Programming

IMO, the issue here is that Microsoft appears to have violated the MIT license requiring inclusion of the original author's copyright notice. I think he has every right to be salty about that violation.

In your analogy, the sign on the furniture says:

Free, but if anyone asks, you got this furniture from .

Microsoft took the furniture from the curb, but isn't telling people whom they got it from.

I agree in regards to your opinion that he shouldn't be complaining about the fact that someone forked his project, that just the nature of the MIT license. However, I do think he is justified in being upset that the license was violated. Hopefully this gets remedied; it's not hard nor expensive for Microsoft to add his name to the copyright notice in the license.

[MIT] does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else.

Sounds like it wouldn't matter which licence he used. Shitty behaviour from Microsoft.

I'm on your side but we shouldn't mock op but support him.

Not specially you, just a comment about the license: OP's problem with attribution is minor. The major problem they have is that Microsoft took his time to get a personal intro to the project, forked it and didn't contribute back. That's what he's unhappy about. That there was no attribution is barely important.

Yes, choosing MIT doesn't require hem to contribute back and it should've been a restrictive opensource license, but it seems he really thought they asked for a call in order to join in on the development.

Anti Commercial-AI license

Luckily there's another shitty move that could force MS to close down the fork: Patenting.