That’s nice, but I don’t see any source code, so it’s not hugely relevant. There could still be anything whatsoever, and no way for anyone to know anything about it. That MIGHT still be of value if it were a copyleft license, but MIT doesn’t prevent a rug-pull license change in the very next commit.
(I use the MIT license, but all my source code is made public, so you can see what I’m doing, and you can make modified versions. That’s not really possible when all you have is the .pyd files.)
But the copyleft license has restrictions, like if you want to use in commercial apps, you need to keep source code open. Which I don’t think most of users want to do so.
Copyleft restrictions protect people who use the software. That’s what they’re for. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything that specifically says that commercial apps have to be open sourced; usually, it’s “derivative works”, which is NOT the same thing as “something that calls on this library”. A GPL’d GUI builder tool could easily be designed to output code that isn’t covered by the GPL, while still guaranteeing that the builder itself will always be freely usable.
But even without restrictions like the GPL, just releasing the source code is a huge help with confidence. Releasing something with the MIT license and nothing but binary blobs isn’t doing that.
Tell me, are you affiliated with this tool? You seem to be the only one encouraging its use, but the tool itself is silent about who makes it, or anything. The GitHub is just a dump of binaries, not a collection of source code.
Yes, I developed the software.
I don’t know much about Github licensing.
I have remove all the binaries and uploaded the source code.