3 ms·
The heart of their complaint was not the name. It was the fact that the extension injects code into their site.
by 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 agoSo, even more nefarious, and in violation of their terms?
- maple3142 8y agoIf you are using IE to browsing slack, and IE couldn't correctly render it. It is illegal?
- saagarjha 8y agoThat’s what we’re arguing. Slack should not be able to restrict me from modifying the experience on my hardware.
- matzy 8y agoJavaScript 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 agoThose 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 agoI'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.