...crediting him as the author of the original, not the mac port.
without commenting on anything to do with trademarks, in what way is that even slightly pretending to be him? why would they put another, separate bio alongside as the person doing a mac port if they were intending to masquerade as the original author?
If the "author" of this port respected Don Ho enough to credit him in the contributors section of his project, then why didn't he respect Don Ho enough to ask first?
If the "author" of this port respected Don Ho enough to credit him in the contributors section of his project, why doesn't he respect Don Ho enough to comply with the request to take down the violations?
This conflict indicates that the respect was never there, and thus the motivation for the bio was probably credibility laundering.
> For context:
I received an email from Andrey Letov on April 8, 2026, informing me that he had just ported Notepad++ to macOS, and ask for contact, without providing further info.
So no asking to use trademarks beforehand, and no asking Don if it's okay to include him on the contributor page for the violating software.
the general asceticism, frign (on the board of suckless.org e.v.) setting his mailserver hostname to a nazi bunker, them picking a torch march through the german countryside as a bonding activity instead of literally anything else... yeah. at that point why would one want to bother trying to acquire the taste?
this sort of grammatical error in the defense of ai copyediting does not exactly instill confidence in your supervision of said ai copyediting: "of course an LLM ... were used". perhaps you could still pay an editor to look things over.
decidedly off topic but since i've stumbled across you again, i'm still over here wondering what the hell you meant a couple months ago by arguing that doing bare syscalls on linux from a forth is an emulator.
it was quite perplexing to be called a sovcit who was imagining some software i've written just because it was rhetorically inconvenient for you that said software existed
"[whole number]x smaller" is pretty clearly division (with 1 being invalid). Percents have the problem that they can be above or below 100% in a way that causes ambiguity and makes it messy.
reply