> Not crediting them is plagiarism.
not if it is a substantially different fix.
not if it is a substantially different fix.
Besides, even if your method is genuinely original, it's only fair to credit the work you're building on. If you're writing an academic paper and come up with a whole new mathematical approach algorithm, you still reference the previous best algorithm.
Yeah it really is. If they rejected the approach and rewrote it from scratch that is sufficient. Doing a cleanroom reimplmentation with someone who had never seen the original patch is a good affirmative defense to protect against all possible lawsuits, but it isn't required.
> If you're writing an academic paper and come up with a whole new mathematical approach algorithm, you still reference the previous best algorithm.
This isn't an academic paper, and the proposed fix wasn't published, and it sounds like the maintainer thought the proposed algorithm was "poor" not "previous best".
You can consider it "rude" but under no circumstances is this illegal in any way.