Reports #13799
A script without license can only be used personally, you can't utilize its code in another published script. You can't "fork" it. I handle such reports ASAP because in 99.999% of cases there's nothing that can be done other than rewriting the script.
As for userscripts-mirror.org, this is effectively a frozen mirror of a dead userscripts.org site, which never dealt with licenses when it was alive so we can't use it as a source in these matters, AFAICT.
Try asking the author of the original script on greasyfork to add a license or add a permission for you to use their code on their script info page or even add you as a co-author of the script. Otherwise you'll have to rewrite the code.
Thank you for your reply! I've already contacted both authors of the two scripts I forked. But they might not be active on GreasyFork anymore. I posted my working mods here only because some users still like to use them, even though there're alternatives. Now my forked script is redirected to the original script, which is dead in fact and not working anymore. This is not good for the users as I see.
Funny thing is that the original script in this report (https://greasyfork.org/scripts/662/) itself is now reported by someone. I hope this series of reports are on goodwill.
I've reverted the resolution and deleted the other script: turns out its v1.13 copied from yours circa v1.16 as explicitly stated in the other script's info page so since the other script is apparently abandoned I will (tentatively) consider yours the original moreover both scripts originated from a dead userscripts.org so neither you nor the other author can claim authorship anyway.
Thanks! It's interesting that the reporter reported my fork saying it's an unauthorized copy of the original script 662, but then reported script 662 saying that it's an unauthorized copy of my fork...
Would the same resolution also apply to the other script I have https://greasyfork.org/scripts/16204? since the source I forked from (https://greasyfork.org/scripts/5727/) is also abandoned.
Besides, do you think that it would be proper that I add the MIT (or similar) licenses to both scripts I posted? This way others will be able to fork and repost them without problem, in case I don't have enough time to maintain them in the future.
I've dismissed all reports that use #5727 as the original because as its description clearly says it's also a copy. Until someone with experience in law clarifies the legal status of scripts from the dead userscripts.org and its frozen mirror on userscripts-mirror.org, I will dismiss any report about scripts of that origin.
Okay, cool! So I don't need to add a license for now. Thanks!
In the absence of a license, you need to get permission from the original author(s) to fork and republish. Doesn't matter what site it's on or whether it's abandoned.
If someone reports a script of yours as a copy, and you didn't copy from where they claimed, just say so. At that point it becomes your word against theirs, and unless they were the original author, it'll probably go your way.
okay, understood, thanks for the clarification!
In the absence of a license
Thing is, userscripts.org may have had an implicit license, just like StackOverflow.com and other similar sites have now, that allows using, sharing, copying, modifying and so on. However, the original site is dead, and the mirror site doesn't show such information anywhere.
Unless that "may" becomes a certainty then we have to act as if it didn't.
The reporter is really persistent and fired another new report 13837 on the above mentioned script again. Actually the very original script was not https://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/150664 but https://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/36898. However, all of them don't have an explicit license. I will leave it to you to decide.
The nonexistent userscripts.org can't be used as a source when claiming authorship, this much I think is a given. So the question is about userscripts-mirror.org. They don't seem to have the rights to show the info they're showing so legally they're nonexistent either and cannot be used when claiming authorship. I'd say that everyone, whose script is reported using those two sites, should simply claim they are the original author.
For example, even the well-known waybackmachine isn't automatically accepted as evidence in court, here's an example where it was admitted only as hearsay (luckily for the contestant its validity was later confirmed by another evidence).
so a new report 13843 fired by the reporter...I would suggest the reporter to join the discussion here instead of insisting on creating new report.
GF is not a court, it just has own policy to minimize the risk of getting the real DMCA letters.
Probably ~95% authors of those USO unlicensed scripts didn't meant any restrictions and would be safe to let them in, but as you can see now there is various forks fighting each other, so letting them in creates additional headache for moderation staff.
I'd say that everyone, whose script is reported using those two sites, should simply claim they are the original author.
I wouldn't suggest lying, but in the case where the reporter is not the original author and does not have any sort of proof, and the reported author here says they are the original author or they have permission somehow, then the reported author wins.
If the reporter is the original author then they can provide some sort of evidence (e.g. a repo with commit history that precedes the script here).
seems some people really think that GF can be a court...similar reports came again: https://greasyfork.org/en/reports/17458 and https://greasyfork.org/en/reports/17459 Are these guys using some kind of automatic tools to check the similarity between scripts on GF and submitting a report whenever something suspicious detected without really looking into it?
Today I was hit with bogus (automated? malicious?) reports that the author of code that GF claims I've violated license of has disagreed. GF has a problem with moderation.
https://greasyfork.org/en/discussions/greasyfork/101747-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
Hi @wOxxOm,I got this report a few hours ago, then the script was deleted after less than one hour. As said in the email, I could still submit a rebuttal. So it seems that I only have one hour to submit a rebuttal...
Re the report itself:
1. I already stated clearly in the description that the script was forkd from https://greasyfork.org/scripts/662/ (the original script in the report).
2. The original script in the report doesn't include a license statement.
3. The original script in the report was forked from the very original script http://userscripts-mirror.org/scripts/show/150664, which also doesn't include a license statement. There're quite some mods/forks of that very original script on GreasyFork. All of them don't include a license for the same reason.
4. If you check the change log of the original script in the report (https://greasyfork.org/scripts/662/), in version 1.13 it even took my modifications, and only made a small change of the link.
5. The fork I maintained was one of the very few still working translator tooltip script currently.
Based on the above points, I would like to ask to restore the script. Or please let me know how I could handle the license issue in such case.