Shortened as originally too long

During my PhD, I developed a data analysis code. My PI encouraged its development, expecting it to stay within the research group. The code was used in some published papers and gained attention when doing benchmarks for a Huge Science Collaboration (HSC).

As I left academia, I handed over the code to others in the PI's group, notably to X, who placed it in a private git repository. My understanding was that, as a courtesy -- and as I was forced by PI to do with others -- I would be offered authorship on papers using the code, a courtesy I would have declined the first time and would not have expected again, since citing my papers or acknowledging me would suffice. However, despite an agreement for a public release and a science paper using the code led by X that has not been publiahed yet, I was often minimally acknowledged or not mentioned in subsequent papers using the code.

X moved to a new research group and published a paper using the code. Recently, HSC papers have cited only X's paper as the main reference for the code, downplaying my contributions, with the code still being private. After complaining, some corrections were made, but issues persist.

I feel my main scientific contribution, as well as for others who worked on the code, is not being properly credited. And I find unfair that, without a science paper on the code, only X's paper is cited. Am I overreacting? Or in the wrong? What are my possible outcomes?

During my PhD, I developed a data analysis code. My PI encouraged its development, expecting it to stay within the research group. The code was used in some published papers and gained attention when doing benchmarks for a Huge Science Collaboration (HSC).

As I left academia, I handed over the code to others in the PI's group, notably to X, who placed it in a private git repository. My understanding was that, as a courtesy -- and as I was forced by PI to do with others -- I would be offered authorship on papers using the code, a courtesy I would have declined the first time and would not have expected again, since citing my papers or acknowledging me would suffice. However, despite an agreement for a public release and a science paper using the code led by X that has not been published yet, I was often minimally acknowledged or not mentioned in subsequent papers using the code.

X moved to a new research group and published a paper using the code. Recently, HSC papers have cited only X's paper as the main reference for the code, downplaying my contributions, with the code still being private. After complaining, some corrections were made, but issues persist.

I feel my main scientific contribution, as well as for others who worked on the code, is not being properly credited. And I find unfair that, without a science paper on the code, only X's paper is cited. Am I overreacting? Or in the wrong? What are my possible outcomes?

Shortened as originally too long

During my PhD, I developed a data analysis code. My PI encouraged its development, expecting it to stay within the research group. The code was used in some published papers and gained attention when doing benchmarks for a Huge Science Collaboration (HSC).

As I left academia, I handed over the code to others in the PI's group, notably to someone referred to as X, who placed it in a private git repository. The understanding was that, as a courtesy -- and as I was forced by PI to do with others -- I would be offered authorship on papers using the code, a courtesy I would have declined the first time and would not have expected again, since citations on my papers or an acknowledgment would suffice. However, despite an agreement for a public release and a science paper using the code led by X that has not been written yet, I was often minimally acknowledged or not mentioned in subsequent papers using the code.

X moved to a new research group and published a paper using the code. Recently, HSC papers have cited only X's paper as the main reference for the code, downplaying my contributions, with the code still being private. After complaining, some corrections were made, but issues persist.

I feel my main scientific contribution is not being properly credited, as well as other people from PI's group who worked on the code. And I find unfair that, without a science paper on the code, only X's paper is cited. Am I overreacting? Or in the wrong? What are my possible outcomes?

Shortened as originally too long

During my PhD, I developed a data analysis code. My PI encouraged its development, expecting it to stay within the research group. The code was used in some published papers and gained attention when doing benchmarks for a Huge Science Collaboration (HSC).

As I left academia, I handed over the code to others in the PI's group, notably to X, who placed it in a private git repository. My understanding was that, as a courtesy -- and as I was forced by PI to do with others -- I would be offered authorship on papers using the code, a courtesy I would have declined the first time and would not have expected again, since citing my papers or acknowledging me would suffice. However, despite an agreement for a public release and a science paper using the code led by X that has not been publiahed yet, I was often minimally acknowledged or not mentioned in subsequent papers using the code.

X moved to a new research group and published a paper using the code. Recently, HSC papers have cited only X's paper as the main reference for the code, downplaying my contributions, with the code still being private. After complaining, some corrections were made, but issues persist.

I feel my main scientific contribution, as well as for others who worked on the code, is not being properly credited. And I find unfair that, without a science paper on the code, only X's paper is cited. Am I overreacting? Or in the wrong? What are my possible outcomes?