If they aren't following the license you released your work under, then they're infringing your copyright, and you could send a DMCA to GitHub to get their repository taken down.
The whole "conditions" part of the MIT license is this:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software."
No requirements for you to keep the licensing constant for unmodified files.
If you fork ViviumLab, you're subject to GPL (plus the sublicenses?, but GPL covers that anyway if you don't remove the licenses from your source code); if you fork HomeLab, you're subject to MIT. They don't need to change anything for you to be subject to GPL.
Yeah - the Github issue seems to take issue with the naming of the file, but the MIT license makes no such requirement. I don't think any license requires the file name, it's just a suggestion.
15 comments
[ 28.8 ms ] story [ 591 ms ] threadIf they don’t comply, it’s time for a DMCA request to GitHub.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
Their license is also seems like GPL, which is compatible with MIT afaik.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4149/can-one-take-bs...
https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-colla...
There are multiple examples of how to recopyright MIT-style source under the GPL.
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
No requirements for you to keep the licensing constant for unmodified files.
If you fork ViviumLab, you're subject to GPL (plus the sublicenses?, but GPL covers that anyway if you don't remove the licenses from your source code); if you fork HomeLab, you're subject to MIT. They don't need to change anything for you to be subject to GPL.