Userscripts.org

Direct inclusion of derived usoCheckup found in current version without @attribution to all parties and also not maintaining visible @license

Please set USO metadata to L/GPL and also include the @attribution keys and @license key.

Target code

...
method: 'GET',
		// На момент написания функции протокол https не работал.
		url: 'http://userscripts.org/scripts/source/95593.meta.js',
		headers: {'Cache-Control': 'no-cache'},

		retry: 3,
		onerror: function(objResponse)
		// Не получен ответ от сервера.
		{
			GM_log('AutoUpdateScript(): GM_xmlhttpRequest.status=' + objResponse.status + ' retry=' + this.retry);

			if (--this.retry >= 0)
			{
				setTimeout(GM_xmlhttpRequest, 10000, this);
...

Another alternative was offered to you to host a i18n usoC theme that I mentioned in a pm but you chose not to follow up on that.

CoolCmd wrote:
In version 2011.2.21 I have removed two your lines of code.

I am continuing the DMCA TDN because of this.

CoolCmd wrote:
Derived?

Instead of adding a few simple lines to your metadata block like this

...
// @copyright     2011, CoolCmd (http://userscripts.org/users/284226)
// @license       GPL version 3 or any later version; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
// @attribution   tHE gREASEmONKEYS (usocheckup.svn.sf.net/viewvc/usocheckup/trunk/src/metadata.php?content-type=text%2Fplain)
// @license       LGPL version 3 or any later version; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lgpl.html
...

• First and Second line is required to maintain your license on your specific code since you've chosen to derive self updating code from a L/GPL project
• Third is a courtesy to all the Contributors and the Maintainer as well as required by L/GPL
• Fourth line is for what you derived from usoCheckup

Fact of the matter is you were complacent on figuring out how to do an i18n (translation)Theme for usoCheckup, you left the Discussion group, and decided to unlicense and steal code. L/GPL is meant to protect works from situations like you have surreptitiously done.

I ask you... How hard would these lines really have been? What you have done is rude for starters and quite illegal. I'm usually a very easy person to get along with but when I get complaints and have complaints of my own I try my best to resolve them. Every step of this way you have sidestepped the issue.

CoolCmd wrote:
Ты так и не указал, какие конкретно куски взяты из usocheckup. Это не удивительно, потому что в версии 2011.2.21 весь код написан мною. Поэтому я не вижу смысла включать в метаданные твои строки. Мой скрипт не требует лицензии, любой человек может его использовать, копировать и изменять.
PS
Твою бы энергию да на благие цели...

Even if the lines no longer match any code from usoCheckup, it is very clear that you derived the current code directly from usoCheckup. I see you've released your script under the MIT License. That license is incompatible with GPL licensed code so you are still in violation of the license of usoCheckup. The easiest way to fix this would be to GPL license your script.

Marti, sizzlemctwizzle,
Sorry, I want to understand the situation because also write code to auto checking, with i18n, with viewing same server requests for "*.meta.js".

I can check the code automatically by 1 or 2 methods. If this method is used in another program and I watched it's program code, but wrote my own code, similar in structure, whether it is a violation of a license? As far as I know, rewriting the code fixes the problem with licensing. I copy the idea, but does not copy the program. If it were not so, it is licensed to the idea or method, and all other programs would have licenses from the first program. Could you point out a few words on the license or the laws of the United States, which contradict my opinion?

(I know that there is patenting certain algorithms in the United States, but the patenting of algorithms and licensing program code for the GPL - a different concept.)

spmbt wrote:
whether it is a violation of a license?

Since CoolCmd is incapable of figuring out what derived means I'll explain it. Taking someones code, modifying it to suit their needs. This part I don't have a problem with as I have stated clearly several times already within the boundaries of a compatible License.

The part that I have an issue with is that CoolCmd is clearly violating Licensing by unlicensing and relicensing. I've already obtained his providers contact information in Yekaterinburg.

MIT licensing and No Licensing (which means Exclusive Rights to prevent anyone from deriving a copy of it) is incompatible with L/GPL. L/GPL is meant to maintain free adaptations of work (e.g. derivatives). CoolCmd clearly has violated every Law that I know of in Contract Licensing and depending on what happens he may even lose his internet. I'm not the Judge of this but I certainly have 100% of this case documented.

His surreptitious methods will perhaps lead him down a path he doesn't want to be in. He tucked his tail in between his legs and added a MIT License after the fact which only makes the situation worse.

spmbt wrote:
As far as I know, rewriting the code fixes the problem with licensing.

If you want to pursue your concept of preventing others from using adaptations... look to CoolCmds initial action of unlicensing that portion... Then his claim that he was the Originator by putting on a MIT License. Basically his subversive behavior is inappropriate and there are International Treaties that enforce Copyright and Licensing. CoolCmd has failed to abide by L/GPLs.

Ideas are free to adapt but not using CoolCmds methodology. I can't explain this any clearer and quite frankly I'm getting tired of repeating myself... so if you have more questions... consult an Attorney.

Marti, thank you for presenting point of view. Perhaps the story of his code shows the inheritance, but by comparing the codes
http://usocheckup.redirectme.net/13701.js
and
http://userscripts.org/scripts/version/95593/30...,
I have not found a similarity in them.

spmbt wrote:
but by comparing the codes
http://usocheckup.redirectme.net/13701.js
and
http://userscripts.org/scripts/version/95593/30...,

CoolCmd wrote:
Even if the lines no longer match any code from usoCheckup, it is very clear that you derived the current code directly from usoCheckup.

CoolCmd wrote:
sizzlemctwizzle:
"Even if the lines no longer match any code from usoCheckup, it is very clear that you derived the current code directly from usoCheckup."
Нужели ты думаешь, что человек за несколько дней без посторонней помощи не способен написать такую тривиальную вещь как автообновление? Если да, то ты либо плохо знаешь способности других людей, либо не объективен. Единственную вещь, которую я заимствовал из usocheckup в версии 2011.2.18 - это хранение счетчика повторов в объекте, передаваемого GM_xmlhttpRequest(). Но объявлять на основе этого, что код заимствован просто глупо!
А ты, Marti, самый натуральный "лицензированный осел". :) С чем я тебя и поздравляю.