1. This is the second time that I've had to remove a library that's had the Code in it... and that user ignored the issue and reposted under a different library name... this month. The time period for everyone gets shorter as my patience can run thin. As I have stated before I usually have more patience than other Admin+... but I'm just about done trying to explain this.
2. Keep all *GPL code licensing the same unless it's 100% yours then you are the one violating your own licensing if you remove it and you will lose all protections that GNU grants you. Remember this: "Once GNU always GNU". I booted off a user a few years back because he wanted to argue with me even after I pointed it out in the full licensing text agreement.
3. *GPL is meant to keep free software free... the only exception is LGPL... that has a specific requirement of keeping copyrights added to the script e.g. who wrote it. Then you may sell it but not without attribution; that code must usually be a module; and freely distributed in its source code form. Most of the code is purely GPL but currently on the GM Port wiki it's L/GPL indicating double licensing e.g. pick one of those two. I personally chose this to encourage wider adoption but definitely not absorption. Count Issues predates the wiki so it technically has precedence. Also on OUJS which we have used it as GPL since it was ported from uso - Count Issues and I was given credit by @sizzle himself; I removed the comment because I joined the OUJS team and my nick is all over the place showing attribution throughout the source commits which is enough for me since we at OUJS are GPL. He knows this; I know this. The rest of the team knows this. Contributors know this.
4. Someone back in the day on USO said that they didn't like *GPL because it's "sticky". e.g. they wanted to usurp the FOSS standards and just be a general inept person (and that's using nice words). I keep software free for a reason... so does OUJS... and I say this as a co-owner of the site.
5. You may add the code back into this library provided you keep it *GPL and give attribution. That would probably be Johan of GM, and myself for sure in which I filled it way out, fixed a few items, and licensed it from his brief snippet to full Code module which is posted in great detail on the GM Port wiki (split between different types of usage over the last decade or so). It's very unique, and tracked, in all of its forms including Count Issues which is where I used it mainly along with installWith and usoCheckup.

I understand that you may be "at work" but that's not an excuse in my book for ignoring licensing and copyright. Give people attribution and preferably maintain their licensing. *GPL forces, in a good way, authors to maintain licensing and copyright whereas MIT can be taken over very easily by almost any other license, sold without your knowledge, and hidden from your sight (This is where ineptness comes into play by not understand this licensing). If you want history on this look into the TiVo fiasco of GPL-2.0... which is why GPL-3.0 and GPL-3.0-or-later exists. Give attribution with same licensing and you avoid these sorts of issues. Don't give attribution, change the license, then pay the consequences. Add yourself to the copyright list if it merits it with a change. If it doesn't list someone, add them, usually with a @copyright UserScript metadata block item, before you publish yours. It's that simple.

Hopefully this is the last time I get to explain this as it's getting cumbersome saying the same thing over and over. I'm not trying to be a jerk but maintain copyrights and maintain licensing when required. Fork to your hearts content as the TOS states but don't upset people by trying to rid them of their attribution for their hard work to the community. Keep their protections in place is a good rule of thumb. :) GitHub itself works this way which is why LICENSE exists; So does npm with their package.json; This is a primary motivating factor for using SPDX and OSI.

OUJS Admin

Please close this when you have read it and hopefully understand it.
I will probably be following this up on GH as well soon.

I will gladly change it to match the GPL licensing that you used on the original code. I couldn't find the original code that you wrote, nor the licensing, so I just defaulted to the OUJS standard of MIT.

I'll also gladly give you credit for it, as it's a beautifully elegant way to read and manipulate script metadata.

Re: @ProxyFiend:

I couldn't find the original code that you wrote, nor the licensing

• Count Issues first reference and incarnation with commit. Also latest starts here which you can find via my user profile here on OUJS. I advertise everywhere where I'm Userscripting.
• usoCheckup history here and earliest reference starting here.
• installWith repo is here and again on OUJS under my scripts.
• OUJS usage was here (again when I joined the team at OUJS I removed a bunch of this as time passed and we migrated to a more verbose methodology which is still in that particular, more current, file)
• GM Classic Wiki KYOM

…

• primary usoC LICENSE (View the page and look for License under the nav bar)
• primary CI LICENSE
• primary iW LICENSE

match the GPL licensing

GPL would be ideal. LGPL has some weird legal quirks, but as I stated before it's double licensed on GM (Port optional) wiki (It's now called the GM classic wiki over on SF) so if that's what you chose to sell some software please use that. If you don't plan on selling it use GPL instead. 2010+ seems to be my oldest for the copyright year range and I still use it locally with some mods for userscripts-mirror.org which its link is also in my OUJS profile. If you make a change then add another @copyright yearYouDidIt-OptionalSupportedUntilCurrentYear, nickNameOrRealName, (homepageOfScriptUsually) just like we mention here and on the Write Script Online page.

Additional notes for Copyright and misc:
Part of the reason I added @copyright to the Write Script Online page is to assist Authors and save a few keystrokes. We don't currently make it mandatory as Copyright is implied via the CA1976 (Copyright Act of 1976). However since you will probably need the dates it's good to have the 2010+ for mine. Add your @copyright blurb after mine so that makes the rest of your code yours. Usually you want to mention if parseMeta has changed/renamed/ported in a very short comment. installWith is PHP with JavaScript so it may look a little different. parseHeaders also has been ported into other languages too and other projects.

I'll also gladly give you credit for it, as it's a beautifully elegant way to read and manipulate script metadata.

I appreciate that compliment. Thank you from our teams and other forkers. :)