Why is it mean? The author can use whatever license they like. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to release your own code under a more permissive license.

It's misleading to present the project as being for use by others and then forbid any use in the legal print?

Is it misleading to present a project as free and then have the (A)GPL license? Here I thought it was free, now suddenly there are all these conditions...

The "legal print" in this case is five lines long, written in (contrary to most licenses) very plain english, located in the root of the repository, in a file named 'LICENSE.md'. It's not exactly hidden where a reasonable person might overlook it. "We didn't know" isn't a very convincing defense.

Normally such fact is advertised in the readme, and the github sidebar will recognise and display the title of such a license in the sidebar.

It's commonly understood that open source software may be copyleft.

I think not mentioning a license that says "No use permitted" amongst some instructions on how to use it is deceptive.

> "We didn't know" isn't a very convincing defense.

Good thing "mean", is a matter of subjective perception and not of law, then. Or do you suggest everything legal is automatically good?

Yes. It is misleading to advertise software as Free and Open when it's actually Copy Left.

He can but it's still mean. It's like I can call you an autist bitch and still be mean :(

It is clearly meant for use. Those two things are not in contradiction and it's quite often that good software is spoiled with bad license. If you have to know, the secret is not to respect the made up license. Pls give downvote, copying is stealing.