Greasy Fork

Users did not post the violation scripts as scripts, but posted codes, provided download links, or posted Github project links on some pages. The reason "violating the rules for posting scripts" does not work in this situation.

For example, users can distribute unauthorized copies on the feedback page of the original script.

My script was deleted because of "Unauthorized copy"? It doesn't matter. I can post my GitHub project link on the feedback page of the original script and create multiple discussions, as long as my words do not belong to Spam. I'd better create a discussion every time I update my script.

I would consider this an external code violation if the author is trying to induce people to install from the alternate source. I would also consider a script that just provides info for an alternate download location to also be a violation.

If the author just includes a link to their GitHub in the description, I would not consider it against the rules.

This is not clear from the rules, so going to add this:

The primary functionality of a script must be within the code on Greasy Fork. A script posted on Greasy Fork that simply loads the bulk of the script from somewhere else is not allowed. Posting of alternate download URLs, with the intent of having users use the alternate sources instead of the version posted to Greasy Fork, is not allowed.

There are many situations.

• User A's script EEE was deleted due to violation of the rules. User A posts an alternative download URL for the script EEE in his user page and comments. If users don’t know that the script EEE is a deleted violation script, they don’t know that user A’s user page and comments violate the rules.
• User B said on the script's information page: "You can find another version of this script on Github. My Github user page is xxx."
• User C's script JJJ contains the code of user A's script HHH, but it does not comply with the license of the script HHH. User C never posted the script JJJ on Greasy Fork, he posted the download link of the script JJJ on the feedback page of the script HHH.
• User D provides another version of his script by posting the full code on the script’s information page or feedback page.
• User E posts the download link of user A's script OOO in a comment. The script OOO is a deleted violation script.
• User F said on the feedback page of a script: "I have user A’s script PPP, which is better than this script." User F hints that other people can get the script PPP from him. But the script PPP does not have a license or violates the rules.

My opinion: users provide scripts (or part of the code of scripts) in any way, and these scripts (or these codes) must not violate rules.