In that case - please have more fun ;-)

Thank you - I really enjoyed the flashback to my childhood you provided me just now!

Well, the MIT license worked exactly as it was written.

What about "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."?

Were the flight simulators you can play on that github page originally MIT licensed?

No, but I was just commenting about the license itself. At any rate, this is obviously not a regular thing to begin with.

Most likely, it is included in some kind of ThirdPartyNotices.txt that ships with the game. It's actually pretty hard to sneak third party F/OSS under the radar in the company of this size - there's automated code scanners, among other things, and while they can't catch everything, they sure can flag a copy of a public project on GitHub.

What's an example of tool that scans binaries for matches with open source software?

I don’t think you’ll find one. Most of these operate on the source code and its declared dependencies.

Pretty sure Black Duck does that

At my previous org, we used black duck for this

https://www.synopsys.com/software-integrity/security-testing...

I'm pretty sure that declaring https://github.com/s-macke/FSHistory/tree/master/data to be MIT-licensed does not actually make it so... (these are disk images of the relevant FS releases, which are still under copyright as well as provided under a proprietary MIT-incompatible license)

TL;DR: A Microsoft contractor basically endorsed piracy, in a weirdly-recursive-enough-to-be-legal way...

Unfortunately, all things must become a license issue if licenses are to be taken seriously. License compliance is a binary condition, you either comply completely or fail.

In this case, since the code was MIT licensed, Microsoft is in compliance.

Is the whole emulator your work? That's quite impressive.