It is not by accident that those distributions care a lot about the license of the software they distribute.

a MIT style license, which does not require the notices to be reproduced anywhere outside of the actual library code.

I’d like to remind you that the code wasn’t developed by WordPress - it was General Public License (GPL). We didn’t steal it, and we gave it back according to GPL (JavaScript is not linked).

MIT License. Copyright 2020 Rafael França, Carlos Antônio da Silva. Copyright 2009-2019 Plataformatec.

note that TRB source code modifications are not proprietary

Why is TRB licensed under LGPL, not MIT?

The LGPL allows users to use and integrate LGPL software components into their own software without being required to release the source code of their own software components. However, if users modify LGPL software components (“derivative work”), they are required to make the modified software component available under the same LGPL license. To avoid the latter with TRB, users have to comply with para. 5 LGPLv2.1: A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a “work that uses the Library”. Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. In other words: if you use the TRB libraries in your commercial applications or Open-Source projects, you’re not creating a derivative work of Trailblazer. Your software can be distributed under any terms.

It turns out that creating and using Free Software is not just good to individuals, but for businesses as well, for example by building upon publicly available components and by collaborating shared software. The term Open Source is a business-friendly rebranding of the Free Software concept. This line of thought was also widely successful, e.g. Firefox/Mozilla was an open sourcing of Netscape software.

but that doesn’t mean that confining applications is not a benefit also to FOSS applications, security is an issue that needs to be addressed with many layers of measures no mater what licensing approach you use to license the software

I don’t think he implies that, he didn’t mentioned FOSS or non-FOSS. Third party doesn’t refer to licensing, only to who provides it.

Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL friendly. You can use it for commercial projects, open source projects, or really just about whatever you want.

How does the licensing work in this new setup? Everything in the ee/ directory is proprietary. Everything else is free and open source software. If your merge request does not change anything in the ee/ directory, the process of contributing changes is the same as when using the gitlab-ce repository.

See https://choosealicense.com/ for tl;dr Please, please add a license. The fact none is listed makes using this software a legal quagmire. Currently it is not legal to use this code or its derivatives in any useful software. I may be mistaken but hopefully this is not the intended effect. Currently no license is mentioned anywhere, what makes this code fully copyrighted, like any other creative work. It limits usefulness of this project - and I hope that it is unintentional. For example it seems that it would solve my problem of profiling hilariously slow rspec tests (2036.33 seconds ./spec/word_processor_spec.rb:43), in current situation I would be unable to legally publish project that would use this solution. Obviously, please do not release it under any license if you are not the author (that would be even worse legal quagmire)

The Free Software Foundation suggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licenses are inherently discriminatory.