4 ms·

this was a bunch of Tampermonkey scripts... but I don't want to ignore their cease and desist. I... just don't do it. changing the name is not an issue... howe

by g3rv4 8y ago

this was a bunch of Tampermonkey scripts... but I don't want to ignore their cease and desist. I... just don't do it. changing the name is not an issue... however, if I have to take it down, that's moot.

shawn 8y ago
It's our right as developers to modify and upgrade the tools we use. It's important to ensure that this remains true both today and in the future. I wanted to give you a moral boost, in case you were looking for a reason to take a stand. But if you don't want to, that's entirely valid.
- overcast 8y ago
  Ok Stallman, now back to reality where people do own software, they do have legal restrictions on its use, and it's not a human right to circumvent it.
  - eertami 8y ago
    Yeah and I also own the machine that's rendering the HTML and executing the Javascript. Nobody has any legal right to prevent me modifying my browser and changing how it interprets said javascript.
    - overcast 8y ago
      They do when you want to redistribute it with their name, which is the whole point of this discussion.
      - shawn 8y ago
        The heart of their complaint was not the name. It was the fact that the extension injects code into their site.
        overcast 8y ago
        So, even more nefarious, and in violation of their terms?
        maple3142 8y ago
        If you are using IE to browsing slack, and IE couldn't correctly render it. It is illegal?
        saagarjha 8y ago
        That’s what we’re arguing. Slack should not be able to restrict me from modifying the experience on my hardware.
        matzy 8y ago
        JavaScript runs on the client genius, not the server. You're not changing their product, your modifying how it is run on your personal machine.
        facetube 8y ago
        Those terms bind Slack users. This problem goes away if the maintainer doesn't use Slack and has never used Slack. It wouldn't be efficient, but it'd be possible.
        tomrod 8y ago
        > the extension injects code into their site. But it doesn't inject code into their site, right? The HTTP request is made to the server all the same, nothing modified via the browser, it's all code additive/correction in the extension?
        pixl97 8y ago
        I'm not sure I'd say it injects code in to 'their site', as slacks site never sees the code. It injects code into the dom model of the users browser.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        No, there are two points raised by the cease-and-desist: one was not to modify the experience, and the other was to change the name. These are two independent issues.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
mosselman 8y ago
"I... just don't do it." You mean you do not ignore cease and desist orders by principal? Why? There should be at least some criteria by which you judge which ones you can ignore and which you can't? What if they told you to cease and desist programming forever on any project because they state in their terms that once you mess with their UI with JavaScript you are not allowed to program anymore? Ridiculous right? So would you listen? Probably not. So lets see what they are 'forbidding' you: They don't want you to write code that makes browsers do other things to their site... How is that any of their business? What if a new browser comes along that renders all of their fonts differently so that they become unreadable, is that any of their business or is it the business of the people who use that browser? I'd say the latter. I agree that a disclaimer and a change of name should be enough. I'd suggest 'SlackingOff' as a name. You are free to write any extension that does anything to any website as long as you aren't hurting users' human rights and as long as you aren't hacking them if you ask me. Users can decide whether they want to use your extension perfectly fine on their own. Also note that you are free to not write any extension as well. It is your life of course :)
- g3rv4 8y ago
  Because... I have lots of things to work on, lots of things I want to build, lots of people I want to talk with. None of them involve talking with a lawyer in a different country over something that's really not that important in my life.
  - jorjordandan 8y ago
    I got a cease and desist for a extension that improved the look of Craigslist. I just ignored it, I've never had to talk to a lawyer or anything. But that's my situation, I understand that other people may feel differently. EFF offered to review my case, but I didn't wind up following up with that either. Might be an option for you.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Craigslist sued another company that extended its listings with their own code and, as I recall, won.
stunt 8y ago
@g3rv4, I understand it really sucks and feels terrible. But I also understand their reaction. Don't be surprised about legal writing. He/She as a legal person is responsible for writing in a very clear and explicit way since any misunderstanding might cost the reader or themselves in the future. It just shows their accountability. You don't want a misunderstanding cost you trouble. I have colleagues working in the legal department. They understand you, but they still have to make sure there is no misunderstanding there. They are serving enterprise companies, Anything goes wrong can destroy their business. It makes sense for them not to risk anything. Companies are paying them for the security. Otherwise, there are cheaper alternatives to Slack with somewhat similar features. Slack could allow custom clients. But I'm pretty sure all major customers will require their employees not to use un-official clients for security reasons.
- strathos 8y ago
  > Companies are paying them for the security. Otherwise, there are cheaper alternatives to Slack with somewhat similar features. > Slack could allow custom clients. But I'm pretty sure all major customers will require their employees not to use un-official clients for security reasons. Is security really a client side thing? Obviously I understand stuff like key logging and such in a malicious client, but how would somebody using a custom client affect another user's security with an official client? I mean if it would, wouldn't that be a horrible situation anyway from security point of view?
- g3rv4 8y ago
  I get it... but literally, there are THOUSAND extensions already injecting javascript on their site. are they going after all of them? if that's the case, I'd understand.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > But I also understand their reaction. And I don't. I mean, charitably this could be attributed to some non-tech person noticing the extension and sending/asking legal to send a C&D because they didn't like it. That's the only thing I can think of, because the alternative is plain malice. This is a client-side modification, the main part of their letter is just absurd, and the justification is nonsense.

by g3rv4 8y ago

shawn 8y ago

It's our right as developers to modify and upgrade the tools we use. It's important to ensure that this remains true both today and in the future. I wanted to give you a moral boost, in case you were looking for a reason to take a stand. But if you don't want to, that's entirely valid.

overcast 8y ago
Ok Stallman, now back to reality where people do own software, they do have legal restrictions on its use, and it's not a human right to circumvent it.
- eertami 8y ago
  Yeah and I also own the machine that's rendering the HTML and executing the Javascript. Nobody has any legal right to prevent me modifying my browser and changing how it interprets said javascript.
  - overcast 8y ago
    They do when you want to redistribute it with their name, which is the whole point of this discussion.
    - shawn 8y ago
      The heart of their complaint was not the name. It was the fact that the extension injects code into their site.
      - overcast 8y ago
        So, even more nefarious, and in violation of their terms?
        maple3142 8y ago
        If you are using IE to browsing slack, and IE couldn't correctly render it. It is illegal?
        saagarjha 8y ago
        That’s what we’re arguing. Slack should not be able to restrict me from modifying the experience on my hardware.
        matzy 8y ago
        JavaScript runs on the client genius, not the server. You're not changing their product, your modifying how it is run on your personal machine.
        facetube 8y ago
        Those terms bind Slack users. This problem goes away if the maintainer doesn't use Slack and has never used Slack. It wouldn't be efficient, but it'd be possible.
      - tomrod 8y ago
        > the extension injects code into their site. But it doesn't inject code into their site, right? The HTTP request is made to the server all the same, nothing modified via the browser, it's all code additive/correction in the extension?
      - pixl97 8y ago
        I'm not sure I'd say it injects code in to 'their site', as slacks site never sees the code. It injects code into the dom model of the users browser.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      No, there are two points raised by the cease-and-desist: one was not to modify the experience, and the other was to change the name. These are two independent issues.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

mosselman 8y ago

"I... just don't do it." You mean you do not ignore cease and desist orders by principal? Why? There should be at least some criteria by which you judge which ones you can ignore and which you can't? What if they told you to cease and desist programming forever on any project because they state in their terms that once you mess with their UI with JavaScript you are not allowed to program anymore? Ridiculous right? So would you listen? Probably not. So lets see what they are 'forbidding' you: They don't want you to write code that makes browsers do other things to their site... How is that any of their business? What if a new browser comes along that renders all of their fonts differently so that they become unreadable, is that any of their business or is it the business of the people who use that browser? I'd say the latter. I agree that a disclaimer and a change of name should be enough. I'd suggest 'SlackingOff' as a name. You are free to write any extension that does anything to any website as long as you aren't hurting users' human rights and as long as you aren't hacking them if you ask me. Users can decide whether they want to use your extension perfectly fine on their own. Also note that you are free to not write any extension as well. It is your life of course :)

g3rv4 8y ago
Because... I have lots of things to work on, lots of things I want to build, lots of people I want to talk with. None of them involve talking with a lawyer in a different country over something that's really not that important in my life.
- jorjordandan 8y ago
  I got a cease and desist for a extension that improved the look of Craigslist. I just ignored it, I've never had to talk to a lawyer or anything. But that's my situation, I understand that other people may feel differently. EFF offered to review my case, but I didn't wind up following up with that either. Might be an option for you.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Craigslist sued another company that extended its listings with their own code and, as I recall, won.

stunt 8y ago

@g3rv4, I understand it really sucks and feels terrible. But I also understand their reaction. Don't be surprised about legal writing. He/She as a legal person is responsible for writing in a very clear and explicit way since any misunderstanding might cost the reader or themselves in the future. It just shows their accountability. You don't want a misunderstanding cost you trouble. I have colleagues working in the legal department. They understand you, but they still have to make sure there is no misunderstanding there. They are serving enterprise companies, Anything goes wrong can destroy their business. It makes sense for them not to risk anything. Companies are paying them for the security. Otherwise, there are cheaper alternatives to Slack with somewhat similar features. Slack could allow custom clients. But I'm pretty sure all major customers will require their employees not to use un-official clients for security reasons.

strathos 8y ago
> Companies are paying them for the security. Otherwise, there are cheaper alternatives to Slack with somewhat similar features. > Slack could allow custom clients. But I'm pretty sure all major customers will require their employees not to use un-official clients for security reasons. Is security really a client side thing? Obviously I understand stuff like key logging and such in a malicious client, but how would somebody using a custom client affect another user's security with an official client? I mean if it would, wouldn't that be a horrible situation anyway from security point of view?
g3rv4 8y ago
I get it... but literally, there are THOUSAND extensions already injecting javascript on their site. are they going after all of them? if that's the case, I'd understand.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> But I also understand their reaction. And I don't. I mean, charitably this could be attributed to some non-tech person noticing the extension and sending/asking legal to send a C&D because they didn't like it. That's the only thing I can think of, because the alternative is plain malice. This is a client-side modification, the main part of their letter is just absurd, and the justification is nonsense.