[zeusflight]

Does wilfully omitting the original copyright statement (as required by MIT license) and removing any reference to the original author count as someone 'just trying to get work done'? However trivial the code may be, denying credit is as bad as stealing.

[warkdarrior]

Copyright (as in the MIT license) covers only the actual contents of the work, not a generic name like "label-actions".

[zeusflight]

I was referring to attribution, not trademark claims. They can reuse the name (though unethical), but they can't avoid this part of the License:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Where do you see the original copyright statement in this obvious derivative?

Edit: The FB developer has since replied and has agreed to attribution. I guess this complaint is resolved.

[enneff]

It’s a trivial program and the replacement is clearly not a derived work.