The reason I chose the MIT license for MonoGame.Extended was to be as permissive as possible.
I strongly believe that creating something useful is more important than trying to protect it by lawsuits. For me, the library is most useful when people can use it how they like. That means I'm okay with it if people want to copy and paste the code out of the library and put it directly into their code base, or if they want to fork the project and maintain their own copy, or any of the other ways people might find it useful.
The only thing that really bothers me is dishonesty. In other words, somebody claiming they wrote the code when they didn't. Note, that's different from taking the code and being honest about where it came from.
When it comes to attribution, I don't actually mind if people haven't done it. I strongly believe that if they find it useful enough they will give attribution anyway without being forced to do so. So yes, I really appreciate seeing the logo somewhere on the splash screen or being included the credits but I'm not going to chase you down if you've forgotten.
There seems to be consensus on what @Jjagg is saying about the copyright notice. Just to be clear though, including the license in your project for use of the library doesn't mean your project also has to be licensed that way. It's only to cover the use of the library.
If you take a look at this MIT summary I tend to favor the conditions in the left green box and not so much the conditions in the right blue box. If it turned out that the MIT license was preventing people from using the library I'd seriously consider changing to something even more permissive.
@RafaelAlmeida Btw.. thanks for the attribution whatever you decide to do