I don't agree with this take. First, licenses are what court cases and a system of laws are built on. You can't exactly fork a repo with a bad license and hope for the best. Second, this article is downplaying the fact that the repo included a lot of libraries whose licenses they were violating by including it in their repo, and there was no easy way to make the code work without those libraries. The poor license they wrote was just one of a myriad of issues. I think The Register's article is more accurately worded in this regard[0].

[0] = https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/16/opensourcing_of_winam...