Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn't "this is the license file you have open" it's "the repo is licensed under this" so it's correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say "this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I didn't even realize that! Their official distribution page links to the "secondary branch", which is actually an outdated tag branch. The license was changed a month ago.