So eventually, with this bad publicity, they will add the copyright notice, and move on with whatever else they are doing, in full compliance.
Microsoft might not have fully complied with the licence, adding the copyright notice to fix that, won't change a millimeter from what they are doing.
I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one...
The license doesn't have to be in each file. It's a license for the software. A software is a thing.
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files
> ...
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
So what does Microsoft need to do to be in compliance? I'm not being facetious here. Genuinely curious/want to learn.
If you pick a corporate charity license, don't act surprise when corporations take the charity!
Cloud providers have long taken hard work of open-source projects and packaged it up to be a web administered solution.
There is something to be said for putting together an experience. Including that it wouldn't be possible without everything it does.
