Earlier quoted context omitted.
MIT is not copyleft so not even pedantry will save it. I.e. under MIT they can ship a binary blob and they only need to include the MIT license and a notice.
copyleft != open source. They don't even need to publish a binary blob, they can use the code internally. Yet the original project is still considered FLOSS.
I don't think that is a definition of open-source that is widely recognized or useful. If Microsoft uses MIT license software in the next version of Windows, is Windows considered open source? No.