Redistributing modifications or otherwise modifying, improving and sharing software isn’t stealing…

Their “exception” basically defeats the point of the free license it uses (Apache2.0). It’s more source-available than libre or open source, thinly veiled by the Apache license at the top of the project. I find it interesting that they chose a free license to base it on in the first place if they then go on to invalidate a good chunk of it’s user protections.

If they really don’t want people to pass off other work as theirs, they could have just used the 4-clause BSD license, with it’s advertising clause, or Apache 1.0, also with an advertising clause (not great for libre licenses, but would fit and wouldn’t be quite so bad as what they’ve done).