[Greasemonkey] a difference in vision

chris feldmann cfeldmann at gmail.com
Fri May 27 00:47:12 EDT 2005

On 5/26/05, Jeremy Dunck <jdunck at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/05, chris feldmann <cfeldmann at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Exactly.
> >
> > If you make a script and make it public, cool. But let it go. If you 
> find
> > yourself making "versions," write it into an extension. Or use the 
> Adrian
> > Holovaty's greasemonky "compiler":
> > http://www.letitblog.com/greasemonkey-compiler/.
> Hmm. So, here's perhaps a novel idea.
> What do you think of a social, if not legal policy, which states that
> user scripts are GPL, or similar?
> We couldn't be MPL compatible with that sort of restriction, but, uh,
> if we get off of Mozdev, so?
> Attribution is still in order, but control isn't.
> This might poison cross-pollenation with Opera user scripts...

I think, personally (and this has been my practice), write it, put a lgpl 
(or gpl) license in the comments, post it, forget it. Anyone else can add 
even a single line to change some minor functionality and repost it, with a 
description more accurately describing what it does now. Or even that it 
does the same thing better. Or you can do that yourself to your own script. 
I mean, come on, it's just a script, right?

I DO like the idea of that being a policy-level aspect of
for example. Write, post and forget.

It enforces an acceptance of the ephemeral, transient nature of life itself. 
I mean, in a sense, we're all little userscripts, modifying tiny parts of 
the world to suit our own insignificant desires....;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mozdev.org/pipermail/greasemonkey/attachments/20050526/990f5313/attachment.htm

More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list