5 ms·

I don't see why other people can't test his software for him. I'd do it. FB Purity is the only thing keeping me on Facebook, so I have no qualms about risking

by drcube 14y ago

I don't see why other people can't test his software for him. I'd do it. FB Purity is the only thing keeping me on Facebook, so I have no qualms about risking my account for it. I'm gone as soon as it stops working anyway.

philip1209 14y ago
If he open sources the project, it would be interesting.
- gamache 14y ago
  Inversion: until he open-sources it, I am not interested in his plight in the slightest.
  - ryguytilidie 14y ago
    seems fair. Refuse to use common sense until someone open sources years of work.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      If you're not trying to be civil and respectful, please try. If you are trying, please try harder. Thanks.
      - delackner 14y ago
        He is being perfectly civil. He has succinctly stated a position that you find unpleasant, but that is all. It is not considered "civil" in the non-software world to suggest that someone should give away their possessions before you care about bad things happening to them.
        MartinCron 14y ago
        It was the snark and sarcasm that I was taking issue with. I don't have a strong opinion about the position itself. It's a good point cheapened by coarse delivery. We can do better here.
        gamache 14y ago
        If FB Purity is there for the good of humanity, great; open it up and let the community keep going. But why should I care if it's a primarily financial venture, and someone built their house on quicksand? Building a business on FB by removing new FB features is not bright.
        ryguytilidie 14y ago
        But hes not building a business on FB, hes building a business on browsers to change the way they display FB. This reach alone makes me feel like you're being a bit unreasonable, and the open source demands kind of confirm it.
- coolj 14y ago
  I don't use this extension, but I just looked at the xpi and crx versions and they are both just javascript, and I didn't find any license mentioned anywhere. So if you believe djb, you can distribute the source + patches until the author explicitly states otherwise.
  - fbpdev 14y ago
    the source code, clearly has a copyright notice. it is not ok to do what you are suggesting.
    - coolj 14y ago
      To be clear, I wasn't suggesting anyone do anything. I was noting that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software is open to various interpretations regarding distribution of patches, etc (djb's interpretation being one example).

by drcube 14y ago

philip1209 14y ago

If he open sources the project, it would be interesting.

gamache 14y ago
Inversion: until he open-sources it, I am not interested in his plight in the slightest.
- ryguytilidie 14y ago
  seems fair. Refuse to use common sense until someone open sources years of work.
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    If you're not trying to be civil and respectful, please try. If you are trying, please try harder. Thanks.
    - delackner 14y ago
      He is being perfectly civil. He has succinctly stated a position that you find unpleasant, but that is all. It is not considered "civil" in the non-software world to suggest that someone should give away their possessions before you care about bad things happening to them.
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        It was the snark and sarcasm that I was taking issue with. I don't have a strong opinion about the position itself. It's a good point cheapened by coarse delivery. We can do better here.
      - gamache 14y ago
        If FB Purity is there for the good of humanity, great; open it up and let the community keep going. But why should I care if it's a primarily financial venture, and someone built their house on quicksand? Building a business on FB by removing new FB features is not bright.
        ryguytilidie 14y ago
        But hes not building a business on FB, hes building a business on browsers to change the way they display FB. This reach alone makes me feel like you're being a bit unreasonable, and the open source demands kind of confirm it.
coolj 14y ago
I don't use this extension, but I just looked at the xpi and crx versions and they are both just javascript, and I didn't find any license mentioned anywhere. So if you believe djb, you can distribute the source + patches until the author explicitly states otherwise.
- fbpdev 14y ago
  the source code, clearly has a copyright notice. it is not ok to do what you are suggesting.
  - coolj 14y ago
    To be clear, I wasn't suggesting anyone do anything. I was noting that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software is open to various interpretations regarding distribution of patches, etc (djb's interpretation being one example).