Greasy Fork

Clarification of a reported content(https://greasyfork.org/zh-CN/reports/43649): GreasyFork's rebuttal function for the report:

1. The format is not very good.
2. It cannot be modified (I use machine translation, and sometimes it reverses the meaning).

So I reposted the rebuttal in this discussion:

1. GitHub did not punish my script, just like GreasyFork, it is only a normal process for reporting. The reporter can continue with that process and bear legal responsibility for his words and actions.

2. The reporter keeping ignoring that my PR is authorization copyright instead of acknowledging the fact of transferring. (The machine translation got this sentence reversed.)

3. If my contribution is "insignificant", the reporter can delete functions contributed by me in the script, which are a lot (including functions rewritten on top of mine). I hope the reporter understands that rewriting my functions does not mean those functions become theirs.

4. The reporter seems to want to show a feeling of insufficient communication here. I can provide the fact that he blocked me on GitHub, depriving me of the right to speak freely. 5. If there are more reports, I will cite this report's link.

Links:

https://github.com/mefengl/chatgpt-utils

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/3

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/5

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/9

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/11

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/12

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/13

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/15

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/18

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/19

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/20

https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/pull/21

This code violates the license of https://chatgpt.js.org found here: https://github.com/chatgptjs/chatgpt.js/blob/main/LICENSE.md

In reply to mefengl's points in report on chatgpt-twice:

GitHub did not punish my script, just like GreasyFork, it is only a normal process for reporting. The reporter can continue with that process and bear legal responsibility for his words and actions.

GitHub absolutely punished you for breaking the law, they forced you to remove the infringing content:

Hi Adam,

We have contacted the owner(s) of the repositories identified in your notice and have given them an opportunity to remove the content named in your notice. We will inform you if the user makes any changes, and, if not, we will let you know when we have disabled the content.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Regards,

GitHub Trust & Safety

i.e. if you did not comply (which you tricked them into thinking happened by changing code slightlyl but even stil use same name 'chatgpt.js') they would have even punished you a second time by "disabling the content". So they forced you to remove, then asked me to check (but beacuse of COVID I have not had time to create new report yet but I will soon)

The reporter keeping ignoring that my PR is transferring copyright instead of acknowledging the fact of authorization.

That is not what PR means. PR is a request to "pull" your code into existing codebase. Once absorbed, all code in software is protected by the software's license. Since chatgpt.js is MIT-licensed, re-use of any code from codebase requires the following 2 conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

You did not comply with the license, so you are breaking the law (I did not write the law, it is simply how it works and what you agreed to by requesting code to be merged with this copyrighted software)

If my contribution is "insignificant", the reporter can delete functions contributed by me in the script, which are a lot (including functions rewritten on top of mine). I hope the reporter understands that rewriting my functions does not mean those functions become theirs

Since the mod that dismissed the chatgpt-infinite report claimed "there are only so many ways to write a function", I think a great solution is I rewrite anything you contributed further (like you do to mine) if you agree I remove you from license as copyright holder (also I will agree to not pursue further legal action against you)

The reporter seems to want to show a feeling of insufficient communication here. I can provide a fact that he blocked me on GitHub, depriving me of the right to speak freely.

I blocked you so you no longer get notifications everytime I make a commit because I noticed you keep copying the latest little things I do (for example README style, heading names, shield cluster styles). I do not own GitHub you can speak free as you want, but I invite you & mods to cum join https://discord.gg/QhGwTJRa7u where we can discuss in a more convenient manner my proposal to remove you from chatgpt.js license & avoid future litigation from me for your various infringements

If there are more reports, I will cite this report's link.

I don't know what you are saying

The reporter keeping ignoring that my PR is authorization copyright instead of acknowledging the fact of transferring. (The machine translation got this sentence reversed.)

The origin machine translation seems right. Whatever, what I want to say is that pr is an authorization of the copyright

It's like going back to the old days,

let's wait for the judgment of GreasyFork.

I don't know what "authorization of copyright" means to you, but if you contribute to an open source project, your contribution is now part of that project, and governed by whatever license that project uses. Do you understand this? If not, ask ChatGPT "Are my contributions to open source project copyrighted under that project's license?" It will correctly answer "yes"

But forget about Greasy Fork (I will be pursuing you using lawyers) what do you think of my proposal?

If GitHub who even benefits from pirated ChatGPT hacks (since Microsoft owns GitHub and ChatGPT) forced you to remove the copyrighted code, what do you think lawyers will do

(Lawyers aim for cash settlements)

i.e. Microsoft ordered you to remove the code because they understood it was illegal and did not want me to sue GitHub. You don't think lawyers will understand this even more, as experts in law?

Microsoft is rich, but they understand in court they will lose if they don't make you remove, that is why they forced you. You think you will win or something? Are you rich lol

(Greasy Fork is not a court of law, I'm saying I will sue you for money in court if you don't negotiate the terms of my proposal)

pr is an authorization of the copyright

that means I still have my code's copyright (if the repo needs a transfer, they need a CLA or something like that for the contributor to sign)

If you still don't understand, it is recommended that you search for information, ask ChatGPT or consult a lawyer.

No that's not how open source copyright works when you even use the same name (chatgpt.js)

Just ask ChatGPT the question I pasted for your convenience (it is clear you never studied law) now tell me, does he say "yes" or "no" sir?

Ask one more question,

does the contributor still own the copyright?

Can the contributor use their own code elsewhere?

Of course you can, but you must include copyright chatgpt.js attribution (see screenshot)

Which is why I propose, let us part ways on this project and you will no longer be required, and I will not pursue legal action

Do you agree for me to remove you as copyright holder (after I generalize all get methods using one single advanced function which I was going to do anyway) so you will no longer be using chatgpt.js code thus do not need to include notice legally anymore?

Alternatively you can remain a copyright holder if you want, but you still must include the copyright chatgpt.js notice (but you cannot do both not include and not allow me to remove your contributions, that is not right)

If you choose option B we can work together again on it if you want (the library is gaining traction it gets bookmarked on futurepedia every day)

There is a showcase section on chatgpt.js.org I get a lot of my traffic from (see screenshot)

So if you want to start including chatgpt.js proper attribution in scripts, I can add them there and you get more installs + famous

If you pick Option A it is good too, because you act like you are complaining about no freedom to use code copyright chatgpt.js, so Option A will remove you as contributor so no more problems, and prove you don't care about getting famous from chatgpt.js (but if you don't agree it proves you want the fame of contribution to popular library, but without proper attribution when you use it so you look like solo author which is very greedy)