Initial commit

LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,407 @@
+OSCAR: Open Source Compliance & Attribution Records
+Audit License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0)
+
+SCOPE OF LICENSE:
+This license applies to all original analytical text, forensic reports, metadata 
+compilations, and repository structures within the OSACR project. This project 
+strictly provides analysis and deep-links to public version control ledgers for 
+evidentiary purposes. This license does not claim ownership of, or apply to, 
+the third-party source code referenced via external links.
+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License
+
+=======================================================================
+
+Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and
+does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of
+Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or
+other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related
+information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no
+warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their
+terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons
+disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the
+fullest extent possible.
+
+Using Creative Commons Public Licenses
+
+Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and
+conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share
+original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright
+and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The
+following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not
+exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.
+
+     Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are
+     intended for use by those authorized to give the public
+     permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by
+     copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are
+     irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms
+     and conditions of the license they choose before applying it.
+     Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before
+     applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the
+     material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any
+     material not subject to the license. This includes other CC-
+     licensed material, or material used under an exception or
+     limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors:
+    wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors
+
+     Considerations for the public: By using one of our public
+     licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the
+     licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If
+     the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for
+     example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to
+     copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our
+     licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain
+     other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of
+     the licensed material may still be restricted for other
+     reasons, including because others have copyright or other
+     rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests,
+     such as asking that all changes be marked or described.
+     Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to
+     respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations
+     for the public:
+    wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees
+
+=======================================================================
+
+Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License
+
+By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree
+to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons
+Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the
+extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are
+granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of
+these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in
+consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the
+Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.
+
+
+Section 1 -- Definitions.
+
+  a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar
+     Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material
+     and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered,
+     arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring
+     permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the
+     Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed
+     Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording,
+     Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is
+     synched in timed relation with a moving image.
+
+  b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright
+     and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in
+     accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.
+
+  c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights
+     closely related to copyright including, without limitation,
+     performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database
+     Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or
+     categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights
+     specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar
+     Rights.
+
+  d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the
+     absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws
+     fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright
+     Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international
+     agreements.
+
+  e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or
+     any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights
+     that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.
+
+  f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database,
+     or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public
+     License.
+
+  g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the
+     terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to
+     all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the
+     Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.
+
+  h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights
+     under this Public License.
+
+  i. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or
+     process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such
+     as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution,
+     dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material
+     available to the public including in ways that members of the
+     public may access the material from a place and at a time
+     individually chosen by them.
+
+  j. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright
+     resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of
+     the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases,
+     as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially
+     equivalent rights anywhere in the world.
+
+  k. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights
+     under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.
+
+
+Section 2 -- Scope.
+
+  a. License grant.
+
+       1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License,
+          the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free,
+          non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to
+          exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
+
+            a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or
+               in part; and
+
+            b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.
+
+       2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where
+          Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public
+          License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with
+          its terms and conditions.
+
+       3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section
+          6(a).
+
+       4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The
+          Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in
+          all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created,
+          and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The
+          Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or
+          authority to forbid You from making technical modifications
+          necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including
+          technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective
+          Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License,
+          simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)
+          (4) never produces Adapted Material.
+
+       5. Downstream recipients.
+
+            a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every
+               recipient of the Licensed Material automatically
+               receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the
+               Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this
+               Public License.
+
+            b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose
+               any additional or different terms or conditions on, or
+               apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the
+               Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
+               Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed
+               Material.
+
+       6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or
+          may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You
+          are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected
+          with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by,
+          the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as
+          provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).
+
+  b. Other rights.
+
+       1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not
+          licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity,
+          privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to
+          the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to
+          assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited
+          extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed
+          Rights, but not otherwise.
+
+       2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this
+          Public License.
+
+       3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to
+          collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed
+          Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society
+          under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory
+          licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly
+          reserves any right to collect such royalties.
+
+
+Section 3 -- License Conditions.
+
+Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the
+following conditions.
+
+  a. Attribution.
+
+       1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified
+          form), You must:
+
+            a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor
+               with the Licensed Material:
+
+                 i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed
+                    Material and any others designated to receive
+                    attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by
+                    the Licensor (including by pseudonym if
+                    designated);
+
+                ii. a copyright notice;
+
+               iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;
+
+                iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of
+                    warranties;
+
+                 v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the
+                    extent reasonably practicable;
+
+            b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and
+               retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
+
+            c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this
+               Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or
+               hyperlink to, this Public License.
+
+       2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any
+          reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in
+          which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be
+          reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or
+          hyperlink to a resource that includes the required
+          information.
+
+       3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
+          information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent
+          reasonably practicable.
+
+       4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's
+          License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted
+          Material from complying with this Public License.
+
+
+Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights.
+
+Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that
+apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:
+
+  a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right
+     to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial
+     portion of the contents of the database;
+
+  b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database
+     contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database
+     Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database
+     Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and
+
+  c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share
+     all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.
+
+For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not
+replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed
+Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.
+
+
+Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.
+
+  a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE
+     EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS
+     AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF
+     ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS,
+     IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
+     WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
+     PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS,
+     ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT
+     KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT
+     ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
+
+  b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE
+     TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
+     NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT,
+     INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES,
+     COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR
+     USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN
+     ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR
+     DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR
+     IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
+
+  c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided
+     above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent
+     possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and
+     waiver of all liability.
+
+
+Section 6 -- Term and Termination.
+
+  a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and
+     Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with
+     this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License
+     terminate automatically.
+
+  b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under
+     Section 6(a), it reinstates:
+
+       1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided
+          it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the
+          violation; or
+
+       2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.
+
+     For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any
+     right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations
+     of this Public License.
+
+  c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the
+     Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop
+     distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so
+     will not terminate this Public License.
+
+  d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public
+     License.
+
+
+Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions.
+
+  a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different
+     terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
+
+  b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the
+     Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and
+     independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.
+
+
+Section 8 -- Interpretation.
+
+  a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and
+     shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose
+     conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully
+     be made without permission under this Public License.
+
+  b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is
+     deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the
+     minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision
+     cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License
+     without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and
+     conditions.
+
+  c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no
+     failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the
+     Licensor.
+
+  d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted
+     as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities
+     that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal
+     processes of any jurisdiction or authority.
+
+
+=======================================================================
+
+Creative Commons is not a party to its public
+licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of
+its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances
+will be considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons
+public licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public
+Domain Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that
+material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as
+otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at
+creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the
+use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo
+of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including,
+without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications
+to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements,
+understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For
+the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the
+public licenses.
+
+Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.

README.md

@@ -1,3 +1,54 @@
----
-license: cc-by-4.0
----
+---
+language: en
+license: cc-by-4.0
+tags:
+- open-source-compliance
+- governance
+- software-forensics
+- license-violations
+- attribution-laundering
+pretty_name: OSCAR (Open Source Compliance & Attribution Records)
+size_categories:
+- n < 1K
+---
+
+# OSCAR: Open Source Compliance & Attribution Records
+
+This repository serves as a public archive for documenting instances of license non-compliance, the removal of original authorship metadata, conflict of interest and the externalization of technical debt within open-source projects.
+
+## Purpose
+The integrity of Open Source software relies on the preservation of provenance. Under licenses such as the **GNU General Public License (GPL)**, the requirement to credit original authors and maintain a clear record of changes is a legal mandate, not an optional courtesy.
+
+OSCAR monitors four core pillars of project health:
+
+* **License Compliance and Stability:** Tracking unauthorized license versioning and version changes that occur without the consensus of copyright holders, creating legal uncertainty for downstream users.
+* **Metadata Integrity:** Identifying the systematic decoupling of contributed logic from its original iterative history through methods such as **Direct Injection** and **Commit Laundering**, which masks the true provenance of the software and effectively falsifies the historical record of a project's development.
+* **Conflict of Interest:** Identifying instances where project-branded infrastructure, social capital, or centralized attribution is utilized to solicit monetary gains at the detriment of the community at large. This pillar documents the correlation between the suppression of community authorship and the promotion of private revenue channels, establishing a documented incentive for non-transparent project governance.
+* **Ecosystem Integrity:** Documenting instances where internal technical debt and deprecated architectural models are externalized onto upstream build systems and tools, forcing the wider FOSS ecosystem to accommodate substandard maintenance practices.
+
+By treating the Git ledger as disposable and the license as a cosmetic suggestion, projects produce a form of **Governance Slop**, a state where the legal, technical, and historical record of the software is as unreliable as unverified code itself.
+
+## Methodology
+Entries in this archive under incidents are verified by comparing:
+* **Original Work:** Publicly available Pull Requests, contributor branches, or independent repositories.
+* **Integrated Work:** Commits pushed to an organization's primary repository.
+* **The Discrepancy:** Evidence of line-by-line logic duplication where the original commit history has been discarded and replaced with maintainer authorship.
+
+Entries in this archive under audits are analyses based on synthesized incident data and project governance history.
+
+## Current Archives
+The following projects have documented instances of metadata tampering, architectural regression, or license instability:
+
+### [cMaNGOS](./projects/github/cmangos)
+
+---
+
+## Notice
+This repository is an independent archive. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of the organizations documented herein. All data is sourced from public version control ledgers and is presented for the purpose of transparency, education, and license compliance oversight. 
+
+References to specific project names, trademarks, or codebases are used under **nominative fair use** for the sole purpose of identifying the subjects of technical analysis. 
+
+### Licensing
+The original analytical text, reports, and metadata structures in this repository are provided for purposes such as **criticism, comment, and scholarship**, and are licensed under **Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0)**. 
+
+**Scope:** This license does not apply to third-party source code referenced via external links or archived mirrors. OSCAR strictly provides analysis and deep-links to public ledgers for evidentiary purposes and does not claim ownership of the referenced codebases.

projects/github/cmangos/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# OSCAR Project Audit: cMaNGOS (github.com/cmangos)
+
+This directory contains the forensic record of governance and compliance failures within the cMaNGOS organization (2016–2026).
+
+## Incident Reports
+Detailed evidence of "Attribution Laundering" where contributor metadata was stripped from high-value technical logic:
+* **[Incident #193: 2FA Source Diversion](./incidents/mangos-classic_193_pin_auth.md)** (2016)
+* **[Incident #334: SQL Refactor Stalling](./incidents/mangos-classic_334_faction.md)** (2018)
+* **[Incident #520: PetAI Metadata Removal](./incidents/mangos-classic_520_petai.md)** (2026)
+
+## Specialized Audits
+Analysis of systemic issues beyond individual commits:
+* **[Technical Integrity Audit](./audits/technical_integrity_audit.md)**: Architectural regression and upstream noise.
+* **[Monetary Incentive Audit](./audits/monetary_incentive_audit.md)**: Correlation of metadata stripping and branded financial solicitation.
+* **[License Compliance Audit](./audits/license_audit.md)**: Record of unauthorized license reversion and stated governance apathy.
+
+## Synthesis
+* **[Master Meta-Audit (2016–2026)](./audits/meta-audit.md)**: The comprehensive analysis binding technical, financial, and legal findings into a single record of project Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

projects/github/cmangos/audits/license_audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# OSCAR License Audit: Systematic License Instability and Compliance Failure
+
+**Project:** cMaNGOS
+**Primary Actors:** cyberium (Project Leadership)  
+**Subject:** Record of Unauthorized License Changes and Stated Compliance Policy
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+This document records a pattern of License Flip-Flopping within the cMaNGOS organization. Analysis of the repository history and internal discussions (2017 to 2019) reveals that leadership has repeatedly changed the project legal license (GPLv2 to GPLv3 and back) without the required consensus of copyright holders. This behavior, combined with direct admissions regarding license terms, demonstrates a governance model where the GPL is secondary to maintainer preference.
+
+## The License Flip-Flop (2017 to 2019)
+### Exhibit A: Analysis of Unauthorized License Reversion
+Internal records confirm that the project underwent a "downgrade" from GPLv3 back to GPLv2. This was executed by project leadership (**cyberium**) under the guise of complying with third party dependencies.
+
+* **Legal Impossibility:** Under the terms of the GPL, a project may upgrade to a later version if the original license included the "or any later version" clause. However, there is no downgrade clause. Once code is contributed under GPLv3, it cannot be unilaterally reverted to GPLv2 without the explicit permission of every contributor who provided code during the GPLv3 window.
+* **The Dependency Paradox:** Leadership justified the downgrade by citing third party code compatibility. However, the dependencies in question were already licensed under "GPLv2 or later," which explicitly allows those dependencies to be used within a GPLv3 project. By "downgrading" to comply with the dependency, leadership actually chose to violate the primary project license to solve a non-existent legal conflict.
+* **The Ghost License:** In 2019, it was documented ([Issue #1825](https://github.com/cmangos/issues/issues/1825) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329081639/https://github.com/cmangos/issues/issues/1825)) that the project's NEWS.md, README, and LICENSE files were in direct conflict, referencing non-existent files (e.g., COPYING) and stating incorrect license versions. This creates a state of Legal Fog where contributors and users cannot verify the actual terms of distribution.
+
+## Direct Admissions of Governance Apathy
+### Exhibit B: Documentation of Leadership Acknowledgment of Non-Compliance
+The following quotes from project leadership and maintainers highlight a documented culture of non-compliance:
+> — [Source](https://github.com/cmangos/tbc-db/commit/f1d6d16dad22fbbf8fb662f551a3d2a0244d55cb) - [Archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329082002/https://github.com/cmangos/tbc-db/commit/f1d6d16dad22fbbf8fb662f551a3d2a0244d55cb)
+
+### The "Nobody Will Sue" Defense (cyberium - July 12, 2017)
+> "I dont know much about this but... i dont care much about license because i personally consider everyone can/are already doing what they want with an open-source software that no authors will engage any legal proceeding."
+
+* **Analysis:** Project leadership explicitly defines compliance by the likelihood of legal proceeding rather than the terms of the license. By stating that they do not care about the license because authors won't sue, leadership establishes a precedent where contributor rights are knowingly violated under the assumption of impunity.
+
+### The "Holiday Priority" Dismissal (xfurry - Aug 4, 2017)
+> "Guys, I think there are more important topics to take care of, other than licenses (for example summer holiday)... I don't think that any of the authors will actually care if you change one open source license with another open source license (I personally don't)."
+
+* **Analysis:** This dismissal treats the legal framework of the project as a nuisance that interferes with more important activities. It reinforces the organizational belief that the personal feelings of a few maintainers override the legal requirements of the GPL.
+
+## Compliance Conflict
+The observed actions create a documented compliance conflict regarding the integrity of the project's legal distribution terms. When project leadership publicly admits they do not respect the license (Cyberium, 2017) and maintainers admit they "indeed made a mistake" while deleting evidence (Killerwife, 2026), the project ceases to be a compliant Open Source entity. 
+
+The decision to downgrade from GPLv3 to GPLv2 is particularly egregious because it ignores the forward-compatibility built into the GPL. Leadership effectively decided that the rights of contributors who committed under GPLv3 were expendable.
+
+## Conclusion
+The evidence indicates a governance model where the GPL is treated as a non-binding guideline rather than a set of legal requirements. This environment provides the necessary cover for the Attribution Laundering documented in the Master Audit. If leadership does not respect the license version itself, they cannot be expected to respect the authorship metadata requirements (GPLv2 Sections 1 & 2) that protect individual contributors.
+
+---
+**Disclaimer:** This report analyzes the **licensing and legal governance** of the project organization. It documents the public statements and repository history regarding license versioning. This analysis does not target individuals but evaluates the operational impact of unauthorized license changes on the legal requirements of the GPL.

projects/github/cmangos/audits/meta_audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# OSCAR Meta Audit: Systematic Metadata Removal, Attribution Laundering, and Financial Conflict of Interest (2016 to 2026)
+
+**Project:** cMaNGOS
+**Primary Actors:** killerwife (Maintainer), cyberium (Project Leadership)  
+**Subject:** Analysis of Recurring GPLv2/GPLv3 Compliance Failures and Monetary Incentives
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+This document synthesizes incident reports, license audits, and financial evidence. The data demonstrates a recurring **Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)** in project governance. Over a ten-year period, high-value community contributions have been intentionally decoupled from original authorship metadata to centralize credit within a closed circle of maintainers. The removal of authorship metadata coincides with a documented financial incentive, as the primary maintainer utilizes a project-branded profile to solicit personal donations. Furthermore, the project has engaged in unauthorized license versioning and expressed a documented apathy toward legal compliance, viewing the GPL as a cosmetic suggestion rather than a binding legal constraint.
+
+## The "Stall, Steal, and Smother" Workflow
+The analysis of documented Incident Reports identifies a recurring three-stage lifecycle for high-value community contributions:
+
+* **Functional Stagnation:** A contributor submits a high value Pull Request (PR). The PR is either ignored for years, publicly questioned on utility, or withheld for political reasons, despite having technical approval.
+* **Metadata Extraction:** Technical logic is manually re-integrated into maintainer-owned commits or branches, effectively decoupling the technical progress from the original Git ledger.
+* **Administrative Shielding:** When the metadata removal is identified, project leadership (**cyberium**) provides administrative cover. Tactics include claiming a different source, citing personal copy exceptions for public branches, or using administrative power to silence dissent.
+
+## Comparative Audit of Systematic Violations
+
+| Incident | Primary Tactic | Maintainer Action (killerwife) | Monetary/Governance Impact |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| **PR #193 (2016)** | **Source Diversion** | Re-implemented 2FA logic under a single commit, stripping 11 original commits. | Centralized "security expert" status on a profile used for financial solicitation. |
+| **PR #334 (2018)** | **Political Stalling** | Stalled an approved SQL refactor for 9 months before re-committing identical logic. | Claimed "Core Developer" credit for structural database research performed by a third party. |
+| **PR #520 (2026)** | **Manual Re-typing** | Re-typed 14 commits of PetAI logic into a WIP branch under his own name. | Falsified record of high-frequency output; utilized the "Fix it Later" trap to silence the original author. |
+| **Meson #12821 (2026)** | **Technical Externalization** | Attempted to force legacy path-crawling for 2017 dependencies onto upstream. | Defended legacy models to maintain a status quo that avoids modern, portable peer-review. |
+
+## Monetary Conflict of Interest: Branding and Solicitation
+Analysis of the maintainer’s public profile reveals a long-standing financial incentive for the centralization of attribution.
+
+* **Branded Revenue Channel:** Historical records show a transition from a personal PayPal handle (`paypal.me/killerwife`) in 2020 to a project-branded handle (`paypal.me/killerwifeatcmangos`) by 2026.
+* **The Productivity-Donation Link:** By re-typing community logic into personal commits, the maintainer creates a statistically skewed record of productivity. This "marketable" progress is used to solicit personal funds for "ventures in wow-emu" on a profile bio.
+* **Incentive to Launder:** The existence of a project-branded revenue stream creates a documented incentive to delay or bypass standard Pull Request merging. This ensures that major architectural progress is attributed solely to the individual receiving the funds.
+
+## License Instability and Governance Apathy
+Analysis of repository history between 2017 and 2019 reveals a pattern of unauthorized "License Flip-Flopping."
+
+* **Unauthorized Downgrade:** Leadership executed a downgrade from GPLv3 back to GPLv2. Legally, code contributed under GPLv3 cannot be reverted to GPLv2 without explicit permission from every contributor during that window.
+* **The Dependency Paradox:** Leadership justified the downgrade by citing third party code compatibility. However, the dependencies in question were already licensed under "GPLv2 or later," which explicitly allows those dependencies to be used within a GPLv3 project. By "downgrading" to comply with the dependency, leadership actually chose to violate the primary project license to solve a non-existent legal conflict.
+* **Legal Fog:** In 2019, it was documented ([Issue #1825](https://github.com/cmangos/issues/issues/1825) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329081639/https://github.com/cmangos/issues/issues/1825)) that the project's NEWS.md, README, and LICENSE files were in direct conflict, referencing non-existent files (e.g., COPYING) and stating incorrect license versions. This creates a state of Legal Fog where contributors and users cannot verify the actual terms of distribution.
+
+### Documented Admissions of Non-Compliance
+* **The "Nobody Will Sue" Defense (cyberium, 2017):** "i dont care much about license because i personally consider everyone can/are already doing what they want with an open-source software that no authors will engage any legal proceeding."
+* **The "Holiday Priority" Dismissal (xfurry, 2017):** "Guys, I think there are more important topics to take care of, other than licenses (for example summer holiday)... I don't think that any of the authors will actually care if you change one open source license with another open source license (I personally don't)."
+
+---
+
+## Analysis of Project Governance
+The recurring nature of these events involving the same maintainer and the same leadership indicates a willful bypass of **GPLv2 Sections 1 and 2**. 
+
+* **The "History Repeating" Admission:** In 2026, leadership stated that the conflict felt like history repeating itself. While intended as a commentary on the persistence of the whistleblower, the statement functions as a de facto acknowledgment of the project's recurring friction regarding GPL compliance. It confirms that leadership is aware this specific issue has been a point of contention for a decade, yet the internal workflow has not been adjusted to prevent it.
+* **The Strategic Contradiction:** In 2026, leadership attempted to minimize the removal of metadata as a non-critical issue on a WIP branch. This contradicts their [2017 admission](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-wotlk/commit/12ce14f2c399741d67e5f68425032a21240b708f) - [Archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329081021/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-wotlk/commit/12ce14f2c399741d67e5f68425032a21240b708f) where they explicitly stated that failing to merge a contributor's PR was a mistake and that the proper technical path was to preserve the original authorship. This demonstrates that the project's current non-compliance is a choice made with full prior knowledge of the legal requirements.
+* **The Metadata Fallacy:** The project's internal policy treats Git metadata as a non-legal artifact. This establishes a procedural precedent where community research is treated as raw material rather than protected intellectual property under GPLv2 Section 1.
+* **License as Suggestion:** The combination of unauthorized license versioning and the "nobody cares" model creates a hostile environment for intellectual property. If leadership does not respect the license version itself, they cannot be expected to respect the authorship metadata requirements (GPLv2 Sections 1 & 2) that protect individual contributors.
+* **Power Imbalance:** The use of Strategic Delays forces contributors into a Fix it Later trap, where they are pressured to accept the theft of their metadata simply to see their technical work finally integrated after years of stagnation.
+* **Ecosystem Interference:** The project has graduated from internal technical debt to externalizing that debt onto upstream tools. By lobbying Meson to support deprecated 2017 era integration models, the project actively degrades the integrity of the broader FOSS toolchain to avoid fixing its own internal legacy anchors.
+
+## Conclusion
+The documented record indicates a consistent pattern of Attribution Laundering, License Instability, and Financial Conflict of Interest. By systematically decoupling technical logic from original authorship, the project maintains a centralized record of productivity that correlates with project-branded financial solicitation. These actions represent a documented divergence from the transparency requirements of the GPLv2 and a failure of standardized project governance.
+
+---
+**Disclaimer:** This Meta-Audit synthesizes technical, legal, and financial data from public version control records and historical archives. This analysis evaluates **organizational governance and licensing compliance.** It does not target individuals but documents the operational intersection of metadata manipulation, unauthorized license reversion, and project-branded financial solicitation.

projects/github/cmangos/audits/monetary_incentive_audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# OSCAR Monetary Incentive Audit: Correlation of Attribution Centralization and Personal Financial Solicitation
+
+**Project:** cMaNGOS  
+**Primary Subject:** killerwife (Maintainer)  
+**Evidence Source:** Public GitHub Profile Bio / Historical Archives  
+**Reference Period:** 2020 to 2026
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+This audit documents the operational intersection between the project's commit history and the primary maintainer's personal financial solicitations hosted on their public profile. The data shows technical contributions integrated as maintainer-owned commits while the maintainer's public profile biography (Bio) hosts an active personal financial link. This creates a documented intersection where the maintainer's public-facing development record, inflated by community-sourced logic, is used to support the personal financial solicitation in the profile biography.
+
+## Documented Financial Solicitation and Branding Evolution
+### Exhibit A: Temporal Analysis of Financial Branding
+The primary maintainer utilizes the public GitHub profile biography (Bio) to host personal financial links that have evolved to explicitly leverage the project's identity:
+
+* **Historical Profile (2020):** [Archive Link](https://web.archive.org/web/20201112033656/https://github.com/killerwife) — Documents the original personal solicitation (killerwife).  
+* **Current Profile (2026):** [Archive Link](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329082637/https://github.com/killerwife) — Documents the transition to project-branded solicitation (killerwifeatcmangos).  
+
+* **Revenue Channel:** Direct PayPal solicitation (paypal.me/killerwifeatcmangos).
+* **Identity Branding:** Historical records show a transition from a personal handle (paypal.me/killerwife) in 2020 to a project-branded handle (paypal.me/killerwifeatcmangos) by 2026.
+* **Placement:** GitHub Profile Biography (Bio).
+* **Scope:** The solicitation is directed toward "ventures in wow-emu," a domain directly served by the uncredited labor of the broader community.
+
+## Mechanics of Attribution Centralization
+The audit identifies a functional correlation between the removal of original Git metadata and the maintenance of a high-output developer profile:
+
+* **Attribution Laundering:** By re-typing or force-pushing community-contributed logic (e.g., PetAI #520, 2FA #193) under a personal Git identity, the maintainer centralizes the historical record of technical progress.
+* **Solo-Maintainer Narrative:** This practice creates a statistically skewed record of productivity. When third-party architectural refactors are compressed into maintainer-owned commits, the marketable value of that labor is transferred to the maintainer's personal profile.
+* **Incentive Bias:** The existence of a project-branded revenue stream creates a documented incentive to delay or bypass standard Pull Request merging. This results in the "Stall and Re-inject" workflow, where third-party code is withheld until it can be re-introduced as maintainer-originated progress.
+
+## Impact on License Compliance
+The observed workflow creates a documented compliance conflict under **GPLv2 Sections 1 and 2**:
+
+* **Section One Notice:** Requires the preservation of an appropriate copyright notice. When metadata is stripped to centralize "Core Development" status on a profile featuring a branded donation link, the legal notice is falsified.
+* **Economic Conflict:** The presentation of community-sourced logic as maintainer-authored work on a profile hosting personal financial solicitation (PayPal) creates a non-transparent incentive structure that bypasses the attribution requirements of the GPL.
+* **Governance Inconsistency:** The defense of metadata removal as "routine development" fails to account for the asymmetric financial benefit derived from centralized attribution on a profile hosting project-branded solicitation.
+
+## Operational Risk Assessment
+The combination of personal monetization and metadata manipulation presents a high risk to external contributors:
+
+* **Labor Harvesting:** Community members provide technical research and logic under the assumption of GPL-mandated credit.
+* **Monetary Diversion:** The technical ledger records the maintainer as the author of community-sourced logic, which is then presented on a profile used for personal financial solicitation.
+
+## Conclusion
+The evidence indicates a structural Conflict of Interest. The systematic removal of contributor metadata (Attribution Laundering) correlates with a personal solicitation model hosted in the maintainer's biography. This documentation identifies a documented intersection between metadata manipulation and project-branded financial solicitation, presenting a challenge to the standard transparency requirements of the GPLv2.
+
+---
+**Disclaimer:** This report analyzes the **governance and financial transparency** of the project organization. It documents the intersection of public version control metadata and project-branded financial solicitation. This analysis does not target individuals but evaluates the operational impact of attribution centralization on the legal requirements of the GPLv2.

projects/github/cmangos/audits/technical_integrity_audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# OSCAR Technical Integrity Audit: Case #2026-03-29
+
+**Project:** cMaNGOS
+**Primary Actors:** insunaa (Contributor/Representative), Meson Upstream  
+**Subject:** Analysis of Technical Debt Externalization and Legacy Dependency Anchoring
+
+## Executive Summary
+This audit documents a divergence from modern architectural standards, resulting in an attempt to externalize project-specific technical debt into the **Meson Build System** [Issue #12821](https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/12821) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20241008172420/https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/12821). Despite being provided with a standard-compliant C++20 solution from the **EmberEmu** project, project representatives opted to defend a "hacky" legacy model anchored to a discontinued 2018 Oracle dependency.
+
+## Primary Evidence: The "Legacy Gravity"
+Analysis of the build configuration reveals a project fundamentally incompatible with modern build system standards:
+
+* **The cMaNGOS Anchor:** [CMakeLists.txt](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329205012/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt)
+  * **Hardcoded Pathing:** Lines 148-152 and 226-238 prove the project relies on manually crawling `C:\Program Files` and `dep/` folders for `libmysql.dll`.
+  * **Standard Bypass:** The project bypasses `find_package()` in favor of manual DLL pathing, a methodology that has been deprecated for nearly a decade.
+
+* **The Rejected Solution (EmberEmu Reference):**
+  * As documented in [EmberEmu PR #90](https://github.com/EmberEmu/Ember/pull/90/changes) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329205735/https://github.com/EmberEmu/Ember/pull/90) / [Changes](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329205922/https://github.com/EmberEmu/Ember/pull/90/files), a proper modern implementation uses `find_package(mysql-concpp REQUIRED)` and `mysql::concpp-jdbc-static`. 
+  * This solution was provided to representatives and rejected in favor of maintaining the legacy hack.
+
+## The "Lost Audit" (Blocked Meta-Commentary)
+The following technical findings were drafted for the Meson issue tracker but were restricted from submission:
+
+* **Technical Finding:** The implementation in Issue #12821 bypasses standard dependency lookups. The project attempts to link a C++20 codebase against the `mysql-concpp` wrapper by treating it as raw C bindings. This defeats the purpose of a modern build system. Even if they insist on using the raw C bindings they are not even aware they are now packaged as `libmysqlclient`, and has been since 2018.
+* **The 8-Year Lifecycle Gap:** Standalone 'Connector/C' reached **End-of-Life (EOL)** in 2018. Building custom 'System' lookup logic for a product that hasn't seen a standalone release since **July 2017** sets a problematic maintenance precedent for upstream build tools.
+
+### Exhibit A: Peer Review Exchange
+The following exchange ([Source](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/df6e281737667464a66440ad288209fcabfe4298) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329205337/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/df6e281737667464a66440ad288209fcabfe4298)) documents the project's refusal to implement standard-compliant dependency handling.
+
+* **Auditor:** "Dude... it’s not mysql or libmysql. The package is mysql-concpp. I already solved this for EmberEmu (...) it will never work reliably on Windows until you stop hardcoding paths and start using proper targets.."
+* **Representative (insunaa):** "I honestly **do not give a shit about windows**, lol. I've included **hacky windows support for this shit** only by request."
+* **Auditor:** "Also maybe don't trouble meson with hacking their repository to support this hackjob then."
+* **Representative (insunaa):** "jesus you're insufferable... go bother someone else."
+* **Auditor:** "So much for trying to help you not to waste your time by giving you the solution."  
+
+**Analysis:** The representative acknowledges the implementation is 'hacky' while simultaneously requesting upstream support for the same logic in Meson Issue #12821.
+
+## Findings on Project Philosophy
+
+| Factor | Modern Standard | cMaNGOS Methodology |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| **Dependency Name** | `mysql-concpp` / `libmysqlclient` | Hardcoded "libmysql" strings |
+| **Path Discovery** | Automated (CMake/Pkg-Config) | Manual Directory Crawling |
+| **Lifecycle Awareness** | Unified Connector (Post-2018 EOL) | Discontinued Connector/C (2017) |
+| **Maintainer Portability Goal** | Portability and Compliance | "Do not give a shit about Windows" |
+
+**Technical Note:** Per Oracle’s official documentation, the MySQL Connector/C (libmysqlclient) was integrated into the MySQL Connector/C++ (mysql-concpp) in 2018. The project’s insistence on a standalone 2017-era DLL violates current Oracle-recommended integration paths.
+
+## Conclusion: Architectural Regression
+The evidence shows a documented preference for deprecated dependency models over standard-compliant alternatives. By refusing to utilize modern dependency targets and instead lobbying upstream tools to support 8-year-old deprecated models, the project has moved from "technical debt" into "ecosystem interference" and is creating **upstream noise**. The restriction of technical peer review on public trackers allows this misinformation to persist, creating a state where the project's build system is anchored to a 2017-era "hackjob" that maintainers refuses to correct.
+
+---
+**Disclaimer:** This report analyzes the **procedural and technical compliance** of the project organization. It does not target individuals but documents the public actions of account holders acting as project representatives in a public version control environment.

projects/github/cmangos/incidents/mangos-classic_193_pin_auth.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# OSCAR Incident Report: Implementation of time-based one-time password & fixed PIN authentication (PR #193)
+
+**Project:** cMaNGOS  
+**Affected Authors:** Chaosvex / TrinityCore  
+**Original Work:** [Pull Request #193](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/193) (11 commits, Sep 2016) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329081022/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/193) / [Changes](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329203754/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/193/files)  
+**Related Work:** [Pull Request #191](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/191) (Sep, 2016) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20250816124109/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/191) / [Changes](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329204438/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/191/files)  
+[TrinityCore Commit ba22bae](https://github.com/TrinityCore/TrinityCore/commit/ba22baebbd1394cc69366d7a19d879da43885430) (Aug, 2013) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329204101/https://github.com/TrinityCore/TrinityCore/commit/ba22baebbd1394cc69366d7a19d879da43885430)  
+**Infringing Commit:** [Commit 4b10465](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/4b10465) (Nov, 2017) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329140131/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/4b10465)  
+
+## Overview
+This entry documents the process of functional stagnation and subsequent reintegration. In 2016, chaosvex provided a full implementation of Two-Factor Authentication (TOTP/PIN). Project leadership publicly questioned the utility of the feature to justify withholding the merge of the PR, the logic was subsequently re-injected into the core under maintainer authorship, resulting in an implementation that was admittedly inferior to the original contributor's PR.
+
+## Technical Evidence
+* **Logic Duplication:** Commit `4b10465` utilizes the exact architectural structure changes (e.g., core-handling logic), database schema extensions, and the RFC 6238 TOTP implementation.
+* **Metadata Removal:** The 11 original commits, containing the iterative development, bug fixes, and review history, were discarded. The feature was merged as a "clean" maintainer commit, displacing the attribution metadata of the original authors.
+* **Strategic Delays:** The work remained in a pending state for over 18 months. During this period of documented stagnation, the logic was manually ported to the master branch under maintainer metadata. The original PR was eventually closed by the author in 2018 after the integration of identical logic in the core rendered the contribution redundant.
+
+## Statements of Intent (Direct Quotes from the implementation on an adjacent repo before backporting;)
+
+https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-wotlk/commit/12ce14f2c399741d67e5f68425032a21240b708f - [Archive](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329081021/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-wotlk/commit/12ce14f2c399741d67e5f68425032a21240b708f)
+
+### Exhibit A: Admission of "Mistake" and Attribution Failure (cyberium)
+> "For me its a mistake and its on discussion to avoid same error in future. Btw in this code there is only part of Chaosvex code. So proper commit order had to be, merge his PR (or crypt part of it) then add Laizerox code (authentificator)."
+
+* **Analysis:** Leadership admitted that the proper legal and technical path was to merge the original PR. By choosing not to do so, they distributed a derivative work without the required historical metadata.
+
+### Exhibit B: Contradictory Attribution Claims (cyberium)
+> "Yes after reviewing those code its easy to see that the code is not from Chaosvex PR (his code is better than this commit btw). Only 2 included files are the same... This code come from trinity..."
+
+* **Analysis:** After initially admitting the code belonged to Chaosvex, leadership asserted an alternative provenance that the work was sourced from (TrinityCore, from which the proper authors weren't attributed either) to avoid the attribution requirement. This contradiction obscures the true provenance of the code, as neither original source (Chaosvex or TrinityCore) was credited in the resulting commit.
+
+### Exhibit C: Administrative Intervention Regarding Compliance Reporting (cyberium)
+> "We don't care much about your opinion, you already expressed yourself a bit too much here. So try to be more constructive or we don't need anymore any of your reaction here."
+
+* **Analysis:** When confronted with the evidence of metadata removal, leadership utilized administrative power to threaten a ban ("be my guest") against the contributor reporting the license violation. This documentation identifies an administrative response where reports of non-compliance result in threats of account restriction.
+
+## Compliance Conflict
+Under **GPLv2 Sections 1 and 2**, the legal right to distribute a derivative work requires a clear record of authorship. By dismissing a contributor's work, acknowledging it was used, then attributing it to an external source to bypass credit requirements, the project has generated a documented breach of the license. The use of administrative threats to silence reports of this non-compliance further demonstrates a systematic bypass of the attribution requirements.
+
+---
+**Disclaimer:** This report analyzes the **procedural and legal compliance** of the project organization. It does not target individuals but documents the public actions of account holders acting as project representatives in a public version control environment.

projects/github/cmangos/incidents/mangos-classic_334_faction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+# OSCAR Incident Report: Remove faction duplicate (PR #334)
+
+**Project:** cMaNGOS  
+**Affected Author:** Phatcat  
+**Original Work:** [Pull Request #334](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/334) (Mar 2018) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329081251/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/334) / [Changes](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329203109/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/334/files)  
+**Infringing Commit:** [Commit b72c094](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/b72c094) (Dec 2018) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329213619/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/b72c09425c8c68897861cf1d172f5029198c8851)  
+
+## Overview
+This entry documents the "Stall and Re-integrate" integration pattern. In March 2018, a contributor proposed a structural database refactor to remove redundant faction columns (`FactionHorde`/`FactionAlliance`) based on reverse-engineering sniffs. Despite immediate approval from other members, the PR remained in a pending state for nine months, only to be closed by a maintainer who implemented the exact same structural changes under their own name.
+
+## Technical Evidence
+* **Logic Duplication:** The infringing commit `b72c094` performs the exact schema migration proposed in PR #334: dropping `FactionHorde` and renaming `FactionAlliance` to `Faction`.
+* **SQL Parity:** As seen in the comparison of `z2719_01_mangos_creature_template_fixup.sql` (Contributor) and `z2729_01_mangos_creature_template_faction_removal.sql` (Maintainer), the SQL commands are functionally identical, utilizing the same `ALTER TABLE` logic to achieve the refactor.
+* **Metadata Removal:** The contributor's commit history, which included the research and justification for the change, was discarded. The maintainer recorded the architectural shift without original contributor metadata.
+
+## Statements of Intent (Direct Quotes)
+
+### Exhibit A: Maintainer Approval and "Political" Avoidance (killerwife - Mar 5, 2018)
+> "FactionAlliance/FactionHorde needs to be nuked... My approval, but for political reasons I am staying away from further discussion."
+
+* **Analysis:** The maintainer explicitly approved the logic on day one but withheld the merge, citing "political reasons." This established a period of artificial stagnation despite technical consensus.
+
+### Exhibit B: Strategic Silence and Closing (Dec 10, 2018)
+> "Closed by b72c094"
+
+* **Analysis:** After 280 days of inactivity, the maintainer closed the contributor's PR not by merging it, but by referencing their own commit. This is a documented instance of "Attribution Laundering", where a maintainer stalls a contributor PR to re-integrate the work under maintainer-owned metadata.
+
+## Compliance Conflict
+Under **GPLv2 Sections 1 and 2**, the legal right to distribute a derivative work requires a clear record of authorship. By intentionally stalling a contributor’s approved refactor for nine months and then re-implementing it to bypass the Git ledger, project leadership has generated a documented inaccuracy in the historical record of who originated the architectural change. This practice treats community research and development as "public domain" material for maintainer-owned distribution, bypassing the attribution requirements.
+
+---
+**Disclaimer:** This report analyzes the **procedural and legal compliance** of the project organization. It does not target individuals but documents the public actions of account holders acting as project representatives in a public version control environment.

projects/github/cmangos/incidents/mangos-classic_520_petai.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# OSCAR Incident Report: PetAI Refactor (PR #520)
+
+**Project:** cMaNGOS  
+**Affected Author:** deiteris  
+**Original Work:** [Pull Request #520](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/520) (14 commits, Oct 2023) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329120935/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/520) / [Changes](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329203322/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/pull/520/files)  
+**Replacement Commit:** [Commit 59534bc](https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/59534bc) (Jan 2026) - [Archived](https://web.archive.org/web/20260329080433/https://github.com/cmangos/mangos-classic/commit/59534bc31447b5977b722417bb32a9e711a52651)  
+
+## Overview
+This entry documents the replacement of 14 commits of original authorship metadata with a single maintainer-owned commit. The logic, which refactors the core PetAI system, was proposed in 2023 and remained in a pending state for over two years. In January 2026, the logic was manually re-typed into a new commit under the maintainer's name.
+
+## Technical Evidence
+* **Logic Duplication:** A line-by-line diff of `PetAI.h` and `PetAI.cpp` confirms that the code in Commit `59534bc` is identical to the code proposed in PR #520, down to the wording of the comments.
+* **Metadata Removal:** The original 14-commit history, which serves as the legal record of the author's contributions and timestamps, was discarded.
+* **Distribution:** The code was pushed to the official organization namespace under a WIP branch, constituting public distribution of a derivative work without the required preservation of the original author's history.
+
+## Statements of Intent (Direct Quotes)
+
+The following statements were made by project leadership and the maintainer during the discovery of this metadata removal:
+
+### Exhibit A: Maintainer Justification (killerwife)
+> "Nothing is merged. If it were, PR would be closed. Your point is duly noted and will be resolved when PR code is merged into 'master' branch. Any other branch is 'my' personal copy that I use between computers."
+
+* **Analysis:** This statement acknowledges the extraction of code while attempting to claim a "Personal Copy" exception. The GPL makes no distinction between branches on a public organization namespace; distribution occurs at the point of the public push.
+
+### Exhibit B: Leadership Acknowledgment (cyberium)
+> "We acknowledge the GPL constraint. That said, finding you here raising this as a critical issue on a WIP branch—before any distribution occurs—feels like history repeating itself. (...) We are committed to proper credit in the final commit."
+
+* **Analysis:** This is a direct admission that the organization was well aware the state of the repository at the time violated the GPL constraint. A promise of future compliance does not excuse any prior, current or future distribution of a derivative work with stripped authorship.
+
+### Exhibit C: Formal Admission of Procedural Failure (killerwife)
+> "So, I guess its time to reply. At first I thought I would stay out of this, because clearly I am in the wrong here, and everyone in both TC and cmangos org has been made known that I indeed made a mistake in regards to this."
+
+* **Analysis:** This statement serves as a de facto admission of a compliance breach. While framed as an isolated "mistake," the metadata and historical record (see Incidents #193 and #334) demonstrate that this is a recurring procedural outcome. The fact that the maintainer acknowledges being "in the wrong" only after public forensic identification, despite years of similar documented challenges to the project's attribution workflow, identifies a systemic failure to implement corrective governance. It confirms that the "mistake" is a known quantity within the organization's leadership that persists across a ten-year cycle.
+
+### Exhibit D: Contributor Sentiment and Legal Misconceptions (deiteris)
+Following the discovery of the metadata removal, the original author provided a statement downplaying the significance of the Git ledger:
+
+> "Git commit metadata is NOT the legal record of authorship because it does not survive the carbon copy. (...) Do I care about improper attribution here? Not really since I had genuine interest in improving the code."
+
+* **Analysis of Precedent:** A contributor’s personal waiver of credit does not supersede the attribution requirements defined in the GPLv2. Licenses exist to protect the **integrity of the software's history**, not just the feelings of the current author. 
+* **The "Metadata Fallacy":** The claim that Git metadata is not a legal record is a technical error that contradicts the standard for forensic provenance in software development. In software forensics, the Git ledger is the primary evidence of intellectual property creation. By promoting the idea that this history is disposable, project leadership establishes a procedural precedent where community work is integrated without original commit history.
+* **The "Fix it Later" Trap:** The author notes he is "annoyed" that the code remains unmerged after three years. This demonstrates the operational delay between contribution and integration. Contributors may prioritize code merge over metadata preservation after years of stagnation.
+
+## Compliance Conflict
+Under **GPLv2 Section 1 and 2**, any distribution of the program or a derivative work must provide a clear record of the changes and the authors who made them. By removing the original Git authorship in the infringing commit, the project has generated a documented inaccuracy in the historical record of authorship.
+
+---
+**Disclaimer:** This report analyzes the **procedural and legal compliance** of the project organization. It does not target individuals but documents the public actions of account holders acting as project representatives in a public version control environment.