Hello. I apologize that it came across this way. This was not the intention. Zerox was definitely used and I made sure to copy and include the MIT license exactly as it was inside the part of the code that uses Zerox.

If there's any additional thing I can do, please let me know so I would make all amendements immediately.

You took their code, did a search and replace on the product name and you're relicensed the code AGPL?

You're going to have to delete this thing and start over man.

It appears that the MIT license was correctly included to apply to the zerox code used while the AGPL license applies to their own code. Isn’t this how it should be?

Are there any reputation mechanisms or github flagging systems to alert users to such scams?

It’s a pretty unethical behavior if what you describe is the full story and as a user of many open source projects how can one be aware of this type of behavior?

For the MIT license to make sense it needs a copyright notice, I don’t actually see one in the original license. It just says “The MIT license” but then the text below references the above copyright notice, which doesn’t exist.

I think both sides here can learn from this, copyright notices are technically not required but when some text references them it is very useful. The original author should have added one. The user of the code could also have asked about the copyright. If this were to go to court having the original license not making sense could create more questions than it should.

tl;dr: add a copyright line at the top of the file when you’re using the MIT license.