[cjbprime]

Two answers:

1) You could potentially use a DMCA claim to take down the repo, if there has been a license violation. But:

2) This is not plagiarism. You put the code under a license that says almost-literally "do anything you want with this code", and they did. There is no legal obligation to use pull requests instead of forks.

> What would you do if this happens with your project?

Probably ignore it. If your version is better, people will use it instead. If it isn't, that's life.

[Turing_Machine]

His license requires that his credit be retained. If the new project didn't do that (which I'm assuming it didn't), it's both plagiarism and a copyright violation (which aren't the same thing).

If the new project did retain his credit, then, yeah, he's got no legal recourse.

[compassios]

Hi Turing_Machine,

How should the other project retain the original project credit? How should be my project referenced?

[cr3ative]

The author of the competing project claims to have used no code from Mac-CLI. Why do you feel you deserve anything more than the "inspired by" credit they currently offer in their README file?

Your wording here:

  A member on Github changed the name of the project, reduced the number of features by removing 3rd-party libraries (all of them are optional in my CLI), and took the entire idea including modularity, plugins and even the mac logo () on the title of the project.

Heavily implies the repository was cloned then edited, but it's being claimed that isn't the case. Can you clarify?

[compassios]

Absolutely. I am okay with creating a better tool using Python for example, but the competing project took the entire idea of a bash script on the local folder that implements plugins like my project.

Small details like the colors are the same on the colors script. I was referring to the fact that all those changes could have been done on the original project through Pull Requests, instead of dividing the effort.

[krapp]

>but the competing project took the entire idea of a bash script on the local folder that implements plugins like my project.

Ideas don't belong to anyone, though. And I'm sure you're not the first or only person to come up with "a bash script on the local folder that implements plugins". And unless you've got a patent on that, you've got no right to be upset that someone else does something you did first.

And again, you know, you did open source the code, which implies you want people to use your code and modify it if they wish.

But did they actually fork your project and not provide you credit? Your original comment made it seem as if they did, but now it appears you're just upset that someone else created a similar project to yours, rather than contribute to you.

If that's the case, it's understandable that you would rather they contribute to your project than have their own, but it's not plagiarism on their part. Contributions are a privilege, but forking is a right as far as open source is concerned.

[neurotrace]

The idea of using a bash script is not original. People have been writing custom bash scripts since about 1989. Why does it matter that the project was written in the same language if the argument is that they've copied your idea?

As for the specific colors, many people use those color choices when designing a CLI.

[Turing_Machine]

It's your license, dude. :-) It specifies how credit should be given.

Did they actually use any of your code? The idea doesn't count (unless you filed a patent in a country that recognizes software patents, which I'm guessing you didn't).

If they didn't use any of your code, "inspired by" is probably the best you're going to get (and they really wouldn't have to do that).