Note that in this case Microsoft has not been following the license, as they removed the copyright notice

    Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors

To replace it by their own. Despite the license says

> The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

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.

In the present case of Spegel, it wasn't in accordance with the license, because the fork removed the attribution.

Because the “payment” that you get for its permissive use is the attribution (which can be personal gratification or it can professionally boost your profile/opportunities). MSFT robbed them of that.

Yeah, as far as I can gather the only thing MS did wrong here is not explicitly crediting the project they forked the code from, and I don't get the impression the author would find adding that one sentence to the docs to be adequate redress. I don't get why you would take personal offense at a big company forking your code so they can mold it to their purposes - the license allows that. Now whether that's the right way for a "friend of the OSS community" to behave is a different question entirely, but anyone who ever bought that horseshit from them has had their head in the sand.