This is fundamentally anti-free software and completely against the point of the MIT License.
If you want control over your code, you should use your powers of copyright more carefully.
EDIT:
In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft? What prevents a particular individual AT Microsoft from downloading and using your code? And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
There are all sorts of questions and contradictions. I don't think this works.
> In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft?
IANAL, but this other part of the MIT License [0] would require you to include the restriction in the copy you give to Microsoft, wouldn't it?
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
> Permission is hereby granted, to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software
I mean, I've seen successful copyleft done before (ex: GPL). Generally speaking, you start by using a copyleft license as a base... unless you have lawyers of your own to do it correctly for you.
An MIT license is incredibly free, basically one step away from public domain. I apparently have the right to modify and sublicense Lerna. So... I could in theory, provide "Dragontamer Lerna" to Microsoft.
Again, IANAL, but these are the reasons why GNU worked very hard on their copyleft license.
> I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL.
But AGPL is at least copyleft and "legally viral" in nature. I'm not sure if MIT is a viral license.
> The same enforcement mechanisms they were using before.
When you publish an MIT-licensed piece of code, you're basically saying "I don't really care about enforcement. Please be nice and leave the license information here."
There's practically no good way to enforce an MIT license, if only because you've given all rights to the product away already.
-----------
But by saying "I don't want Microsoft to use this product", now you actually are saying you care somewhat about how your product is used. Which now begs the question: how do you enforce that?
GNU has lawyers who protect their copyleft license, and are willing to take you to court on the issue for example.
If you want control over your code, you should use your powers of copyright more carefully.
EDIT: In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft? What prevents a particular individual AT Microsoft from downloading and using your code? And what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code?
There are all sorts of questions and contradictions. I don't think this works.