AGPLv3 is the only way to go. If you want to make open source software, you need a license that protects your project and your users from corporate abuse.

How can sole maintainers work with multi-billion corporations without being taken advantage of?

They can't, thats why GPL is noncommercial. Capitalism is an exploitative system that relies on power imbalance. As soon as MS reached out, he should have made it clear they can't even look at his code for ideas without a contract and payment. He shouldn't have told them anything else without a contract. Papers with legal claims on them are the only language business speaks.

I'm almost sure they steal ideas that people write in teams chat too..

This came out a while ago. The developer used a license that said, "Steal this software, I don't care." Then he was shocked Pikachu when it was stolen.

His problem is the exact reason GPL was created.

Hoping that embrace extend extinguish Microsoft would be helping is quite naive I think.

Active Directory and Exchange were both based on open source projects. Embrace, extend, extinguish is Microsoft’s whole jam.

Poor license choice. If you really want to enforce it, don't rely on MIT.

Same old (50 years and more) M$ bullshit lies.

They stole a lot others already. Winget was prior Appget, before they duped the inventor. And what was the case two months ago?

This came out a while ago. The developer used a license that said, "Steal this software, I don't care." Then he was shocked Pikachu when it was stolen.

His problem is the exact reason GPL was created.

This is clickbait. tl;dr a guy released MIT-licensed software, Microsoft forked and renamed it as they're legally allowed to do. Hell they could even close the source and sell it if they wanted to.

I mean they should have given him credit. That's what they owe him (all they owe him) under the MIT license.

no license is safe, they have fuck you money and will win every time, but especially don't use MIT

Wouldn't a stronger license than MIT prevent this?

I understand that MIT doesn't allow for misattribution of work, but I feel like its inherent permissiveness makes that step not feel like much of a reach.

Also, maybe I'm too petty, but I would have absolutely named and shamed the specific MS engineers involved with this mess, and I'd be looking to get in touch with their immediate manager. Can't help but imagine that it would be a career limiting move for the engineer that pretended to be all buddy buddy. Good luck passing off my work for your own promotion, asshole. Especially when you failed to cover your tracks this dramatically.

Microsoft quoi

C'est pas la première et ce sera pas la dernière fois non plus

Uses MIT license, complains that it does not offer the GPL protections...

Well...

Microsoft can't be trusted