Greasy Fork

On 7KT's script deletion. Let me present you my PoV on the matter.

As most in comments (7KT including) agreed, 7KT took my code. Did he had rights to do it?

• License my script was under at the time was default greasyfork's license that does not allows to use code in other scripts.
• 7KT didn't asked for my permission to use my code in his script. Therefore 7KT didn't had rights to take my code. It means that he stole my code.

When I found out about his script I asked 7KT to remove my code. It was more that 2 weeks ago. He didn't explicitly said that he will or will not, but when next update came out and my code was still present, I was left with the only option which can remove stolen copy of my code: report his script.

I will not answer to any comment that is unrelated to topic or not based on logic.

@Dark Fox

Why did you not allowed the use of your code?

If you ask why I use license I use, then I can post MY work done in MY free time under any license I see it fit under.

If you ask in regards to 7KT, then (as I already mentioned) he didn't asked for my permission.

@Daylin Cooper

You can, but stealing is still a crime.

Javascript is inherently open source

Citation needed.

Also, opensourceness of language does not imply opensourceness of the products written on it.

@"Daylin Cooper"

You can, but stealing is still a crime.

Javascript is inherently open source

Citation needed.

Also, opensourceness of language does not imply opensourceness of the products written on it.

Stealing code is nowhere near close to the same vain as stealing a finite resource; as such, I do not give a fuck about the illegality of it. Your code still serves as a useful resource and I'll gladly steal whatever I can from it. Perhaps you can obfuscate Javascript and not make it open source, but then you can't publish it on this website.

@Daylin Cooper Good luck posting, for example, "Frozen" on YT. It's "infinite resource", so it should be fine, right?

The right to observe code does not imply that code is open-source. Any computer program can be disassembled. Therefore, we can observe source code of any program (in assembler language). But this does not make Windows open-source.

microsoft does not release source file of windows components and have you compile them dynamically on your machine >:)

Let's ASSUME that my script is open source. How does it contradicts with my original post?

@Daylin Cooper

We can also say "fuck your licence" and still use your code

And I can in responce say "fuck you" and make actions to put your scripts down. If you don't respect my work, why should I respect you?

Let's ASSUME that my script is open source. How does it contradicts with my original post?

@"Daylin Cooper"

We can also say "fuck your licence" and still use your code

And I can in responce say "fuck you" and make actions to put your scripts down. If you don't respect my work, why should I respect you?

Mate I can mirror it infinitely and infinitely more. You'll just tire yourself out when trying to hide useful information from pirates.

Why did you not allowed the use of your code? Greedy capitalist.
Why did you replace his script with your own and stealing users? Asshole.

You are just disgusting and have no conscience

liar. that was the default but you had it set to no license before. you're just jealous. you won't get away with this

Why did you not allowed the use of your code? Greedy capitalist.
Why did you replace his script with your own and stealing users? Asshole.

You are just disgusting and have no conscience

what makes it even worse is SOMEHOW you got rid of it from openuserjs too, so we had to set it to a secret place you will never find it on. good luck trying to catch it now! mwahahaha

@"Daylin Cooper"
Good luck posting, for example, "Frozen" on YT. It's "infinite resource", so it should be fine, right?

The right to observe code does not imply that code is open-source. Any computer program can be disassembled. Therefore, we can observe source code of any program (in assembler language). But this does not make Windows open-source.

"The right to observe code does not imply that code is open-source."
This is exactly what it implies.

@eM-Krow

> This is exactly what it implies.

OK. How does it contradicts with my original post?

@"eM-Krow"

> This is exactly what it implies.

OK. How does it contradicts with my original post?

Well, given you linked to meta-keys and not the greasy fork license it makes your entire comment invalid in the first place.

But, according to the actual code rules located here, https://greasyfork.org/en/help/code-rules regarding copyright, 7KT was in perfect compliance.


He used some of your content and as such is required to abide by your licensing terms, which given your licensing terms were open-source, meant he was allowed to use it.

It was not until 4/30/21 that you included a "personal use" license, previous to that it was CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 up to version 2.6.0 on 4/24/21. And you did not even include the license tag until 2.5.8 on 4/20/21.

What happened is that you saw that someone had taken some of your open-source, legally, morally, and ethically allowed to be reused code and made something useful from it and it was getting popular and you got jealous and wanted to capitalize on it so you changed your license then cried foul.

You then hijacked all of our browsers and when called out made this post trying to justify your actions and everyone here can see through it.

This is reprehensible and disgusting behavior.




This is no different than getting beat at a game then retroactively changing the rules and declaring that you won.

And this self-aggrandizing self-congratulatory post is nothing more than internet masturbation to soothe your fragile ego.

@BestLittle

Well, given you linked to meta-keys and not the greasy fork license it makes your entire comment invalid in the first place.

Now, we read on the metakeys page:

@license

The license that describes how people are allowed to copy or modify a script. Using a "Full name" or "Identifier" from the SPDX License List is recommended. Lack of license implies users can install the script for personal use, but may not redistribute it. License is displayed on a script's info page.

Therefore, before 2.5.8 it was under "for personal use" according to GF rules.

@BestLittle

Well, given you linked to meta-keys and not the greasy fork license it makes your entire comment invalid in the first place.

Now, we read on the metakeys page:

@license

The license that describes how people are allowed to copy or modify a script. Using a "Full name" or "Identifier" from the SPDX License List is recommended. Lack of license implies users can install the script for personal use, but may not redistribute it. License is displayed on a script's info page.

Therefore, before 2.5.8 it was under "for personal use" according to GF rules.

He did not redistrubute your script. He used parts of it, as CC licensing allows.

@BestLittle

He did not redistrubute your script. He used parts of it, as CC licensing allows.

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 does not allows derivative works.

And he used most of the script.

@BestLittle

He did not redistrubute your script. He used parts of it, as CC licensing allows.

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 does not allows derivative works.

And as shown that attribution was not added until 4/20/21.

And he used most of the script.

Your point?

Most is not all. And if he did not use all then no violation took place.

Thanks for proving the point.

@BestLittle

And as shown that attribution was not added until 4/20/21.

And before it was under "For personal use".

Most is not all. And if he did not use all then no violation took place.

So it I take 95% of his script now and incude into my, it will be OK regardles of the license it under?

You are the one crying about it, you tell me.

@BestLittle

> You are the one crying about it, you tell me.

I know how will I answer, I want to know how will you do it.

You already know, I already told you.

This is just pathetic. What are you 12?

@BestLittle

I already told you.

Repeat your answer, please, because I can't find it.

That sounds like a you problem, not a me problem.

@BestLittle

> That sounds like a you problem, not a me problem.

This sounds like you didn't told your answer and you don't want to tell it because it will make your point invalid.

@BestLittle

> That sounds like a you problem, not a me problem.

This sounds like you didn't told your answer and you don't want to tell it because it will make your point invalid.

Confirmed, if not physically 12, easily mentally so.

Let 7KT repost his script, there's evidence of him using code when the code was marked as being open sourced. You're a prick.

@Murphmario Twopointoh

Let 7KT repost his script

Sure, he just have to delete my code from his script.

What you are all talking about!?

"Open-source" is not a license, so it's NOT some imaginary "Do whatever you want license".

What you are all talking about!?

"Open-source" is not a license, so it's NOT some imaginary "Do whatever you want license".

https://opensource.org/osd

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

This dude is just salty that others liked the work so he pulled some bullshit to hjijack the code.

@BestLittle

https://opensource.org/osd

Where on the site it's said that posted scripts should comply with what's said in link you provided?

@BestLittle

https://opensource.org/osd

The license shall not restrict...

Your quote is just an initiative description of OS, it's not some legal document or a license, to same effect you can link to some fictional Hanky Porter book.

@BestLittle

He used some of your content and as such is required to abide by your licensing terms, which given your licensing terms were open-source, meant he was allowed to use it.

It was not until 4/30/21 that you included a "personal use" license, previous to that it was CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 up to version 2.6.0 on 4/24/21. And you did not even include the license tag until 2.5.8 on 4/20/21.

What happened is that you saw that someone had taken some of your open-source, legally, morally, and ethically allowed to be reused code and made something useful from it and it was getting popular and you got jealous and wanted to capitalize on it so you changed your license then cried foul.

Once again, "open-source" is not "licensing term".

If published code doesn't have a license then it's under exclusive copyright by default. That means that you can't copy, distribute, or modify it, even "personal use" right is not granted.

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0: It doesn't allow a derivative work on code, and the code from 7KT is clearly a derivative work.

"'personal use' license": It's not a license, it's just a message that grants you a right to personaly use a published code.

Changing/removing a license doesn't void previous license, you can still use versions with CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 for non commercial purposes or distribute it.

@Bogudan

You can use GitHub, that would allow people to contribute and make your script better. You can easily sync code from GitHub site to Greasyfork site.

If published code doesn't have a license then it's under exclusive copyright by default..

Do you want to cite your source for that?

If published code doesn't have a license then it's under exclusive copyright by default..

Do you want to cite your source for that?

It's from a common knowledge, and just basics how ownership and copyrights work, I'm sure you'll have no problems finding information by googling it.

Good start would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

If published code doesn't have a license then it's under exclusive copyright by default..

Do you want to cite your source for that?

It's from a common knowledge, and just basics how ownership and copyrights work, I'm sure you'll have no problems finding information by googling it.

Good start would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

If you cannot cite your source then you have no source.

If you cannot cite your source then you have no source.

Dunno from what cave you crawled out, but I can enlighten you that on this planet common knowledge does not need to be cited. That is common knowledge about the citations.

And I can inform you that msg you just quoted contains the link, it looks like the bunch of letter with a line below them, you can press it and it will open a new site with lots of new letters in it.

@BestLittle

https://opensource.org/osd

The license shall not restrict...

Your quote is just an initiative description of OS, it's not some legal document or a license, to same effect you can link to some fictional Hanky Porter book.

@BestLittle

He used some of your content and as such is required to abide by your licensing terms, which given your licensing terms were open-source, meant he was allowed to use it.

It was not until 4/30/21 that you included a "personal use" license, previous to that it was CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 up to version 2.6.0 on 4/24/21. And you did not even include the license tag until 2.5.8 on 4/20/21.

What happened is that you saw that someone had taken some of your open-source, legally, morally, and ethically allowed to be reused code and made something useful from it and it was getting popular and you got jealous and wanted to capitalize on it so you changed your license then cried foul.

Once again, "open-source" is not "licensing term".

If published code doesn't have a license then it's under exclusive copyright by default. That means that you can't copy, distribute, or modify it, even "personal use" right is not granted.

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0: It doesn't allow a derivative work on code, and the code from 7KT is clearly a derivative work.

"'personal use' license": It's not a license, it's just a message that grants you a right to personaly use a published code.

Changing/removing a license doesn't void previous license, you can still use versions with CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 for non commercial purposes or distribute it.

but the default option is not what he had set previously, so he had to have set it back to personal use only because he was jealous

@LemonadeSnake

but the default option is not what he had set previously, so he had to have set it back to personal use only because he was jealous

Do you understand what "default" means? "Default" basically means that you don't need to do/"set" anything...
"Copyright by default" means that an author is automatically entitled to all copyrights in the work, he doesn't need to set any "options" or apply for it.
Imagine that you painted an original painting: You automatically have all copyrights to it without "setting options", and others don't have any rights to it, unless you give those rights.

As the sole owner of the code he can change or remove a license everyday if he wants it.
Code initially was for personal use then it was changed to personal use + share right, now it's for only personal use again. At no point 7KT had right to mod the code. So what's the problem?

As the sole owner of the code he can change or remove a license everyday if he wants it.

Sure he can, that is until he changes the license to open source and free use then anyone is free to use it at that time in any project or in any way they wish. If he changes the license later without changing the code itself in any significant way, he cannot claim foul as there is no way to tell the difference between the newly updated code and license and the original free use and open source license.

Much like we cannot retroactively apply newly created laws to previous legal activities, we cannot apply newly created and applied licenses to previously open-source and legally able to be used code.

Do you understand what "default" means?

The default option applies to this website where he OPENLY PUBLISHED THE CODE.

Now, as he originally published the code without a license key the following terms apply.

"Licenses on scripts are specified by the @license meta key"

Now, as he did not apply a license tag the system actually has that covered.

"Lack of license implies users can install the script for personal use, but may not redistribute it."

And therein is where his argument and cry of foul falls flat.

You see, 7KT did not use the entirety of his script, he used a part of it. This is allowed by the sites licensing terms.

Further Catspinner, I would note as you are fond of asking people what they know, did you know that publishing a work openly for the world to see allows the public to create derivative works of said work without compensation, recognition, or in any way violating the original person's copyright?

Did you also know Catspinner, that I am a non-practicing attorney specializing in copyright and IP law with a sub-specialization in photography and software coding?

No, you didn't, which is why you made your stupid statements and why I chose to make this comment in the first place.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that your knowledge of what is going on here is based on preconceived ideas you think you know about IP law and the simple fact of the matter is that what you think you know, just ain't so.

So, sit down, shut up, and understand that no one cares anyone about this kid's little script, 7KT has his own forum and following and the code has been republished multiple times and this guy will fade back into the obscurity from which he came because rather than innovating and building relationships he chose to stifle and burn bridges.

@BestLittle

we cannot retroactively apply newly created laws to previous legal activities

Not valid statement

he used a part of it

I repeat my question: so if I take 95% of his script and incude into my, it will be OK regardles of the license it under?

@BestLittle

....until he changes the license to open source...

"Open source" is NOT a license!

You see, 7KT did not use the entirety of his script, he used a part of it. This is allowed by the sites licensing terms.

7KT did not use the entirety of his script, he used a part of it. This is allowed by the sites licensing terms.

"Personal use" doesn't allow to reuse any part of it for another script. No, it's NOT allowed. Writing nonsense twice doesn't add more value to it.

did you know that publishing a work openly for the world to see allows the public to create derivative works

Nice story for a novel. No, I don't know about your fantasies.

Did you also know Catspinner, that I am a non-practicing attorney specializing in copyright and IP law with a sub-specialization in photography and software coding?

Maybe in you dreams, but I KNOW that you have zero clue in what you're talking about.
What you are writing in this thread is pure nonsense, you don't understand even basics on the topic you are trying to write here.

No, you didn't, which is why you made your stupid statements

Why you assume that strangers on netz knows about your fantasies?

The problem is that your knowledge... So, sit down, shut up, and understand that no one cares anyone about this kid's little script... own forum...

Sunk my desk and go back to the forums of your collective farm, no one cares about you or your potato fantasies.

Sunk my desk and go back to the forums of your collective farm, no one cares about you or your potato fantasies.

Kid, you have offered absolutely nothing of substance. You are simply wrong, and will always be wrong. You are telling a person with almost 2 decades of experience in litigation of IP cases that what I am saying is an opinion and not codified fact of law.

As I already sit, sit down, shut up, and let the adults talk. you are out of your element son.

@BestLittle

Son, your allegedly 2 decades work at the collective farm means nothing in the outside world.
Every word you wrote here is like a quote from the animal farm.
Which country do you come from (I'm kinda curious as your ignorance is overwhelming)?
Now I'm thinking about N.Korea and Pol Pot or something not far from that...
Don't get me wrong, but all your theses are very strange, co-notates with theories from Karl Marx and Lenin. FYI non of these where adapted at the outside of some collective farm.

@BestLittle

Son, your allegedly 2 decades work at the collective farm means nothing in the outside world.
Every word you wrote here is like a quote from the animal farm.
Which country do you come from (I'm kinda curious as your ignorance is overwhelming)?
Now I'm thinking about N.Korea and Pol Pot or something not far from that...
Don't get me wrong, but all your theses are very strange, co-notates with theories from Karl Marx and Lenin. FYI non of these where adapted at the outside of some collective farm.

Wow. You are certifiable.

@BestLittle

You are telling a person with almost 2 decades of experience in litigation of IP cases that what I am saying is an opinion and not codified fact of law.

Says person that didn't provided any links to any laws.

On 7KT's script deletion.
Let me present you my PoV on the matter.

As most in comments (7KT including) agreed, 7KT took my code. Did he had rights to do it?

• License my script was under at the time was default greasyfork's license that does not allows to use code in other scripts.
• 7KT didn't asked for my permission to use my code in his script.
  Therefore 7KT didn't had rights to take my code. It means that he stole my code.

When I found out about his script I asked 7KT to remove my code. It was more that 2 weeks ago. He didn't explicitly said that he will or will not, but when next update came out and my code was still present, I was left with the only option which can remove stolen copy of my code: report his script.

I will not answer to any comment that is unrelated to topic or not based on logic.

1. An open source code should not have some sort of virtual license or copyright, with exceptions such as the Chromium project.
2. You manually set your code as having no creative commons license, which means anyone was allowed to use it. The default setting is not that.
3. You need to chill the hell down. Its just a piece of code, its not like your life depends on it.

@LemonadeSnake

1. Why do you think that Chromium is exception and not a norm?
2. Reread this, §@license.

@LemonadeSnake

1. Why do you think that Chromium is exception and not a norm?
2. Reread this, §@license.

Define: Implies.

strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

Therefore not written in stone, therefore no violation took place.

https://i.imgur.com/piEgysO.gif

Sorry dude, you made a mountain out of a molehill here and went full Streisand effect. You sabotaged yourself and did a really good job of ensuring that you wont be trusted again.

@BestLittle can you rewrite your answer so that 12yo like me can understand it?

Moderator's PoV

You misunderstand the concept of open source. Scripts without license can't be used in other scripts without an explicit consent of the original author so it's 7KT who stole the code.