>Edit: They added the license https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/commit/611e9e5a4b837360....

And also apologized:

https://twitter.com/windowsdev/status/629379957018394624

Is attribution required by that license? The copyright notice has to stay in the software, but I don't see an attribution clause.

License: https://github.com/steipete/PSTCollectionView/blob/master/LI...

In the source file referenced, the PSTCollectionView strings are all ifdef'd out. Lawyers would be required to tell if text not used in the software is part of the software.

Is the copyright notice still anywhere? It says Copyright Microsoft on the top of the file.

Copy and paste the first paragraph into Google. Looks like someone didn't understand the nuances of the MIT license, no biggy and easy to fix.

Is it just me or is the code in question basically commented out so it will never execute?

They could still attribute this guy, but they included it in a public repo so they should either delete or acknowledge this guy.

Edit: It isn't commented out but it's in a compile if statement that shouldn't execute.

Why did they change a lot of the variable class types to id? Is that an optimisation I haven't heard of?

`instancetype` is relatively new addition to Objective-C/Clang. I assume their version just doesn't support it yet, since the regression to `id`.

`instancetype` was a few years ago. I'd be worried if they're only supporting ObjC without any modernisations like that and subscripts etc.

But that's not what I'm talking about. Here they've literally replaced all type declarations with `id` (not just return types where you'd normally see `instancetype`). Seems odd.

I haven't read the code. But maybe they did that during porting. It's easier to get code to compile and come back to fix it later. Maybe they haven't gotten around to it?