[nasusnavas]

I looked at their codebase and it seems the other party was doing. I'm seeing a pattern here where either this is not really a copyright problem but possibly a marketing stunt if its not, then it may well be an emotional spiral or lash-out for one person extending another's open source logic even with attribution clearly given. If so then this is not healthy for the open-source community.

Also is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway? The laws around opensource licensing are so tricky and cutthroat at this point.

Also does anyone know what this Intentional License is from the other party, I have never seen it before. It seems that's what their main package is while the other packages are Apache. If its custom is it even legal to just create a new OSS License out of nothing?

There's too much gray area with OSS especially when it comes to legalities we almost need a standard.

[ClassicOldSong]

I'm the victim and yes, this is not entirelly about AI. If you have read the hall of shame, you'll know that they tends to lie. If it was only someone tried to use my code as their basis and forgot to include the attribution, after my notice they added, it's totally not worth a "hall of shame", and I'm actually glad that someone finally appreciates my works and make them useful.

But the reality is, they lied to everyone and I'm a chained victim. I was introduced to him by NativeScript, and before that he didn't even know the existence of rEFui. Now rEFui has become the most important fundament of their entire project, clearly indicates that they want to get something for nothing from the very beginning.

Till now they still didn't answer me why they made the basic mistakes and how it was fixed.They avoid everything I ask about them unless I presure them very hard, they'll give a very vage respond that answers nothing.

> is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway?

As the author of the project, I have every right to change the license to anything. But also, I didn't wash the history to hide that the project was MIT. Technically I can, but that actually violates MIT itself and I don't want to be someone that say one thing and do another.

> even with attribution clearly given

They won't until I presured them very hard. They also washed much more than my projects, but also without attribution until I notified those project's authors. Actually, till now the code are still not fully attributed, only few get a proper attribution. They have now extracted code blocks from my original project into many many small separated files (potentially trying to hide the origin even further), but the code logic are actually not changed at all. According to those license, each piece of code they extract should keep an attribution to my original project.

I have a backup of the deleted project that contains the entire commit history of how he laundered these projects, and I can provide the entire Discord message history if you need evidence of all my statements.

[nasusnavas]

Based on what you just said, it's not a copyright issue since you admitted that they gave attribution of which we can all see in their licenses and in some file notices. And based on my analysis of their codebase and as someone who's been coding for 20 years and what you just admitted to its not an AI issue either. Anyone who knows how to code would be able to tell AI Slop from structured human code. However, you kept referencing two or more repositories so which one?

> They also washed much more than my projects,

There's a lot of projects that use others as the basis of theirs as long as they have given attribution and have created a different upstream. Also the projects seemed very different from each other. If the case is a washed up project then that actually means its a completely different project.

> till now the code are still not fully attributed

My advice will be to reach out to the authors and point exactly the files you think is missing attribution. Since they have already added attribution and licenses as I can see, then I'm sure a few missing notices wouldn't kill them. But that's something you'd need to work out with them.

> I have a backup of the deleted project that contains the entire commit history of how he laundered these projects,

This is not relevant if its a deleted repository. I would suggest you focus on the new project you think is still in violation instead of referring to a completely different project if you want to hold a good stance.

In my opinion there's really no value in code anymore, I think the value should be what problem you are solving in a unique way. There are already millions of open-source projects on the internet and any one of them could have the same logic not because someone copied the other but because they were probably trying to solve the same problem and hence came to the same conclusion.

> Till now they still didn't answer me why they made the basic mistakes and how it was fixed.They avoid everything I ask about them unless I presure them very hard, they'll give a very vage respond that answers nothing.

As someone who has been in the industry for a long time, this comes off as entitled and demanding which may put the other party off and force them not to collaborate with you, I have seen this happen many times when people reach out to others to use their work as the foundation for a new work there is usually a sense of collaboration involved especially in OSS. When one party becomes entitled this is what causes forks and upstreams.

If you ask me as someone who has been in the same position as you it really is an easy fix. Simply reach back out in private since you've already been introduced without any anger or grandiosity (I know the situation can cause one to feel emotional). Someone arguing in good faith is always better than someone venting or spiraling. This will also be a good look for you and your project otherwise everyone one on the internet will just keep telling you what you want to hear but not the reality of how the industry work or how to actually fix it.

> it's totally not worth a "hall of shame"

You are right here. Imagine if every project that upstreamed another MIT or Apache project added this to their repository. An example would be if Feather Icons added Lucide Icons to their hall of shame because Lucide Icons created a derivative but still totally different work from Feather Icons. Also, Imagine someone added your own project to their hall of shame, you would no longer want to work with them would you? OSS has always been about community and collaboration. This is not it.

But my opinion are just mine feel free to approach this anyway you like but nobody wants the creators of the projects they use to have a bad look.

> I'm actually glad that someone finally appreciates my works and make them useful

I think you already have leverage here since they are most likely to even go out of their way to keep you happy but you just have to approach it from a sensible way especially if they are people with more resources than you which it seems if they where introduced by NativeScript.

> clearly indicates that they want to get something for nothing from the very beginning

Since they where introduced to you by a trusted party then your assessment on them trying to get something for nothing may not be true. Because bad actors would usually not bother in the first place. So its most likely they don't actually have any bad intentions and where probably put off by something else. Also you mentioned they Sponsored you in the hall of shame this is not the behavior of people with bad intentions. I'm just saying there is a possibility that you are seeing or approaching this wrongly.