“The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.”
My understanding is that the text of the notice can only be changed with consent of the original copyright holders, since they are the only ones not themselves bound by the license.
He is a POS but he probably is right here... his knowledge of German law on the other hand is questionable to say the least.
I would probably just add him back with a little addendum :>
I’m all for correct attribution, but I’m curious if the author ever bothered asking the maintainers normally before going in guns blazing with legal threats.
This guy's got quite the history:
This is the same person who bombed users with infinite loops and other bullshit in two libraries people depended on. My heart bleeds lumpy custard for his plight. This is just a small karmic return, buddy. Perhaps you should get off your high horse and crawl back under the rock you emerged from.
I loved and promoted fakerjs, only to have the rug pulled to suit his own needs. The anti-comminity movement, imo, invalidates his claims to attribution. Does he really think he's the only one who can write random value generators? Pfft.mobe along, nothing to see here but bloviation.
Well, karma is a bitch.
https://www.revenera.com/blog/software-composition-analysis/...
https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/resident-of-nyc-home-with-susp...
Better to remove his name from these libs
It’s hilarious how people on this thread and in the GH issue seem to think the MIT license states
“This whole license is null and void if the creator acted like a dick”