Marti Admin

Been seeing this particular here a lot lately...

Rather than having Greasemonkey (the user.js engine) create dozens if not hundreds of <style> tags with code such as yours, from this snippet:

GM_addStyle(".header-search-wrap { margin-top: 0px !important;}");
GM_addStyle(".dropdown-menu-add .page-container {height: 498px !important;}");
GM_addStyle(".dropdown-menu-add {height: 500px !important; left: -50px !important; max-height: 500px !important;}");

// The rest of your CSS rules in here too e.g. ...

it might run more efficiently in the DOM if you only use GM_addStyle minimally like this:

GM_addStyle(
  [
   ".header-search-wrap { margin-top: 0px !important;}",
   ".dropdown-menu-add .page-container {height: 498px !important;}",
   ".dropdown-menu-add {height: 500px !important; left: -50px !important; max-height: 500px !important;}"
   // The rest of your CSS rules in here too e.g. ...

  ].join("\n")
);

Just a suggestion. :)


Re: @dluciv:

Btw if you get some time you can read up on the Tivo fiasco with GPL v2 versus v3 and you can see why GPL exists. It's on the web.


Re: @dluciv:

Can userscript have multiple licenses?

Yes Mozilla has tri-licensing e.g. 3 that can operate. MIT is the least restrictive but the least protective as well. GPL is the most restrictive but the most protective... and then everything in between of course. I also dual license with GPL and CC. GPL covers Code and CC covers Content. Still keeps the Code free for reuse and adaptation. :)

The problem is that not all courts worldwide recognize every public domain. If someone were to prove that WTFPL is a Content only license then the MIT Code License can be applied with arbitration via our TOS e.g. Creative Commons (except no derivatives) is that.

Very sad that WTFPL is not OSI-approved.

It's a difficult situation for those not wanting attribution but you might try petitioning OSI to get it added.


There have been a few Userscripts.org (USO) clones popping up. The only one that I am somewhat familiar with is from USO at http://userscripts-mirror.org/.

Any others I suggest being very careful especially if they advertise logins.




Re: @BitTorrentse:

The @license looks well... but now your @copyright is not stating that it's you. :\ e.g. you aren't advertising yourself with copyright status.

You might want to consider using:

// @copyright     2014+, Bit Torrentse (http://www.absba.org)

in your scripts for that.

You'll need to make any necessary changes on GitHub too since that is the main repo file for one of your other scripts. If you sync GitHub to here it will overwrite these changes on OpenUserJS.org. I don't think that you want that to happen. :)


Re: @BitTorrentse:

I remove it

The least restrictive license is MIT.

So you could change your metadata block from:

// @license    Bit Torrentse , http://www.absba.org

to

// @license    MIT

You already have a reference to your forum site in @copyright although it may need a little improvement.


Re: @BitTorrentse:

I remove it

The least restrictive license is MIT.

So you could change your metadata block from:

// @license    Bit Torrentse , http://www.absba.org

to

// @license    MIT

You already have a reference to your forum site in @copyright although it may need a little improvement.


Please read the Terms of Service (TOS) link below on every page regarding public domain licensing.

Thanks.


Please review the Terms of Service (TOS) link at the bottom of every page regarding acceptable licensing. Pointing it to a forum does not fall withing the TOS.

Thanks.


Please review the Terms of Service (TOS) link at the bottom of every page regarding acceptable licensing. Pointing it to a forum does not fall withing the TOS.

Thanks.


Please review the Terms of Service (TOS) link at the bottom of every page regarding acceptable licensing. Pointing it to a forum does not fall withing the TOS.

Thanks.


No derivative license in here. You have less than 24 hours to comply with the Terms of Service (TOS) here regarding this before your script gets removed.


Re: @marine64:

Slightly incorrect place for this I think... might try the script itself.

Re: @BastianKanaan:

Can anyone here help me how I have to create a click event now?

Did you try just calling a synthetic click event on the node element? e.g. someNode.click();



Re: @TimidScript:

I prefer to call it re-branding.

Opening a hole for spammers and malicious scripts is not in the best interest of anyone. You can "rebrand" just fine with the existing methodology by having it create a new script for your brand (that would be you btw). Aggregated statistics can also be gamed with your suggestion... not to mention SEO manipulation.



Re: @TimidScript:

The inability to change the name of the script without creating a new repository (not sure what the correct terminology is). This is by far the most annoying "feature" on this site.

It's called making a new script because when you change the name that is exactly what you are doing by changing the name. The only annoyance is what your actions do... so don't change your script name. Think first before you publish a work. You make a "mistake" then that is your responsibility not OUJS.


Re: @pootz:

This is one of those later copies that I mentioned. Mirror target is here for this script on OUJS. Notice the bigger scriptid number in the link... which means it absolutely came later than sebaro's mirror target here. Since both are GPL embedded it is considered a fork here on this script. USO didn't have forking capabilities hence why you are seeing double.


Re: @pootz:

I had this script version from July, grabbed it from userscripts, and the author's name is different.

Appears to be a continuation of this script. Seems to be a valid continuation of that script.

This is a re-upload or are you the real author?

Based off later created user.js search results from the USO mirror I would probably say that any version you had before with a different name is probably not the original here.

The remainder you will need to wait for sebaro's reply.



Re: @Fironet:

Version value of Youtube Center in the config.xml is '2.1.4'

Do you mean edit config.xml and make YT Center an earlier version in the file?

Since you've confirmed it's an earlier version in the config.xml the redundant test isn't needed.

Try a clean temporary profile with the newest GM release. I don't think there are any real major updating related changes in the code but try with only GM. You can install this script, close Fx, edit the config.xml for this script to an earlier version and try running the update check manually in the Add-ons Manager (AOM)... if it still doesn't do it then it's something outside of Fx... which could still include .io pages... although those work for me with a manual check (version down bump in config.xml). I have checked this sources meta.js and user.js again and everything appears to be in order. shrugs


Re: @Fironet:

Hmm perhaps GH is having some growing pains too.

Getting this on a differently hosted script of mine. :\

Error 503 backend read error

backend read error
Guru Mediation:

Details: cache-ord1725-ORD 1407086319 2208773329

Varnish cache server

Re: @Fironet:

Had hoped it would update itself from Github, but nothing.

That is peculiar. What GM version are you running? Are you Add-ons (Extensions) updating? Did you try in a clean profile to make sure it's not profile corruption? Do you have the version value in your config.xml for that particular script? Once you find this in your config.xml you can shutdown Fx, edit and save that value to an earlier version number, restart Fx and do a manual check to see if the Greasemonkey Updater (GMU) via the Add-on Updater (AOU) is working for any script. Is secure updates on or off in GM? Since it's an .io page on GH it may be misconfigured... although seems to be okay here. Are you running a proxy or a piece of software that might be filtering the checks out?