> I don't think what he did was particularly good but I think he was entitled to do it. And the blame falls on the system we have which relies on random people to do work for free with no contract or obligation.
Utter nonsense.
You don't put out code under open-source MIT and then want to take it back when you realize other people are using it exactly as you instructed them to use it, which in this case is "anyway they please".
You have to think about this stuff before hand if you want to be compensated if it "takes off", there are other licenses you could use.
The MIT license doesn't prevent you from doing this. If someone cloned the repo, they could continue doing whatever they wanted with it, but the owner is entitled to put up whatever new code they want on their repo.
This is technically true. If he wants to act like spoiled brat and put malware in his own code, he can under MIT (he can do whatever he wants, just like anyone else can do with it).
Utter nonsense.
You don't put out code under open-source MIT and then want to take it back when you realize other people are using it exactly as you instructed them to use it, which in this case is "anyway they please".
You have to think about this stuff before hand if you want to be compensated if it "takes off", there are other licenses you could use.