Greasy Fork is available in English.
Greasy Fork Feedback
Moderator claimed my script for not supporting beta browsersMy script works fine for stable Firefox version that majority of people use, including me.A user opened a thread saying "not a major priority" but the script doesn't work in a beta Firefox version that's always changing. I prefer to wait the problem hit the stable version before "fixing it".Enters a moderator and "fixes it". He creates a new script with new @author and @namespace. Doesn't make a single reference to the original script that took me years to make during Userscripts.org.Is this the kind of community this is now?I'm not seeing my last comment in the thread, going to guess he deleted and will probably delete this thread too.Thread copy here with my last comment that disappeared: http://i.imgur.com/LM0WhZC.pngHis "fixed version" header, with his @author @namespace @id, all because a beta browser version is not yet supported.http://i.imgur.com/EoRe59e.pngThe original thread that had a comment magically disappear:https://greasyfork.org/forum/discussion/466/x
Wasn't magic, when you have something to contribute, then post and when the original author contacts me, we will discuss the matter, but as far as I am concerned the script was abondoned and you hadn't a clue for an update when individuals were inquiring for one. If you have a problem, contact Jason Barnabe admin of this site.
The script works for stable FF. How is that abandoned?Beta versions will break and unbreak with every release. I just prefer to wait it to hit stable, often times it doesn't get there.
This is the reasonable responsibility of authors, wishing to promote their scripts, to make available in all environments and just not simply wait it out when users are making request/reports of incompatibility.
It's Ok to fork scripts, but don't you think you should make reference to the original script and author?You claimed all the tags to yourself and made no reference to the original.All this for a "fix" that the user who request then replied it wasnt quite working.How do you expect a community of creators to thrive without giving credit to them? Specially if you're a moderator you should learn this if you didn't already. It may not be a written rule but you should give credit and not ommit the piece of information that incentive people to create. WHy do you think people create, share and maitain scripts when they gain zero money with it?Because we respect each other and give credit. That's my problem with you. It's not because you forked it for some irrelevant fix that didn't work. It's because you didn't give credit.
If the original author has a complaint, I will by all means communicate with that person, and not with an individual that themselves could not provide a fix for users reporting an incompatibility issue. I think enough has been said on this topic. If you have an issue, contact the admin of this site. This is not the place for this conversation.
Am I being trolled here? The script works for FF stable. You "forked" it for a beta version and made no reference to it. Skeeto even brough out the fact MIT license doesn't allow this.I try to reach to reason and argue creative communities like this only work because of credit and reference.The mod simply ignores it and argues I have "obligation" to support every beta version out there? Or else my script changes hands?I rest my case.
anways, I'm outta here m8sgood luck to all true creators out thereyou never know when a new beta browser release will make your work futile and pointlessI'll keep using my scripts, improving them and fixing when needed in Stable FIrefox release... but after this I'm afraid I'll have to keep them to myself... what's the point of sharing if not even credits are given anymore
I did not say you have an "obligation", but responsible authors makes the effort to fix their scripts rather than offer excuses. Anyways, I can pull the script down and other users running betas will lose because they can't depend on you for a fix. That's the problem with individuals that copy/paste/post, they have no clue that users of the script are depending on that author for fixes.
First off, it's not acceptable for moderators to delete comments and close discussions due to a disagreement they're in. srazzano is no longer a moderator.As for the script copying, I'm a little confused by some of the comments. There's references to "the original author" and the MIT license. As far as I can tell from looking here, lazyttrick is the original author and the original script had no license. Am I wrong there?
Never mind. It's been deleted.
In the code? I believe that only refers to the jQuery simple-color block of code.In the absence of a license for the script, it should be assumed that no redistribution of the script is allowed. I think srazzano was trying to be helpful by posting a fixed version, but those are the terms lazyttrick posted the script under.
Check this out: By Martin Brinkmann on September 21, 2010 http://www.ghacks.net/2010/09/21/google-translate-tooltip-fast-on-page-translations/
This article? What about it?
Never mind. I deleted the script. Everybody happy now, except for those whom were using it. Let those individuals update/fix scripts, since they think they are the original authors anyways.
What a shame!This could've been handled better for everybody's benefit and it's a real pity to see this issue ending like this.Jason, i think you dropped the ball here. Yes, it is your site and you're the king nonetheless a little more tact (like solving the issue behind our backs through PMs between all of you, for instance) and thoughtfulness (as in 'diplomacy') wouldn't hurt.Now that srazzano deleted all his scripts (which had the best ratings and at the top of install counts), i guess we have left you to thank. Thank you, Jason, good job ...
The guy copies other scripts without giving credit, abuses his mod powers, then ragequits by deleting all his scripts when someone calls him out. And you're going to blame Jason for this?
Brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I wasn't discussing what srazzano did, i posted my opinion about how Jason handled the matter (not 'blaming' anyone, mind you). Yes, srazzano should have mentioned the reason he was re-posting the script and probably even ask the person who claims to be the original author to publish a version that would work for people using Fx non-official releases and left out with a non working version. He was trying to help and didn't do it 'the proper' way. So? what's the drama about? He then accidentally deleted a post. Oh boy, the end is near!!!.... A person made a mistake, maybe two. All this could have been handled by the admin in a sensible manner - through a 3way PMs and resolved w/out any drama. Jason knows exactly how and what to do, he's familiar with srazzano for years. srazzano is a well known and respected developer, not something to throw around like a broken chair, he contributes his knowledge and time for free for a lot of 'users' and Jason benefits off his contributions on 2 sites (well, obviously none now). Take a chill pill. EDIT:
@lazyttrick,If you wish to post your version, I will gladly take mine down. I just assumed from your response to Pulse, you had no intentions of updating a fix, so I did.
When srazzano posted that ^ it should've been resolved right there but apparently 'lazyttrick' wasn't looking for a solution.
What a drama.....I vote for the return of our srazzano !;-)
First of all, I'm sad that folks are feeling mistreated. That's a shame. Regarding srazzano's scripts -- a number of the more popular ones were released under the MIT license, which permits them to be re-uploaded (with credit) by others. I would encourage people to do so (and I'm willing to provide copies of them for that purpose if needed).
I would encourage people to do so
My only goal here was to help individuals needing updates/fixes to scripts, that were being ignored by the poster of the script. In some cases, the poster claims to be original author of some forgotten or abandoned script and simply copy/paste into repository and hasn't a clue for updating/fixing for incompatible environments. I made no claims to be original author but only as author of the updated/fixed script, with no expectation/appeal for compensation or acknowledgment of any kind. If that offends/offended any script authors, then so be it. I will only dedicate my assistance for those user I personally respect and trust.
Srazzano, with the understanding of the emotions and feelings of everyone involved, I would like to express the desire and hope that you will, with time, consider undeleting your scripts. Your scripts, as well as your coding knowledge, are an amazing asset to this community. You must know in your heart it is the right thing to do.
@AnnaMarie,No doubt you are correct and I will take you kind words for consideration. Thanks for the support.
First of all, I want to echo AnnaMarie's comments. I also appreciate what srazzano (and Jason) have given, and hope they would continue to do so, if when they feel willing.Regarding the MIT license -- it's not revocable. An author is free to cease distributing their work, but they are not free to take back the permissions they already granted to those they already distributed to. I agree that posting a script on GreasyFork does imply some level of commitment to at least attempt to act as a maintainer, and people shouldn't do so lightly or without thought -- but that is very separate from the fundamental point that, for the scripts srazzano (or any of us) distributed under the MIT (or other Free Content) licenses, anyone who received one is free (and welcome) to re-distribute them (including by uploading them to GreasyFork).
Sign in to post a reply.