DMCA sign question
BogudanPro opened this issue · 11 comments
On your page about DMCA there is this point:
7. Digitally sign the email.
My question is: can I use self-signed certificate for it?
I think you are taking this a little too techie... digital signature usually means a legal form of identification. Your actual name is required by law. Think of any website that makes you enter your name as a legal signature... or PDF signature for example.
If you have an issue you may also flag a script for inspection... just be concise on why and validate a claim. If a source is behind a paywall or other similar mechanism then it makes it near impossible to validate.
I may be really going too technical, but it's first time I met digital signature requirement. Including "any website that makes you enter your name as a legal signature... or PDF signature" -- i've never met these.
Do I need to login on site to flag scripts?
i've never met these.
I have a lot of times for just about every contract online... pick a cell phone sign up for example. There are a lot of places where you type in your real name/contact information. If a DMCA comes in without a legal, confirmed, contact then it may be dismissed.
Do I need to login on site to flag scripts?
Yes.
Here's how Adobe's been doing it for many years:
What is "cell phone sign up"?
Something that's beyond the scope of this repo... plus you can search for things like that question. You have your answer for the topic.
Well I tried to search for it, but found nothing :(
See... a simple flagging and possibly drawing attention to your issue works provided there is ample evidence... which you provided.
Btw for your other flag you will need to be more explicit with what line numbers you are talking about. You may right click the offending script line numbers for a link, from the address bar, to the start of what you are wanting to be investigated, then unflag the script, then reflag it with the new comment which should include any line numbers. A simple between line and line link reference will assist in determining your validation please.
FYI this is the diff map for your requested flag:
A lot of green means it's very much a derivative.
In the future on your source repo do not delete older versions as it will skew this process. Since 2.6.4 isn't there on your repo the results need to be manually checked which can be more lead time to investigate. Also 2.6.0, which is what was compared against the target, was ND so definitely shouldn't have been put up on OUJS. Pick a license and stick with it in the future. I do see the similarities so it is granted as valid.
What that particular author should have done is @required your script then it would avoid issues like these thus giving you the accountability.
P.S. I've briefly unlocked the conversation but it will be relocked here shortly.
O meant 2.6.4, (CO EDIT: of the target flagged Script,) Source script version to compare is around 2.3.0.
Also, GreasyFork does not have "delete version" thing AFAIK.
As I mentioned on OUJS, before your target flag script was removed and new offender was removed for blatantly reposting your script a little bit ago... stick to flagging and it will get investigated. It is best to keep things as publicly anonymous as possible in public comments too so you don't get retaliation. i.e. on OUJS just private flag... on GH keep things like "target" instead of specific script names.
You may always read my comments, if I make them, at https://openuserjs.org/users/Marti/comments ... and I'm also moderating at Martii as described in my profile... but actions are taken via OUJS Admin duties... and here on GH I'm a co-owner.
P.S. Thanks for the tip on GF and always verify your flag data... would be helpful to resolve things. :)
If this isn't you please flag it on OUJS. You can leave notes too on the flag stating you are only going to have one account. EDIT Actually there is grounds for removal already.