I think it's even more spiteful when you write a blog post like this when someone uses your code in the way you intended it to be used. There was no slander aga

I think it's even more spiteful when you write a blog post like this when someone uses your code in the way you intended it to be used. There was no slander against you, was there? If so, that's already covered by laws other than copyright. And if you want more attribution (I'm not sure if the authors' analysis counts as a "substantial" reproduction of your own work), then use a 3-clause BSD, which says, 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. That way, any reproduction of your work that wouldn't fall under fair use requires attribtuion. I'm not sure if the "substantial" part of the MIT license is the same scope as "fair use", but without that adjective, the BSD license might be more explicit about requiring attribution. I have had my own free software used in ways I don't like, but I don't write a blog post about it. After all, I made it free. You want to insult me, mock me, satirise me, print out the source code and wipe your butt with it; go ahead. That's part of what free software must allow. Point is, require with legalese what you want people to do. It's your prerogative. Above all, don't code call copying "stealing". This is not theft. It might not even be copyright infringement. Calling it "stealing" is undue indignation that indicates that they did something worse than what you explicitly allowed.