Discussions » Greasy Fork Feedback

Random user not related to me or library author claims I violated license, moderator agrees with them, rejects my appeal, and deletes my script, author of the original code agrees with me

Posted: 2021-10-17

A few of my scripts used (directly copy pasted, because it's small and I don't want to rely on a gist being online for my script to function) a function from:

This was not a problem until today someone (NOT the original author) reported them all for "violating" CC-BY-NC-SA. I did not violate that license, and the author now agreed that I didn't violate anything in their reply.

I disputed the report and quoted how the author openly said they don't mind people using and forking their script on GitHub and GreasyFork for non commercial or small commercial use, as long as there is attribution.

This was rejected by your moderator, including a script that I in the meantime updated to not use this code anymore. I'd add an update to mention this update to the code, but there is no way to update a rebuttal message.

The original author of the code that was reported agreed with my conclusion (the one that your moderator called wrong) and even relicensed their code to CC0 to help.

Your moderator seemingly ignored everything I've written about what the author's actual (very clear) intent was, and came to a wrong conclusion, that the author of the code in question disagrees with.

See their comment in reply to me: https://gist.github.com/BrockA/2625891#gistcomment-3930204

I now expect all the appeals to be resolved in my favor and an answer as to why you have a "shoot first, ask later, ignore any nuance" slow moderation process in which a random report by unrelated third party can take down all my scripts, despite me using the code as author intended.

Additionally, there is a obvious bug in the markup of your appeal page layout...

Posted: 2021-10-17
Edited: 2021-10-17

The clearest thing the author said at the time was that the script was CC-BY-NC-SA. The fact that he said he "didn't mind" the copies, and wasn't going to "lawyer up" are not as clear has him explicitly stating the license he's releasing it under.

Your scripts were violating CC-BY-NC-SA, most clearly the "ShareAlike" part, by not also being CC-BY-NC-SA.

Now that the author has released it into public domain, there's no issue with licensing any more.

Post reply

Sign in to post a reply.