Marti Admin

If s/he comes forward and asks me to take this down, I will of course do so

That would be indeed the situation if needed.

Since I am not the original author, I can't specify a license;

Not exactly true... the default arbitration is off your fork of it... however...

if I could, I would license it under the Creative Commons CC0 license.

Please read http://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero and https://openuserjs.org/about/Terms-of-Service#acceptable-licensing. If you did/do decide to license your fork with this particular license your script and your account may be eligible for removal.

In summary... we appreciate the explanation... however trying to prove that it came from a specific author may be nearly impossible without some further validated information. You probably should put a link to the USO mirror page from where this came from for additional attribution.


https://openuserjs.org/about/Terms-of-Service#obfuscation

If you obfuscate your code again you will be removed again. This includes usage of your publishing base64 encoded scripts.

Please abide by these terms and you can stay. This is your only notice which isn't necessary... if you break the terms again there will be no further communication and you may end up being blocked at various levels.

OUJS Admin



Re: @ts:

Many comments need to be preserved in my code ... But UglifyJs removed them...

It shouldn't be removing comments... our current code for that is here. I kept comments for a variety of reasons including but not limited to Restructuring with a function expression.

Your issue on their repo predates mine here... thus is probably invalidated and dated.

You should subscribe to our issue at #432 and report any anomalies with our code there instead of OUJS here. I routinely update the first post in case there are items that need to be addressed... I added your concern yesterday in the list but it won't be "disabled" per say... just denoted... I'm still pondering this over there.

because I do not want keep my source code secretly.

If any code trends towards obfuscation, this includes identifier mangling, that code and account will be tagged and possibly removed from OUJS... just a fore-warning that's in our TOS. @sizzle and I just connected about this yesterday which is why the minification routine shouldn't be mangling identifiers anymore.

Specific to licensing from your cited issue ... long term I can tell you if the @copyright and @license keys are missing from the UserScript metadata block (and the OpenUserJS metadata block for libraries) it will most likely be blocked... currently it's a "grey" area and another issue to be resolved.

For OUJS here... the option is experimental as it is denoted at this time and since I am the assignee I will consider all valid GitHub presented issues with it. Your claim on Function Expressions is invalid so far.

Anyhow... please continue this on GH as it's difficult to get this info disseminated to all the devs here on OUJS and is actively in flux.


Re: @victorc:

but it didnt work...

That's because you didn't do it with GM_addStyle as I linked above... you'll need to @grant that API function too in the UserScript metadata block in order to use it. A more advanced technique is getting the head tag and inserting a style tag in yourself in which case you wouldn't need the @grant which sandboxes your scripts usually.


Re: @victorc:

If you are trying to maximize the width on that post the selector could be #fileinfo... but that may not cover all posts... so putting the CSS rules altogether:

#fileinfo { width: 8000px !important; height: 8000px !important; }

This assumes that you need the !important flag too... I just did it in Firebug directly and it doesn't appear to need it... so you could omit those.


Re: @victorc:

GM_addStyle is usually for beginners and a shortcut to adding it by hand to the head tag... so once you determine what node in the DOM (the web page source) you can do something like body { color: white !important; background-color: black !important; } ... or in your case the rules would be { width: 8000px !important; } and { height: 8000px !important; }.

Since I am not sure where you want this in the DOM exactly you'll have to find the selector.


Re: @ts:

Just manually inspected your most installed script; Did a quick test of it on Weibo, and the output seems identical between native/raw and minified... So what is your issue? Anything in the error logs... if so include a url. I'll help you get started if you wish.


Why not inject some CSS into it the pages with !important tagged onto the rules you need?

See GM_addStyle or if you choose to inject it into the page a style tag.


Minification is user initiated... you may choose to mention that something won't work... however it would be better to say why, which ones, and how much rather than just saying it doesn't on "some". As Doctors sometimes say when a patient says "It hurts when I do this."... "Then don't do it.". ES6 support should be sometime in the next few days... so what you are claiming by your general statement is that ES5 isn't minifying correctly... perhaps you could contribute to the community as a whole and figure out why... and of course let us know too. :)

I've tested a subset of the scripts here and they appear to be doing well including my own active ones... I will attempt to make some minor modifications to the defaults when and if necessary but UglifyJS2 is responsible for the forked minification on user initiated installation.


Re: @mihaimorcov:

It is "very cool" and keeps the "copyright cults" at bay, as I just read on another site, from being snarky about it.

I've already examined your account and unless you notify moderation with flagging I don't see any issue with your scripts being improperly forked... but doesn't mean the name hasn't changed... hence why you should report it if it's missing the fork history.

There's only one solution in this case

I've given you several options... what you plan to do is your choice. If you are planning on gaining a bad attitude about it then there may be only one solution for you. The TOS is available before anyone logs in and accepts it by doing that.

thank you.

You are welcome.


Re: @mihaimorcov:

but what fork does ?

Visit someone elses Source Code tab and you will see it

It updates the code on my initial script page ?

That is a different feature with the OpenUserJS metadata block.. visit https://openuserjs.org/user/add/scripts#collaboration

in the case where someone would copy paste the code from my page, and would post a new script from their account, but with my base code. Am I able to report that page...

Yes... but...

... to be removed ?

No. All scripts may be forked period. You may report it and it will be evaluated and fixed with the fork history if applicable. Most of the ask.fm scripts here on this site for example all stem from one script but they can be forked all they want to be. This is no different than GitHub's forking capabilities.

OUJS encourages teamwork with optional and preferred collaboration but for example if you disappear for an extended amount of time FOSS licensing will allow derivatives and even if you don't disappear someone may want something different that you don't like... thus forking is always allowed.

We do encourage everyone to create a script issue first and if there isn't a response then fork it! :)


Re: @mihaimorcov:

Short question, if someone copies my script from this site, and lets say he only does very few changes, as putting his own name, but abusively using my work, can I report him and have his copy removed ?

If that user didn't fork it with the "Submit Code as Fork" I will fix the fork status to give you upstream status providing you were first in the queue. All scripts may be forked with the sites forking capabilities. Even one of my active ones was forked properly with zero changes and that's currently okay... We may end up preventing that code wise at a later date but if it's a one character change and it has the fork history in it properly it's fine.

Someone may not remove anothers @copyright but may add their own as well.

but abusively using my work

How is it being abused other than annoyance?


Greasemonkey Port 3.6.0.1rc2pre.xpi (SeaMonkey only) is available now at the SF file repo.

This addresses the drag-and-drop even install skipping which is backed-out from GM upstream work-around that was also starting to show with direct installs here on OUJS. Thanks to janekptacijarabaci for contributing.


Re: @Funscript:

I followed the link...

Apparently you didn't read far enough. :)

To summarize... You can't delete your account here.

  1. I can ban you permanently and forever with a valid reason however the current administration policy is to leave the account on our system intact without that reason.

  2. However... if you are still concerned you may access https://myaccount.google.com/intro/security#connectedapps with your current OAuth and remove the OpenUserJS authentication. This has a similar effect of me banning you however if you ever, for any reason, decide to come back you may need Admin or better intervention and we will need additional verification that we currently don't have. Me banning is currently permanent on this site and may reflect negatively on your Google account at some point... You removing the OAuth key is not necessarily a permanent situation on this site and has no negative connotation with your Google account.

  3. Learn not to leave your OAuth (Google in this case) signed in constantly to avoid mishaps that you are solely responsible for.

Think carefully before you decide and I hope some of this helps.

OUJS Admin



/* THIS SCRIPT IS PROTECTED - IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE CODE OR PARTS OF CODE CONTACT THE AUTHOR OF THIS
SCRIPT. ANY OTHER CHANGE IN SCRIPT IS NOT LEGAL */

This isn't allowed... all scripts may be forked with modifications, etc. Please reread the Terms of Service link at the bottom of the page.

Thanks,
OUJS Admin


Please elaborate why you would to do this. "Renews" is one of the vague parts.



Re: @BanHammer:

how open issue? admins!

Only the owner of a script can reopen an issue... I assume that you closed this so I've reopened it but this is a one time thing... so only test on your own scripts please.


@ShiroTora,
Your discussion was moved here since this is where questions on a particular script should be. In the future please open up an issue on the script itself.

TIA,
OUJS Admin




Re: @parola:

This is an official answer to my question...

Must have missed that question here on OUJS. ;)

It would mean a world to me to get this portfolio with a single click.

That would be highly unlikely if they don't offer a download of your portfolio.

However on one image that I pulled up the thumbnail is:

... and it's corresponding high-res image seems to be:

So if you querySelectorAll the img tags you could change those nodes src attributes to the high-res image with a replace in the path you might be able to reduce your clicks with a right click save them to a folder on your new storage medium.

Kind of an annoying site always asking me to sign up too. Anyhow that appears to be the methodology for anyone willing to write and publish the script for you... however I would suggest learning at least a little bit about Userscripts at the same time so you can begin to become self sufficient and proficient with Userscripts. :)