To be honest, it's a shame to remove the original fee license and set own fees, as it is a violation and considers as stealing.
Leaving the original fee - as others do - in the script or doing a one-time payment clears this situation.
I've contributed the script to the publicity in order for a compensation and thereby keeping the service alive.
No it's not considered stealing. What service are you keeping alive? I could (no offense) care less about your personal faucet. You don't deserve compensation for what is, at this point, considered to be a new application. That compensation should be, and currently is, mine. Read your own license in your GitHub if you don't believe me. I have done no wrong, and the real members of the open source community will back me up. If your license doesn't prohibit something, I am free to do it as long as it is open source. I made a legitimately useful derivative work of yours, which I believe is better, and I can do whatever I want with it. If people want to modify yours to include my functionality, they can and I have no problem with that. But if they want to use my pre-created one, that's their choice to make. It's not like nobody else can do what I have done. I am just dedicated to make it super convenient to switch.
In addition, I created more useful features that people may want in a faucet, and have fixed your buggy code quite a bit (although there is still more work I need to do on it).
If so, I could simply delete the project and/or provide a script with a backdoor. That's why there is the fee, openly on Github and declared. However, the license (MIT) requires the license and copyright which includes the fee.
At all, part of the compensation should belong to me because the most part of the script, the structure, is coded by me and not your. Mentioning "hard work" is the wrong way.
For your information:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge (Meaning I don't owe you anything, but we continue...), to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies (Here... is where you are wrong.) of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions
No following conditions are given.
Please tell me. Would your argument hold up in court?
If you didn't want people to do what I did, you should have said so in your license. Always understand your license when you select it. After throughly reading your license for a
3rd time(!!!), I can conclude with 100% certainty that I am in the clear here.