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.

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

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.

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

You can't see it as this person from Facebook being unaware of the OP's tool and, just by coincidence, implementing a tool with the same name. They knew of the tool and actively used it.

I think it's clear their intent was to reproduce the tool at Facebook and then cast a shadow over the old tool, discouraging its use.

To me, that feels malicious.

GitHub has a number of features. One of them is called Labels. One of them is called Actions. Of the matrix of possible two-feature combinations, the first person to happen to combine the two doesn't get an automatic moral right to the name.

This other project doesn't even seem to be registered as a GitHub App. I think we must have extremely different definitions of the word "malice".

Jesus I'm going to be afraid to call anything straightforward from now on in fear of invoking the wrath of "the community".

Read the follow ups in the thread. Maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to assume malice just because you can only think of a malicious explanation.