Someone exposes code, FOS'ing it (apparently MIT), here comes "the internets", it likes what it sees, exposes to both forks and HN positive comments, along comes employee's manager and cuts the story short, IP issues and whatnot (for JS, really?!)...
The internets will either rename it; rewrite it, use it anyways and ignore the anonymous business, maybe keep the Nick name either associated/thanked or a part of it anyways...
Now the company can either get ready to start some bound-to-loose IP fight over this, which I'm sure has a great ca-ching sound on some poor manager's brain; along with zero chances. Or the business can capitalize on the positive feedback, maybe become a part of a greater good.
Ca-ching sound vs. boring rationality... How can rationality work if nobody can know how those weard hackers think? Ca-ching for the world! (Yeah, in case you are wondering, I know what is wrong with that, you don't need to point out.)
Anyway, the most likely explanation is that Legal is following their procedures, and as usual for procedures, there can be no exception (or rationality).
Someone exposes code, FOS'ing it (apparently MIT), here comes "the internets", it likes what it sees, exposes to both forks and HN positive comments, along comes employee's manager and cuts the story short, IP issues and whatnot (for JS, really?!)...
The internets will either rename it; rewrite it, use it anyways and ignore the anonymous business, maybe keep the Nick name either associated/thanked or a part of it anyways...
Now the company can either get ready to start some bound-to-loose IP fight over this, which I'm sure has a great ca-ching sound on some poor manager's brain; along with zero chances. Or the business can capitalize on the positive feedback, maybe become a part of a greater good.
I don't get what's so complicated