I noticed that the installer has a clear warning on earning revenue via redistribution, by asking users to get a refund if the software had been bought from a third-party. If the license is solely MIT with just the following two exceptions:
then how can that be appropriate?
If you are telling me this (indirectly forbidding and/or discouraging an act which is allowed in the clause) is MIT, then the MIT license must have a mistake somewhere - let alone be GPL-compliant. Fortunately (or unfortunately), MIT is GPL-compliant and has existed long before this application. Thus, I urge the team to revise the message and/or the license itself.
