I have no affiliation with anyone in this drama. I heard of Photopea before but never used it. I just opened it to check for attributions and did not find any at all. So if the - possibly fueled by lower motives - accusations about OSS license violations are indeed true, IMO Photopea lost any right to complain about people copying their product.

Half of these are extremely permissive license attribution issues. Seems rather tame, no?

> 4.4. Paper.js (ext1790438722.js)

> Upstream Project: Paper.js (by Jürg Lehni & Jonathan Puckey)

> License: MIT License

> Specific Violations: MIT Condition: The MIT License mandates: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." The entire ~200 KB Paper.js library is embedded in minified form with all author names, copyright notices, and license text stripped.

I question the seriousness of the author of "Photosuite". Who goes through the trouble of creating accounts to prove poorly, that they "didn't steal code".

Since that audit is just some hours old and clearly completely AI written - may I ask if you have looked into it yourself to make such claims?

Or rather created it and eolix is your other alias?

From 5h ago, and suddenly you found that immediately, this is very juvenile.