Thanks for pointing this out, and I get where you're coming from. I didn’t mean to make it seem like Zerox wasn’t part of the project— which was why I included the MIT license both in the relevant code and the root file to make sure it was properly acknowledged.

On the forking thing, I honestly didn’t think it was necessary since cloning and modifying seemed fine for the use case, but I see how forking might’ve made things clearer. I’ll keep that in mind going forward.

Appreciate the heads-up about generateMarkdownDocument, too—I’ll fix that!

Hi. Thanks for the question. To clarify, the MIT license was never removed or swapped. The license was and still is included in the folder that contains the code from the original project. In the root of the repository, I added the AGPL license for the new code I developed and made sure to explicitly acknowledge that the code in the folder is still under the MIT license.

I’ve also added a direct note acknowledging and linking back to the zerox project.

Hello. I apologize that it came across this way. This was not the intention. Zerox was definitely used and I made sure to copy and include the MIT license exactly as it was inside the part of the code that uses Zerox.

I also mentioned that MIT license again in the root license file.

If there's any additional thing I can do, please let me know so I would make changes. Thanks.

Hi. Thank you for pointing this out. I totally understand now that forking would have kept the commit history visible and made the attribution clearer. I have since added a direct note in the repo acknowledging that it is built on the original Zerox project and also linked back to it. If there’s anything else you’d suggest, happy to hear it. Thanks again.