Chromium without Chrome installed.

Re: @glebm:

Unescaping and beautifying the bookmarklet this comes out to be:

(function () {
  function e(e, o, r) {
    const c = e.nodeValue.split("\t").map(e => e.split(" "));
    if (1 === c.length && 1 === c[0].length) return;
    const a = e.parentNode,
      d = t => {
        a.insertBefore(t, e)
      };
    n(c, e => 1 === e.length && "" === e[0], e => d(t(o.repeat(e))), e => n(e, e => "" === e, e => d(t(r.repeat(e))), e => d(document.createTextNode(e)))), a.removeChild(e)
  }

  function t(e) {
    const t = document.createElement("span");
    return t.textContent = e, t.style.opacity = c, t
  }

  function n(e, t, n, o) {
    const r = e.length;
    e.reduce((e, c, a) => {
      const d = t(c);
      return d && a !== r - 1 ? e + 1 : (e > 0 && n(e), d || o(c), 1)
    }, 0)
  }
  var o = "·",
    r = "â",
    c = .8;
  ! function () {
    for (const t of document.querySelectorAll("table[data-tab-size]")) {
      const n = r.padEnd(+t.dataset.tabSize),
        c = document.createTreeWalker(t, NodeFilter.SHOW_TEXT, {
          acceptNode(e) {
            let t = e.parentNode;
            for (;
              "TABLE" != t.nodeName;) {
              if (t.classList.contains("blob-code-inner")) return t.firstChild !== e || " " !== e.nodeValue ? NodeFilter.FILTER_ACCEPT : NodeFilter.FILTER_SKIP;
              t = t.parentNode
            }
            return NodeFilter.FILTER_SKIP
          }
        }),
        a = [];
      for (; c.nextNode();) a.push(c.currentNode);
      for (const t of a) e(t, n, o)
    }
  }()
})()

... looks like the identifiers have been mangled and the code compressed. Bordering on the fine line between legible and obfuscation.

Re: @sizzle:

you should use a code block with syntax highlighting

@glebm did use a code fence however I added the js to see if it would highlight and it doesn't do well with bookmarklets (inspect the HTML rendered at the pre/code tags and it will have a class of lang-js if the highlighter tried) . I'm usually validating these as much as I can and created this FAQ entry for this exact reason.

I do agree that bookmarklets shouldn't be posted especially since most of the browsers are starting to or have blocked these. Maybe the beautify option on a new script can make it look pretty for validation... haven't tried yet.

Re: @jscher2000:

... shows MIT despite ...

Better? Please give your script source code pages a quick view at your leisure. Still has one quirk that I don't know how to get rid of yet e.g. the thing that doesn't look right but I prefer a desktop where it never is in view. ;)

Re: @monk-time:

I'd like to post my fork, keeping the copyright notice and license and all. I see it's GPL v3, but I thought I should ask if you are okay with that anyway.

That's nice and very responsible to ask directly however all scripts are allowed to be forked on OUJS. See TOS terms for licensing and the permissions granted by signing up on this site. It's great to get attribution for ones work... you might consider becoming a @contributor, optionally through OUJS collaboration, if the original author is willing to do this... or just fork it. :)

One important note... if it's a derivative of this script please maintain the GPL-3.0 (SPDX) licensing and the authors @copyright metadata block keys as well. If the header is included it's best to include that as well however if it matches the @license and @copyright keys then that would be redundant for OUJS but GNU usually says keep it included... they also don't normally use metadata like Userscripts and Userlibraries. If you need a third party verification please look at GitHub's simplified explanation under Conditions on a GPL enabled repo... take my repo for example... "same license" is a condition.

Thanks for the read,
OUJS Admin

And the U.S.C with https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/912

Again please choose wisely.

Here is one example:

• https://blog.lawinfo.com/2011/03/23/impersonating-a-government-employee-a-quick-way-to-end-up-in-federal-prison/

The NASA license is a U.S.A Governmental license. If you aren't a government agency it can be a felony to impersonate one. There are also international laws that prevent impersonation.

It's left in here in case we get some more government staff in here... so pick carefully.

Thanks,
OUJS Admin

Re: @jscher2000:

the Author Tools defaults to MIT regardless.

Site default for copying to the clipboard. You can select any of the ones in the drop down list then copy that.

When I can do up bootstrap a little more on the source code page those may move over there instead. The source page is fixed height so there's not a whole lot of tweaking room to add any authoring tools... especially on desktops when viewport is shrunk. Tried it already and it just didn't look right... still pondering.

Anyhow thanks for the fix. :)

Re: @vanowm:

there is absolutely nothing tells us why the changes were not saved.

Please stop spreading disinformation on a outdated topic. If you continue I'll consider this a TOS violation.

See also:

• https://openuserjs.org/announcements/Licensing_enforcement#comment-15fdc95b262

@Dwarrel,

Next time just close the issue on the other script and then retype it again. I have moved it to here as per your indirect request and closed that issue.

I was hoping to keep this announcement on a more positive note but seeing a few stragglers come in with issues.

1. If someones licensing is present in a "fork" to here from another site (including this one)... DO NOT REMOVE IT. This is violating their Copyright and Licensing... and also a Terms of Service (TOS) violation. This is immediate grounds for account removal. If you see one of these please Flag for moderation with your proof and it will be investigated. The licensing is there for your attribution as well as continued hosted publishing rights.

2. If the license header is present and @license does not match that is a TOS violation. I understand that everyone is getting used to this "old" feature here but if a new user (or an older one especially those who are familiar with the @license key from over a decade ago) does this I'll usually make one attempt to get them to fix it in a short period of time... if it merits it. If not the script and possibly the account is eligible for removal.

Please abide by the TOS.

Re: @Marti:

the script editor just refreshes and all the changes are gone.

That gets ones attention real quick that it's definitely user error. Again always the way it has been.

And now it should not be. I've added some preliminary error code pages, which took a few days as you can all see. This is still not finished but it's a start for everyone.

The way the GH webhook works we accept a push request and if it is going to be parsed we do a response of 200. If there is a parsing error we currently have zero way to tell GH that it failed/rejected. I will mull over some thoughts, as I am already doing, for the GH import and see if there is a way of notifying GH but no promises.

Re: @Styx:

but could waste your time in tries to search a bug in wrong places.

Preaching to the choir as the aphorism goes.

Re: @blablubbb:

It would have been nice if you would have simply told me to add such a statement instead of giving no feedback

https://openuserjs.org/announcements/Licensing_enforcement and https://openuserjs.org/about/Terms-of-Service#acceptable-licensing for several years. The abuse by Authors is what forced this validation of what you all were supposed to be doing the whole time. Personally running around to everyone isn't going to happen which is why the Annoucements discussion exist. Read it next time please before you start complaining about your own inability to search.

... and not updating the script.

We prefer not to alter code... that is usually your responsibility.

your own help page ablut this license statement does not yet state that you made it compulsory.

Seems to me that License Type component is required in nice bold letters.

So perhaps you may want to reread those links and spend some quality time understanding them.

Thank you for your cooperation,
OUJS Admin

Re: @Styx:

thanks

Welcome. Solving some of the older issues keeps me from tackling the current site improvements but I'm willing so far.

supports an opinion that rejecting script edit without any error text is not helpful at all.

And I'll remind those who bring this up again of the Terms of Service at https://openuserjs.org/about/Terms-of-Service#etiquette , specifically the "Do my bidding" part and the bullet before that, as well as my third time saying this:

be patient... I'll be adding some more over time. ;)

Because these opinions are treading seriously on the TOS I'm refraining from just removing users at this time. Other Admin+ aren't usually this lenient. Although my patience can be tried especially when people don't read what's already been posted multiple times.

I don't mind answering questions here but I almost missed your issue @Styx because I'm on Development which is where issues like these should be.

Properly presented issues are not complaining about something or forming an opinion. It is using the issue tracker on Development and offering pull requests if you are that impatient.

/adminbox

Re: @Styx:

(it states that MIT should be applied by default)

This is pre @license validation and absolute requirement. MIT is the site default but now everyone must specify it. Those older scripts are still stamped MIT as per the Terms of Service.

So long story short... you were already missing Support and Homepage on your scripts homepage (they are back now)... then I added the storage check yesterday which rejected your script.

Should be good to go now.

Thanks for the report. :)

And one more test directly... your site.

Congrats... you found a bug. I've removed the usage of this dep in these areas in favor of the routine I made last night.

Might be an issue in posts though... http://fanfics.me/index.php?section=blogs&search=%23ffme ... there is your url in between these ellipsis. Will see what it does.

Hmmm it looks like the sanitizer dep we utilize doesn't like that encoding. :\ This will take a bit to figure out.

Btw we upmix @homepage to @homepageURL... so that is redundant.

Re: @Styx:

What should I do?

These are the culprit:

// @homepage     http://fanfics.me/index.php?section=blogs&search=%23ffme
// @homepageURL  http://fanfics.me/index.php?section=blogs&search=%23ffme
// @supportURL   http://fanfics.me/index.php?section=blogs&search=%23ffme

I'll see if I can get those validations to work with this edge case in a bit.

Re: @vanowm:

On top of that openuserjs also removes @updateURL

I think you are mixing up your sites. That's the other sites requirement not ours.

Re: @vanowm:

@updateURL is actually not removed from installed script, only in source view at website(?)

Is this a question or not? No one but you has removed anything related to that if so.

Re: @vanowm:

It's great for all the other authors save for a few.

Perhaps broadening your authoring skills would be a good thing instead of constant perceived complaining. :)