Infinite auto ask for chatgpt
< Feedback on ⚠️chatgpt-infinite (Archive)
I have to mention, since Greasy Fork say, Disagreeing with the content or believing it to be untrue is not a valid reason for reporting.
There are two truths:
I am also a contributor to that repo
all function I use is through my pr added to that repo
they are getRegenerateButton, getSubmitButton/getSendButton, send, getLastResponse etc
That's it. Unless the above info is not accurate,
I will not make any comments on this absurd matter.
mefengl's contributions to my project are the very small basic functions that any JS beginner can write, that use the `querySelector` method. (Even then he would submit them with unnecesssary bloat, so I still had to fix them, for example 'getChatInput() { return document.querySelector("form textarea").value;' is my fix of his very poor attempt to create this function.
My advanced functions, on the other hand, are hard for him to write, so he steals it and includes it in this script. They include:
- clearChats() (stolen in lines 43-58 of his code)
- notify() (stolen in lines 131-159 of his code)
If you navigate the commit history of https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/commits/main , you will see that mefengl is a bold-faced liar that contributed nothing to these functions, and that I had to fix his poorly written functions I didn't even want to accept into the project (so he is both including my advanced functions, and rewrites of his functions, without proper attribution as my MIT license dictates: https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/blob/main/LICENSE.md)
In other words, he submitted very trivial work he admitted he used ChatGPT to write, so he could hog co-authorship of my powerful library, and now he has illegally used my portions of the code but removed my name.
I have to mention, since Greasy Fork say, Disagreeing with the content or believing it to be untrue is not a valid reason for reporting.
There are two truths:
I am also a contributor to that repo
all function I use is through my pr added to that repothey are getRegenerateButton, getSubmitButton/getSendButton, send, getLastResponse etc
That's it. Unless the above info is not accurate,
I will not make any comments on this absurd matter.
Oh, when it comes to the second point:
I do have one more thing to add:
I don't use the "advanced" functions (ha)
you can see this more clearly at https://greasyfork.org/zh-CN/scripts/462407-chatgpt-infinite
Instead of that, let me mention the two truths again:
I am also a contributor to that repo
all function I use is through my pr added to that repo
I don't use the "advanced" functions (ha)
you can see this more clearly at https://greasyfork.org/zh-CN/scripts/462407-chatgpt-infinite
Yet another lie, as my advanced functions are clearly in his source code for anyone to view.
I am also a contributor to that repo
As mentioned already, you contributed very little, and this does not legally allow you to remove attribution under the terms of the MIT license when I allowed you to contribute your trivial code. In other words, you are breaking the law.
all function I use is through my pr added to that repo
No, my functions you admit are "advanced" are in your source code.
For anyone reading who can't believe why someone would do this (and strangely continue to deny when source code shows clear evidence) please read https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/issues/34#issuecomment-1480478046 in which mfengl admits he "builds" without coding:
I only have a little time to do what I want to do. For me, usable code is enough. I like building, not coding.
This is why he steals code, as long as it works it's fine to him, he doesn't care about license or breaking the law (he is builder not coder)
@mfengl if you do not remove my code or attribute me as copyright holder in either the source or readme, you leave me no choice but to take legal action. I have given you more than 24 hours already to take care of this (I knew you wouldn't you are just that unbelievable of a human)
I will contact the administrator of this site (whom I've contributed to with bugs) and also send a legal DCMA takedown request. You are testing my patience.
Instead of that, let me mention the two truths again:
I am also a contributor to that repo.
All function I use is through my pr added to that repo
mefengl do you understand what the MIT license is? You are not allowed to re-use the code without following the rules of the license. You must post the notice including who the copyright holders are, and the same permission to others to re-use the code. You ahve not done this mefengl, so you have two options:
1. Remove the code
2. Include the license with copyright holders + permission for others to re-use
If you do not do one of these two things, you are in violation of the law. It does not matter if I let you contribute, it was under the terms of the MIT license. This is your final warning.
Do you notice I follow the rules of this license, even when I am using none of your code? (This is not even the case here, you copied my code, too, not just what you claim to be your own). I follow the rules because that's how the license work. You are ignoring the license, so you are breaking the law. As long as you use *any* portion of the code, it doesn't matter who you think contributed, it is governed by the MIT license, and if you do not follow the rules, you are breaking the law
Sorry, looks like I have to mention the two truths again:
I am also a contributor to that repo.
All function I use is through my pr added to that repo
I will be doing this to all your other GitHub repos that borrows chatgpt.js code without proper attribution BTW when I have time (I'm busy working on BraveGPT launch currently)
> Sorry, looks like I have to mention the two truths again:
> I am also a contributor to that repo
It does not matter if you are contributor, that does not mean you don't have to follow the license. When I allowed you to contribute, you were agreeing to the terms of the MIT license, which is, if you re-use the code, you *must include notice of original copyright + permission to others*
> All function I use is through my pr added to that repo
This is not true, in your source code are the advanced functions including chatgpt.notify() and chatgpt.clearChats() which GitHub commit history @ https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js clearly shows evidence you were not responsible for, so you cannot continue to falsely claim it is "your" function.
But did you know, even if you think it is "yours" (it's not you didn't write a single line of code in them) you still must obey the MIT license?
Since this feels like we're going in circles, can you confirm you intend to ignore the MIT license under which all code in chatgpt.js is governed by? (I would like to stop replying to you so I can work on my legal takedown notices and contact the admin)
It doesn't matter if you contributed (very barely) it was to MIT code. This means you *must* include the copyright holders (Adam Lui (刘展鹏), 冯不游 & chatgpt.js) AND include the MIT permission (which you did already, but not the holders yet). This is how MIT works. Any code from MIT software MUST follow this rule, or you are breaking the law. chatgpt.js code (including yours) is MIT property
Do you finally understand how your contributions to MIT licensed project works?
And I don't care if you include my advanced functions or your basic ones, in both cases, if you do not include copyright holders, you are stealing from chatgpt.js codebase without attribution
Then if someone copies this code, their new MIT license would read copyright Adam Lui (刘展鹏), 冯不游, chatgpt.js & [their name], then include MIT permission clause. Do you understand MIT now?
You cannot put (c) just you because that is in violation of the MIT-governed codebase you contributed those functions to (even if you didn't include my advanced functions, which you did btw)
Not only is it illegal but very selfish for someone to do (and goes against the spirit of MIT)
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." This is the sole restriction of the MIT license which governs the chatgpt.js codebase you contributed to. You have only complied with half of it (including permission notice) while ignoring the other half ('above copyright notice' = copyright year + copyright holders). So, you are violating the law.
Can you confirm you have no intention to comply with the law so I can stop wasting my time going in circles with you? I have many things to do you are delaying my duties
When a developer contributes code to an open source project, they usually agree to let the project use that code within the scope of its license. However, this does not mean that the developer gives up copyright on that code.
While it is necessary for MIT to declare the original LICENSE in places such as source code or README, it is not strictly required to declare it in build artifacts.
According to the first point, my new script is legal.
When it comes to the second point:
I have already added the LICENSE in the source code and README after you informed me yesterday.
However, since you have reported this script and used the building code as evidence, I think you need me to add a LICENSE declaration in the building code as well (although I don't think you would require others who use this package to do so).
I will do that.
At the same time, I don't accept your report.
If Greasy Fork accepts your report, then according to Greasy Fork's deletion rules, this script will be totally deleted after 7 days.
If Greasy Fork refuses your report, I will delete this archive script by myself.
At that time, according to Greasy Fork's deletion rules, this script will also be deleted after 7 days.
I hope I made myself clear.
According to the first point, my new script is legal.
No, according to the fact you think you are a contributor does not make it legal to avoid the very lenient restrictions of MIT, which is:
That is simply how open source works. If you contribute to closed source, you cannot re-use. If you contribute to open source, you can reuse, but you must abide by these 2 simple conditions.
I have already added the LICENSE in the source code and README after you informed me yesterday.
No, this is as lie. There is no mention of 'Adam Lui' anywhere in this script's source code or description. You clearly removed it proven by the "History" tab. Also making it "archived" does not correct your immoral action, it's still a publicly visible code source that illegally misleads potential derivative coders, causing further mis-attribution in future derivatives, which defeats the purpose of open source license you agreed to abide by when contributing your trivial code.
However, since you have reported this script and used the building code as evidence, I think you need me to add a LICENSE declaration in the building code as well (although I don't think you would require others who use this package to do so).
I would enforce the MIT license equally upon everyone, to include you and me as copyright holders. Why would they get preferential treatment? law is law (also GF does not have a license tab so that is the only way to re-use MIT on here, there is no debate)
At the same time, I don't accept your report.
The report is not for you to accept. You are the subject being reported for illegal conduct. The report is sent to representatives of Greasyfork to take action upon review
If Greasy Fork accepts your report, then according to Greasy Fork's deletion rules, this script will be totally deleted after 7 days.
I know what Greasy Fork's rules are, you don't. Specifically, this is their code of conduct you are violating:
"Your script must respect others' copyrights. This includes the code itself and any resources (for example images) it uses. If you intend on using someone else's content, abide by their licensing terms or get their permission before doing so. Licenses on scripts are specified by the @license meta key, and you can learn about what you can and cannot do by using tldrlegal.com."
If Greasy Fork refuses your report, I will delete this archive script by myself.
Why are you telling me this? You want to know the outcome first, to see if you can get away with doing this immoral action in the future? If you truly intend to delete either way, what are you waiting for?
I even include you as copyright holder in all my own scripts that use chatgpt.js. Why makes you think you're so special? As the library grows, your contribution will even shrink to eventually <1% (it's already close to that since almost the beginning), and I STILL will include you.. Why? Because I obey the law, but you do not. Why are you not grateful for this undeserved exposure? Why do you fight me/law instead? What is wrong with you?
You always speak like a judge, but you are not.
I don't know what judgment Greasy Fork will make, but I won't follow yours.
I even changed my mind. You are right. If I'm not wrong, why should I delete this script?
But why are you doing this? Even if for some crazy reason the law and GF rules do not apply to you, why do you want to erase me? I don't understand what's happening
Also why do you erase from one script but not the other, it doesn't make any sense
I include you in all my scripts that use chatgpt.js, because that's the law. Even if you don't think that is the law, why are you not doing the same? More specifically, why did you start off doing the same, but stopped obeying the law? Did you get jealous or something? I truly do not understand what is happening
Don't say these things to me now.
You know how many hurtful words you've said, and they're also on the internet.
I've already explained the reasons in the initial issue, and even my first sentence was a "?" and followed with "Don't worry, I don't mean to remove them, it should be there a few days ago, and it will be there later."
To me, it's like waking up from a dream and finding out that my contributed repo has kicked me out.
I think this would be good for both of us. If it happened a month later, it would be even worse.
> You know how many hurtful words you've said, and they're also on the internet.
What, that you are a thief for removing the MIT attribution? That's factually what you did though, I'm asking why did you do this suddenly
> I've already explained the reasons in the initial issue, and even my first sentence was a "?" and followed with "Don't worry, I don't mean to remove them, it should be there a few days ago, and it will be there later."
You revealed you do not take it seriously because you don't care so it's not urgent. I'm asking why you don't care and are so lazy about it
> To me, it's like waking up from a dream and finding out that my contributed repo has kicked me out.
I did kick you out, you stole the code without attribution!!!!!! I ask 3 times now, why did you do this? What is wrong with you?
> I think this would be good for both of us. If it happened a month later, it would be even worse.
If you steal it a month later, why is it worse? (Theft is theft the time doesn't matter)
You always speak like a judge, but you are not.
I don't know what judgment Greasy Fork will make, but I won't follow yours.
I even changed my mind. You are right. If I'm not wrong, why should I delete this script?
You're not answering the question. Why did you suddenly decide to steal from the repo by removing MIT attribution, before anything "hurtful" was said? (It's what you did, if it hurts simply don't do that then no one will expose you)
You cannot explain it in public because you know the motive makes you look bad/selfish. Why would you ignore this question 5 times?
You always speak like a judge, but you are not.
I don't know what judgment Greasy Fork will make, but I won't follow yours.
I even changed my mind. You are right. If I'm not wrong, why should I delete this script?
I've already explained the reasons in the initial issue, and even my first sentence was a "?" and followed with "Don't worry, I don't mean to remove them, it should be there a few days ago, and it will be there later."
You revealed you do not take it seriously because you don't care so it's not urgent. I'm asking why you don't care and are so lazy about it
Is this what you called ignore, after you reply to my explanations once and once again?
If you don't get information from that issue you informed me about, why was I deprived of the right to continue speaking on that issue?
What law requires me to respond repeatedly to questions that I have already answered?
You always speak like a judge, but you are not.
I don't know what judgment Greasy Fork will make, but I won't follow yours.
I even changed my mind. You are right. If I'm not wrong, why should I delete this script?
Stop talking about judges. Simply answer this question. Why did you remove MIT attribution unprovoked?
I've already explained the reasons in the initial issue, and even my first sentence was a "?" and followed with "Don't worry, I don't mean to remove them, it should be there a few days ago, and it will be there later."
You revealed you do not take it seriously because you don't care so it's not urgent. I'm asking why you don't care and are so lazy about it
Is this what you called ignore, after you reply to my explanations once and once again?
You always speak like a judge, but you are not.
I don't know what judgment Greasy Fork will make, but I won't follow yours.
I even changed my mind. You are right. If I'm not wrong, why should I delete this script?
"Don't worry, I don't mean to remove them, it should be there a few days ago, and it will be there later" is not an explanation of the motive behind your evil action. It simply explains you will not resolve it urgently. The actual question you are ignoring, why did you take the evil action in the first place?
"Don't mean to remove" is not a reason. Why did you remove it? (Do not pretend some sync forced it, I examined both GitHub and GF histories, the removal was done by hand)
I think you got banned (I'm getting email notifications of your replies but they are not appearing here)
(Visit this page in incognito if you don't believe me)
I explained, I added back, do you listen, did you care?
I think people should know the difference between creating and rewriting them if they have written papers. Those who rewrite the code call those who created it thieves (the reason is like "my paper is better, the paper I rewrite is ugly, I use advanced sentence that the paper I rewrite don't have").
Will the author of that paper delete the sentences he rewrote from someone else? Maybe not, because there is a LICENSE that gives him the right to continue using it, even if he uses code written by someone he calls a thief.
What am I talking about, is this really happened?
It appears your previous replies were hidden for spam probably
> I explained, I added back, do you listen, did you care?
It is not added back. You continue to lie, even though the code clearly lacks 'Adam Lui.' This is not GitHub people copy from here too (without going there)
> I think people should know the difference between creating and rewriting them if they have written papers. Those who rewrite the code call those who created it thieves (the reason is like "my paper is better, the paper I rewrite is ugly, I use advanced sentence that the paper I rewrite don't have").
You did not rewrite the hundreds of lines of my original code in your script. I wrote it, not you. Even if you wrote a few lines, you are still in violation of the MIT license which requires attribution for using **any portion** of the code. I am not asking if you think you are wrong or right. I am simply asking, why did you remove attribution? Can you answer this please?
> Will the author of that paper delete the sentences he rewrote from someone else? Maybe not, because there is a LICENSE that gives him the right to continue using it, even if he uses code written by someone he calls a thief.
The LICENSE gives you the right under TWO CONDITIONS:
1. Copyright notice is included
2. Permission notice is included
You have not done this anywhere on this page, so you have broken the law. Why did you do this is the question? (Not why you are a law-breaker, why did you remove the attribution here)
I have also reported the repo you redirect users from here to GitHub, in addition to 3 other ones for violating the MIT license by removing copyright attribution required to have the right to copy the hundreds of lines of code from the MIT-licensed chatgpt.js (just so you are not surprised)
I just don't know why you would do this is the question you won't answer (we all know why, you are trying to steal traffic away and create your own ChatGPT hub). Unless you can give an answer instead of ignoring the question like 8 times now, it looks no other way...
I said it's because I use ChatGPT to rewrite it into class (you can find it in the issue you informed me about)
These are the pictures (two times in chatgpt4, what I used, one image in chatgpt3.5).
This is my explanation, which I already said in that issue
.jpg?locale=da)
.jpg?locale=da)
I explained, I added back, do you listen, did you care?
If you do, tell me, why you haven't tried the reason I give you.
Why have you deprived me of the right to continue speaking at that issue?
Keeping saying I ignore,
What law requires me to respond repeatedly to questions that I have already answered?
> I said it's because I use ChatGPT to rewrite it into class (you can find it in the issue you informed me about)
No, that does nothing to explain this script's sudden removal of attribution, so you are changing the subject. Why did you suddenly remove attribution from this script? (We'll talk about the others if you can get past this simple one)
> These are the pictures (two times in chatgpt4, what I used, one image in chatgpt3.5).
I don't know what you are showing me pictures for. Why did you suddenly remove attribution from this script? (We'll talk about the others if you can get past this simple one)
> If you do, tell me, why you haven't tried the reason I give you.
What is the reason you suddenly remove attribution from this script?
> What law requires me to respond repeatedly to questions that I have already answered?
You are not legally obligated to answer my questions. You can continue to ignore me actually (but it makes you look more guilty)
"Didn't mean to" is not a reason. Why did you suddenly remove legally required attribution from this script?
"Hurt" is not a reason, either (you removed before I confronted you about the theft, don't lie about timeline)
See:
How did I hurt you before confronting you for removing attribution from this script? (I agree it hurts to be exposed for stealing, but a future emotion cannot be the reason for a past action unless you can time travel)
You can see that ChatGPT doesn't return me back the license code.
I copied it, I paste it, replaced with it, I fix eslint errors of that code, I committed it, I work, I sleep, I get informed I missing LICENSE, I added it in source code, I get reported for building code that comes from esbuild/tsup (this script), I added LICENSE into this script
2 days ago in my local time: https://github.com/mefengl/chatgpt-playground/commit/e97f46a209837fde496399ec9e6e83268d4e94c6
yesterday(almost 2 days ago) in my local time: https://github.com/mefengl/chatgpt-tampermonkey-starter/commit/57aa627aaa13e69e37a531dc55fe412859e9020e
a few hours ago after I get the report find you use this building code as evidence in this script(find it in history)
is that enough?
You are not legally obligated to answer my questions
Glad you said that
You always speak like a judge, but you are not.
I don't know what judgment Greasy Fork will make, but I won't follow yours.
I even changed my mind. You are right. If I'm not wrong, why should I delete this script?
Let's wait for the result of your report (maybe already have a result, since it's not even a bad review).
You are changing the subject, linking to scripts that are not the topic of discussion. Why did you hand-remove from *this* script, something I confronted you about, something you previously included attribution in the copy/paste (not import) but chose to hand-remove, after I have never hurt you before this selfish illegal action?
I keep saying the judge's sentence is because you are not.
I will keep saying this because this world work in a way it should, the MIT License work in a way it should, the OpenSource community work in a way it should, the Greasy Fork work in a way it should
Do you know what's the right way to inform a normal user (or contributor) when he misses it, especially the MIT license?
You deprive people of the right to speak because you don't like it, and then you blame them for ignoring your problems.
The code you write is great, but the code you merged is not (who merged it? who give some of them a thumb up?)
Do you want me to continue? or you will reply my reply one line by line (like a judge), and ask question I already responded?
Now it's my turn to ask you the questions
You are not legally obligated to answer my questions. You can continue to ignore me actually (but it makes you look more guilty)
It's so funny to see you deprived of my right to continue speaking on that issue and still seems like have so many things you don't understand
I missed the LICENSE, I added it back
What about you?
I thought that if you really believed I was wrong, you would quietly wait for the results of your report and then laugh at me to your heart's content. Instead of continuing to argue with the contributor you called a thief. Like in that story, if you truly believe the defendant is a murderer, why are you still looking at the courthouse door?
> I keep saying the judge's sentence is because you are not.
But why do I have to be a judge to ask you an honest question about your very strange behavior? What are you hiding?
> I will keep saying this because this world work in a way it should, the MIT License work in a way it should, the OpenSource community work in a way it should, the Greasy Fork work in a way it should
But regardless of how the law works, why did you hand-remove previously included MIT attribution from this script?
> Do you know what's the right way to inform a normal user (or contributor) when he misses it, especially the MIT license?
I did inform you the right way, I let you know nicely. Then you let me know you don't care enough to fix it urgently right away (let alone explain why you did such a shocking thing, something I asked from the very beginning, something you ignore to this day) so I pursued legal recourse like any normal man that is not a pushover would do.
> You deprive people of the right to speak because you don't like it, and then you blame them for ignoring your problems.
How do I deprive you of the right to speak?
> The code you write is great, but the code you merged is not (who merged it? who give some of them a thumb up?)
I merge your code without thumbs up to make you feel good, then this grand betrayal occurs
> Do you want me to continue? or you will reply my reply one line by line (like a judge), and ask question I already responded?
You are free to speak as you please I am not your owner lol, but it would be helpful if you answer why you hand-removed MIT attribution from this script
> It's so funny to see you deprived of my right to continue speaking on that issue and still seems like have so many things you don't understand
I have no power to deprive anyone of rights I am not the police. I just ask an honest question you refuse to give a valid reason for (you don't have to answer, you can even block me, just makes you look more evil though)
> I missed the LICENSE, I added it back
What does 'missed the LICENSE' mean? The history on this page showed you removed it from the script src (not LICENSE.md). The question is... why?
> What about you?
What about me?
> I thought that if you really believed I was wrong, you would quietly wait for the results of your report and then laugh at me to your heart's content.
This is not funny to me. You are consuming much of my time debugging a product I launched on Product Hunt, so I actually despise you more and more the more you go in circles to evade my only question that matters to change my opinion of you
> Instead of continuing to argue with the contributor you called a thief. Like in that story, if you truly believe the defendant is a murderer, why are you still hanging around outside the courthouse?
If it isn't clear by now, I'm trying to make you admit you were being selfish (you have given no reason to indicate otherwise, instead changing subject with irrelevant scripts that is not this one in question)
If you cannot even explain this selfish action, how can we discuss other scripts yet
You always speak like a judge, but you are not.
I don't know what judgment Greasy Fork will make, but I won't follow yours.
I even changed my mind. You are right. If I'm not wrong, why should I delete this script?
how can we discuss other scripts yet
Oh, you have other cases to judge
Why not we just wait for the report you submit (I will give it a week)
Why do you want to wait a week to tell me the reason you removed my name from this script? What's wrong now?
You need a week to come up with a believable story, I think I understand now
Another possibility, you don't want a true motive to be revealed that would hurt you in the current report
Why not we just wait for the report you submit (I will give it a week)
Tell me, how can you tell from the above sentence that I will tell you the reason in a week?
I mean you don't have a week for Greasy Fork to judge?
The reason, I told you two days ago (and then you deprived me of my right to speak), and today I told you with words and pictures. Do you still want me to tell you again in a week?
I copied it, I paste it, replaced with it, I fix eslint errors of that code, I committed it, I work, I sleep, I get informed I missing LICENSE, I added it in source code, I get reported for building code that comes from esbuild/tsup (this script), I added LICENSE into this script
Isn't this clear enough?
When you found out that I had already added the LICENSE (which you had been saying was a lie until just recently, but I actually added it at least 32 hours ago - isn't this evidence that you don't care about facts?), you started attacking the "manual deletion" issue. Didn't I say that this script was generated by a build tool? So where exactly is your "manual" point?
It's so funny to see you deprived of my right to continue speaking on that issue and still seems like have so many things you don't understand
I have no power to deprive anyone of rights I am not the police. I just ask an honest question you refuse to give a valid reason for (you don't have to answer, you can even block me, just makes you look more evil though)
Oh, block, ban, sue, what you did to me?
Are all those harsh words of yours meant to describe yourself?
Because it seems like you are always contradicting yourself.
What makes you unable to wait for the judgment of Greasy Fork and have to refute me line by line here?
Because I think, if your goal is to delete this script, the judgment of Greasy Fork will achieve it.
If you win the "lawsuit".
Will you abide by the judgment of Greasy Fork?
I will, because I am ultimately a law-abiding person.
This is China, a country governed by laws.
I heard that America is too, will you comply?
Is it true that someone as mean as you who insults a person for losing their license can be sued for defamation?
I have heard of similar cases.
But don't worry, I am not 30s, I don't have a lawyer link in my Linken, I don't have a lot money, I don't have a lot of time (you told me you do)
Free feel to use my code, after all, you rewrite it? didn't it?
You need a week to come up with a believable story, I think I understand now
oh, how long will you take?
(can't blame me for using your opinions, right?)
Is it true that someone as mean as you who insults a person for losing their license can be sued for defamation?
I have heard of similar cases.
But don't worry, I am not 30s, I don't have a lawyer link in my Linken, I don't have a lot money, I don't have a lot of time (you told me you do)
Free feel to use my code. After all, you rewrite it? didn't it?
when you use stolen thief blind etc., I record it; I need the OpenSource community to know how you treat a contributor
It doesn't matter what your "Legal judgment" is, I will just show them what happened, only with my prs, my issues, my commits - those facts
alright, I will go back to my weekend
I won't respond to you in these two days (unless one of us can't resist)
Bye
Oh, block, ban, sue, what you did to me?
I have no power to ban, I indeed blocked (as any normal person should after a trusted collab steals) and I 100000% will sue if you don't comply with GitHub's DCMA takedown requests
Tell me, how can you tell from the above sentence that I will tell you the reason in a week?
I asked you to give the reason you removed my name from this script. You have stalled and finally revealed your intention to wait a week. Why don't you just answer this simple question rigth now this second? Why did you remove MIT attribution from this script?
Because it seems like you are always contradicting yourself.
I simply quote your words. "Why not we just wait for the report you submit (I will give it a week)". Why are you telling me to wait a week for some result in response to my request for a reason today why you chose to remove my name? What does one have to do with the other?
What makes you unable to wait for the judgment of Greasy Fork and have to refute me line by line here?
I don't know what you are saying, why are you talking about judgments? I asked for one simple thing today not in a week. What is the reason you removed my name from this script while using my code? Each time you ignore this question and say something unrelated, I will not ignore your off-topic response. Of course I will quote it and respond (unlike you, I do not go off-topic i.e. you bring something up, I reply)
Because I think, if your goal is to delete this script, the judgment of Greasy Fork will achieve it.
But why are you randomly telling me how GF works instead of answering this simple question? Why did you remove my name from this script that uses hundreds of lines of my code?
If you win the "lawsuit".
I didn't sue you... (I will though if you continue to steal)
Will you abide by the judgment of Greasy Fork?
My behavior wasn't reported so is not being judged
I will, because I am ultimately a law-abiding person.
But why did you remove the legally-required MIT attribution from so many scripts using my hundreds of lines of code on GitHub? What inspired you to break the law like this?
This is China, a country governed by laws.
Copyright law is international not Chinese. I understand China turns a blind eye on piracy but you are still accountable under international MIT license.
I heard that America is too, will you comply?
What is the American law you want me to comply with?
Is it true that someone as mean as you who insults a person for losing their license can be sued for defamation?
If you find it "mean" to expose someone for stealing my hundreds of lines of original code, maybe don't steal? How selfish can you be to blame the victim? You have literally wasted hours of my precious time, also. I missed my midnight launch by 30 mins because of you. I had to sleep because of how much stress your selfishness was causing me, so my debug duties have been delayed 8 hours. You have stolen more than code from me with your selfish actions. Why are you like this?
I have heard of similar cases.
My name is Adam Lui I am from Oakland, California, there you can waste your money suing me (you will lose because defamation requires false statements, but every statement I made is true and captured in commit history even when you try to cover your tracks)
But don't worry, I am not 30s, I don't have a lawyer link in my Linken, I don't have a lot money, I don't have a lot of time (you told me you do)
If you don't, why are you spending so much time toying with me instead of answering this simple question: why did you remove the MIT attribution that included my name in this script that uses hundreds of lines of my original code?
Free feel to use my code, after all, you rewrite it? didn't it?
I don't use any of your code, but unlike you, I am so honorable even when using my own code, I still attribute you as a copyright holder of the larger body (chatgpt.js) even when your contribution is under 1%. Why are you so dishonorable? What part of MIT do you not understand? Even if you claim ignorance of open source law, knowing how generous I am by giving you undeserved exposure, why are you not returning the action? Why did you go out of your way to remove my name from this script that uses not even just yours but my own code? This is very shocking behavior to most people, do you realize that?
oh, how long will you take?
How long will I take for what?
when you use stolen thief blind etc., I record it; I need the OpenSource community to know how you treat a contributor
But you are a thief that violated open source law and stole from me! You can't even come up with a valid reason for your selfish behavior, how do you think it makes you look? So what if I let you contribute? You still have to abide by the license! Just because you were caught stealing doesn't make it "mean" to expose your crazy actions
It doesn't matter what your "Legal judgment" is, I will just show them what happened, only with my prs, my issues, my commits - those facts
I really do hope you spread awareness for me about how selfish you are. I hope anyone w/ questions tag me so I show them your admission you don't code but "build" using other code (explaining why you steal because it's too hard for you)
alright, I will go back to my weekend
But you won't answer my question? For the 15th time, why did you remove my name from this script that uses hundreds of lines of my code?
I won't respond to you in these two days (unless one of us can't resist)
How come?
This code steals my hard-worked source code from https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js without the legally required attribution (mefengl's own LICENSE.md also fails to attach original copyright: https://github.com/mefengl/chatgpt-infinite/blob/main/LICENSE ... instead, he attributes himself as sole copyright holder of work containing my code). Do not install this man's scripts if you don't support piracy!