On: “This project violates the MIT license of Gemstash”

[atarian]

This is what I'm seeing as well. Seems like the only mistake the author made was forgetting to include the MIT license, which is not as nefarious as scrubbing it.

[bhhaskin → atarian]

I don't think you need to include the MIT license if the source code is not included.

[steveklabnik → bhhaskin]

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

There's no distinction between source and binary code.

[mikeash → steveklabnik]

But there is a distinction between redistributing a work and merely referencing it. It doesn't look like this repository actually copies anything from the other, and just listing the other one as a dependency doesn't require including the license.