Bug: license terms

[remram44]

Steps to reproduce the behavior

1. Go to LICENSE.txt
2. See the terms You are licensed to use compiled versions of Focalboard produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE
3. MIT is a source code license specifically granting permission to "modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software". You are using it on specific binaries (that I cannot "modify, merge, ..." without making them other binaries)
4. None of the MIT license terms mean anything in this context. The rest of the MIT license is about the copyright notice text, which is not included in your binary (how can text be included in binaries?)

Expected behavior

Your licensing terms let me know how your software is licensed.

Additional context

This is like selling someone a toaster and telling them they have to abide by US driving laws when using it. What does it mean? Do I have to use turn-signals before removing toast? Do I need a state-issued ID to operate it? I can't even consider using it.

If you mean to say that I can use those binaries unmodified for any purpose, just say that. Don't tell me I can use them under the terms of the Civil Aviation Law rules, none of which apply to your tool.

[remram44]

Your license file also includes a "promise" which probably should be taken out of this legal document. If you want to make it legalese, please outline what happens if you break said promise.

[remram44]

Bump. Just say AGPL? This mention of MIT does not make any legal or practical sense. AGPL already says you can use the unmodified version for any purpose