This raises some excellent points about code-ownership. Because I believe they should have at least forked rather than just restore his repo. On the other hand

This raises some excellent points about code-ownership. Because I believe they should have at least forked rather than just restore his repo. On the other hand if brother wants to get paid and stop people exploiting his work, maybe don't use the MIT license? There's always AGPL. Of course, as with Elastic, these projects would never get off the ground (in terms of support) without actually using a commercial-compliant license. I'm starting to get sick of developers who release open-source work but then are surprised when people use their work as released. If you want someone to pay you money, ask for money. If they don't want to pay you, do something else. Stop playing games with licensing and taking things down. Is all these people are doing are ruining open source.