I think this comes from Github asking people to choose a license when they first create a repo, they may be just viewing it as some sort of automatic box to check when making a new repo. I think these guys honestly have no idea what a license even does or what copyright is, based on their other statements about it. I bet they don't even have any idea of the differences between GPL vs Apache/MIT/et al vs AGPL, SSPL, etc. and that's been discussed to death on here and all over the open source world.
I use a license to absolve myself of legal liability and to cuck private forks because it's really funny. If that means I don't get to be the Tim Berners-Lee of having my ass reamed for commercial applications, I'll be one happy loser.
If you're a winner loser lawyers will come after you no matter what, and "licenses" provide you with absolutely no protection.
But all lawyers will tell you you need a license, because they are losers who can't build real things, and need to convince you that you need them (you don't).
Lawyers lick my boot. Free software licenses are a nightmare to litigate, take too long to process, and don't reward damages in the first place. For every free software program that gets dragged into court, 500 independent businesses are sued for false advertising or letting ChatGPT write their TOS.
I sleep like a baby because I know that there isn't a bar qualified lawyer in America dumb enough to sue me. Cry about it, it's not my problem because I'm not a sniveling corporate sycophant.
His apology would sound more authentic and consistent with his previous communications if it were in all lower case with lots of kewl words like "dawg" and abbreviations like "lol" and missing punctuation like kids these days use in their text messages.
Those capital letters and correctly spelled words and full stops come off as so passive aggressive.
Otherwise it painfully looks like he tasked ChatGPT to generate his apology as well as his license.
> We thought the license in the root repo wasn’t that important, so we just generated one that we thought was open.
The root repo already had an Apache license in it. If you thought it wasn't important, why replace it in the first place?