> I asked about list of concerns so I can tweak my project and eliminate issues This isn't the right way to think about things. Suppose I violated someone else

> I asked about list of concerns so I can tweak my project and eliminate issues This isn't the right way to think about things. Suppose I violated someone else's copyright then when accused I ask for a detailed list of concerns. That would be the cheap way for me to get out of the problem. That is, I would do the easy work of copying someone else's work, then place the effort on their side to identify the minimum needed to be compliant, and I would only need to make those changes to be compliant. Your goal therefore should be to not sound or act like a lazy copyright infringer. > To be fair there were couple of content wording What does suggest the project did not have a policy of avoiding copyright infringement, or at least not understanding the risks of being loose with copyright law. > today my GitHub repository was suspended Which GitHub is obligated to do under the DMCA. You then file a counter-claim if you have "a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." Following the DMCA absolves GitHub of liability, and makes services like GitHub possible. The DMCA is also good for you. Without it, the company claiming infringement might have sued you directly, rather than talk to GitHub and go through the takedown process first. > I am wondering where the line when somebody can just come and claim your project to be a clone and request it to be suspended?... That line is called the DMCA. It's been around since 1998. Github has a guide to what it means, and why they follow the law. It's linked to from the github message on your repo. Nor is it a "just". The take down is filed under penalty of perjury. Misuse can be subject to criminal and civil prosecution.