I think the OP is playing 20 questions for their own entertainment. I think what they're not telling you is that there's nothing to prevent someone from making a closed-source product incorporating something which is MIT licensed (but they're still supposed to give credit where due). That's also not the whole story. Squirrel!
If they don't know the answer to the question I actually asked, all they have to do is not answer it. I object to the notion that I'm the one playing games here.
It does seem like you are doing this. I have tried to answer you. Instead of asking questions, just state how you believe I’m wrong. I’m ok with this, if I’ve not understood something or made a mistake, I’m happy to concede.
Asking questions until you get an answer you want worked for Socrates, but for everyone else it is better to just state what is wrong about my and other’s argument and the reason why.
As was pointed out upthread: your theory about what Microsoft stood to gain from this license change was simply incorrect. I'm not sure what we're still discussing at this point.
You said I hadn’t answered your question. What I said was incorrect. Ergo, I answered your question. You told me I hadn’t answered your question, now you say I answered your question but I was wrong. Try to make up your mind.
If you are confused what is being argued about, perhaps stop.
