From that discussion it seems @ai (the fork author) did conduct himself in the spirit of open source, or at least it could plausibly be said so.

- contributed to the original project for a year

- forked the original project only after the author did not agree with the his requests/prs

- (turned out this was done latter after it became publicized) kept the commit history as well as attributing the author in the docs

- All in accordance to license (MIT)

- modified/improved on the original project in his fork.

It looks like he performed the fork after the original author moved the project in an undesirable direction. I mean what else would could he have done?

Isn’t the awesome part about open source that if someone changes their lib underneath you, in a way that you do not like, you _can_ fork it and keep it in the direction you desire. And after that “the market” decides which direction was more to the users liking?

I’ve been ripped off by others as well and know the feeling of betrayal when you see someone getting praise for work they have not done, but this seems hardly the case here.