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.
IIRC, the MIT license does not require attribution (EDIT: it does)
Most people do not understand the philosophy of Open Source. It's not "hey look at me, I made this, look at me".
They should not give liberties to other people if they don't want them to use it.
EDIT: Seeing the comments to this one, this should be seen as a proof of Cunningham's Law[1]