Every time there is a post like this I go check the license of the original project. Invariably, it is MIT. I think this is probably indicative of something, although I couldn't say what.
It's probably indicative of the fact that MIT is the de-facto default license in the JS ecosystem. It's not like other licenses require much more of forks than MIT does.
I think it's likely indicative of the fact that the JS ecosystem doesn't really understand the meaning of open source (or the distinction between "open source" and free/libre software).
The author's comments are quite enlightening of their incomplete understanding of the licenses they use:
> nanocolors implementation and API are the same as
> Colorette. You essentially pirated my work.
After using a license that explicitly allows others to take their work, it's suprising the author thinks that someone "pirated" their work.
Hopefully this signals the start of an awakening within the JS ecosystem, with more and more developers switching to licenses like the GPL that actually respect the developers.
For libraries it is very difficult to chose a permissive license. Most companies have a whitelist for licenses for libraries they are allowed to use. And for a good reason. This is mostly MIT, BSD and Apache.
If you use a gpl licensed library in your project, it essentially becomes gpl licensed too. If you ever want to sell your software, this is probably a big no-no. It will become quite challenging, and could end up in a legal desaster.
So to create a successful library, other people are willing to use, you essentially have to release it without restrictions.
This could work, but it's just annoying. You'd have to modify your build process to serve this library separately instead of including it in your main bundle and then doing some code splitting.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
They aren’t using the commit you referenced. Instead they went down this path where there is one license, with one copyright (new author), but they are citing the other work in the copyrights:
https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/15/commits/182c767583b...
That was necessary to demonstrate that there was no need to falsely recall it. You could just read it. It's three lines, takes about thirty seconds to read carefully, and would have saved you the trouble of posting misinformation.
You can also choose to read up on essential facts before posting. When people send me emails that require me to go out of my way to interpret and understand because they withheld easily accessible information (usually because of their laziness to type) I answer with a "?" and remove the email.
IIRC isn't necessary when the content is clearly and easily accessible for you to read, I would prefer to not have to read comments based on vague memory when the facts are right there. This is netiquette.
You should really read the MIT license text again. It's 3 paragraphs...
They're also not saying that they weren't allowed to fork it. Just that it was an asshole move, and in community efforts that matters too. The exact same thing could happen with a GPL project, no difference license-wise.