I am going to go against other answers and say that legally OR morally you don't need to acknowledge the author if you don't want to. But that wasn't the issue here at all, the issue was Microsoft interviewing the candidate (to pick up his brain?), then ghosting him, THEN copying his solution. It's about how they treated the original author, not about just copying the solution.
Actually I agree that Microsoft move wasn’t fair to the author. The thing is, we read more and more posts here about people disappointed by open-source, with project they started and put lot of effort into and then didn’t get anything back when a company serves itself. But that what they allowed to happen in the first place. If I were to open source the main project I’m working on, I would think for a while to the kind of licensing (possibly dual) that would allow me to reap some benefits in case of success, by the project itself or its use by a company.
Sure, agreed. The problem with dual licensing is that it does limit the project's potential, so unless it's a truly groundbreaking project (vs an iterative improvement) the adoption would be trickier IMHO.
