensing is always a game of perverse incentives. Even if you aren't actively crippling the free part of your product you're incentivised to make it difficult enough to work with or otherwise support that companies will be inclined to pay you to do it.

Can you dual license with both GPL and MIT (or other)? Would that make sense?

FSF isn't vehemently opposed to permissive licenses either (they are merely discouraged), but that is the argument GP decided to bring here.