> It starts by saying "stole my code", but then discusses an MIT licensed piece of code

Unrelated to the rest of the discussion, I just want to clarify that MIT License != 'Do Whatever You Want' License. MIT requires attribution and maintaining the copyright license on existing code. Yes, if you don't adhere to the license's terms when copying code, it is stealing.

I know, which is why I wanted to clarify precisely what Microsoft is being accused of (I may have worded it poorly). The tone I was getting from OP (the Twitter discussion) was that the code taken was something Microsoft did not have any right to use in the way they did, not something that could be solved by attribution. "stole my code" may be strictly accurate (as if you don't follow the licence, you don't have a licence to use), but I feel like it doesn't clearly communicate the problem, especially with comments such as "If they are going to steal code without crediting the original author" which, to me, initially read as saying it's still stealing even if it was credited.

To be clear, I'm not saying using MIT-licensed code without attribution is acceptable, but I feel that there is a qualitative difference between this and using code you couldn't use under any circumstances, or silently incorporating MIT code in a commercial product.

> The tone I was getting from OP (the Twitter discussion) was that the code taken was something Microsoft did not have any right to use in the way they did, not something that could be solved by attribution.

> "If they are going to steal code without crediting the original author" which, to me, initially read as saying it's still stealing even if it was credited.

Attribution alone doesn't bring it into compliance. The copyright notices have to be preserved too.

Also, the rewriting of commit history, if true, sounds more shady than mere "Oops, I dropped the license and copyright texts".

> Yes, if you don't adhere to the license's terms when copying code, it is stealing.

Is it? Or is it copyright infringement?

It's not stealing. I assume the original authors are still in possession of the code they wrote.