Userscripts.org

Hi Swarnava. I'm glad you like my Virtual Keyboard script, but by not including the full text of my copyright notice and disclaimer, you are in violation of my script's BSD licence. You either need to include the copyright notice/disclaimer *in full* within your source code, or remove my code from your script.

You can find the text of my copyright notice here: http://www.greywyvern.com/code/bsd.txt

Thanks,
Brian

@Swarnava/Heaven GOD,

First off, I'm not an attorney. (Standard disclaimer that I have to do)

You are treading dangerously close to having this script deleted/unlisted due to GreyWyverns notice of license violation. If you do not include this users comment block of the script posted here on USO in a timely manner, it will constitute a license violation and I will be forced to rate this as harmful. Please add the comment block from GreyWyverns script as soon as possible.

This is a sample of what you will add for the Virtual Keyboard code in your script:

/* ********************************************************************
 * HTML Virtual Keyboard Interface User Javascript - v1.29
 *   Copyright (c) 2009 - GreyWyvern
 *
 *  - Licenced for free distribution under the BSDL
 *          http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
 *
 */

ms99 is correct, although he is a little harsh in the way he says so. The text of the BSD licence itself needs to be included in any redistributions or modifications. I link to the latest version at opensource.org in my scripts, but keep a static copy at my website: http://www.greywyvern.com/code/bsd.txt

I link to the above static version from the script's homepage: http://www.greywyvern.com/code/javascript/keyboard

Regards.

@ms99
You are ignored due to your continued brash behaviour. Please go troll for attention and be confused elsewhere.

@GreyWyvern
The entire text does NOT need to be included based off the last quick look at your source. As we are on USO, and your script resides on USO, that is the determining source... not your personal repository. This is done for complete transparency. Having it offsite, at your personal repository, is a bad idea as you can make whatever changes you want to it and not be accountable.

Swarnava/Heaven GOD has pm'd me asking on how to do it... so give it some time please... I'm rereferencing this topic and recommending an @attribution key or @require.

@Swarnava/Heaven GOD
Reference attribution in your metadatablock with the following:

// @attribution http://userscripts.org/users/31492 (http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/10974)

Do this for any authors code that you have included, but make sure they haven't denied redistribution (In which case I'll recommend it's immediate unlisting from uso)... this is the only case where it won't work. This will allow GreyWyvern to "bloat" his own script and falls within legal counsel guidelines I have received.

To eliminate this problem in the future you also might consider just:

// @require http://userscripts.org/scripts/source/10974.user.js

Swarnava/Hea... wrote:
Updated

Reference commits:

• Copyright notice
• Attribution notice

The entire text does NOT need to be included based off the last quick look at your source. As we are on USO, and your script resides on USO, that is the determining source... not your personal repository. This is done for complete transparency. Having it offsite, at your personal repository, is a bad idea as you can make whatever changes you want to it and not be accountable.

If you are using Opera, navigate to opera:about to see examples of similar licences they display because they are redistributing some open source libraries. They don't simply require just a copyright link and name; the whole licence must be reproduced.

Anyone can download and use my script without any worry about the licence, but as soon as someone begins distributing my script, these licencing restrictions come into play and need to be respected. I hope you can understand that.

To eliminate this problem in the future you also might consider just:

// @require http://userscripts.org/scripts/source/10974.user.js

...and remove GreyWyverns code altogether from your project. This will still include it as part of your script but just via @require.

GreyWyvern wrote:
I am not satisfied with this. I link to the latest version of the BSD licence at opensource.org, which is the version that should be used at the time the script is copied;

GreyWyvern wrote:
Anyone can download and use my script without any worry about the license, but as soon as someone begins distributing my script, these licensing restrictions come into play and need to be respected. I hope you can understand that.

I do agree that @require is a much better solution, but I can also understand the reluctance of trusting another authors code if they tack on something down the line that kills it or causing a security violation. I also notice that your script is tailored to Opera... I'm always open to cross-browser scripting, but it's not defined in USO's charter. And as most of us know Opera doesn't have the capability of using @require so some other comprise needs to happen.

I do appreciate the clear and concise posts from you rather than hearing the vulgar and obnoxious comments from some others. This is how open-source is supposed to work in the community instead of head-bashing, degenerate behaviour.

I do agree that @require is a much better solution, but I can also understand the reluctance of trusting another authors code if they tack on something down the line that kills it or causing a security violation. I also notice that your script is tailored to Opera... I'm always open to cross-browser scripting, but it's not defined in USO's charter. And as most of us know Opera doesn't have the capability of using @require so some other comprise needs to happen.

If Swarnava modified his script to work in Opera, then the capability of using @require would become an issue and it would make more sense for him to include my script directly.

In any case, I suspect I am not going to get any more concessions out of Swarnava, so I suppose I am happy with the inclusion of the copyright notice as it stands now.

Swarnava/Hea... wrote:
@require features doesnot working..temme how it use thorugh require features?

Just like I said above try using:

// @require http://userscripts.org/scripts/source/10974.user.js

Swarnava/Hea... wrote:
I checked not working on firefox 3.5.3

If you would like to check to see if the Firefox profile is corrupted... create a new profile. Instructions on how to do this are here. Then reinstall Greasemonkey into that new profile. Then try the @require with ONLY greasemonkey installed. If it still doesn't work then we're all out of luck at the moment. It is a good idea to back up your existing scripts that you have already installed with Greasemonkey.

Swarnava/Hea... wrote:
Tell Me What I Want To Add?

Swarnava/Hea... wrote:
Tinyurl Decoder Successfully work on require method but do not work keyboard