"If you are caught in a dire situation wherein you only have enough time to save one person out of a group, and the Author is a member of that group, you must save the Author."
I don't know, I really liked the `FuckIt.moreConflict()` method, especially when I read the source and realized he actually tested it and ensured `window.location` would not get overwritten (or you'd navigate away from the page)
Brilliant... This is going in every software license and terms agreement I write from here on out. What a tremendous insurance policy if I perhaps hit on the next Facebook. 1/7th of the planet responsible for saving lil ol' me.
Just keep in mind: widespread adoption of this license can lead to race conditions, when two concurrent authors of simultaneously used products happen to be in the same group
Not so much a fault of the GPL as a fault of copyright law - I've heard judges tend to look poorly on people who appear to be disrespecting the legal system.
On their own code, a person can add what ever extra restrictions on top of the GPL they like. You might be able to argue that it is not really the GPL afterwards. If they want to use other GPL code in it, then they have to be careful. If someone else wants to use the code in some other GPL code, then they too have to be careful.
Well-done. What does this have to do with making a joke license for a work people might want to actually modify? Do they not get to laugh if they choose GPL over the one with the comedy in?
> Do they not get to laugh if they choose GPL over the one with the comedy in?
The important thing is what happens if they pick the joke license. They get to ignore the GPL entirely, which is probably not what you want if you only intended to add something funny to your work.
If you just want to add funny license terms but keep the GPL terms, you have to modify the GPL license instead of having a dual license.
Reminds me of Failure-Oblivious Computing [1]. It takes advantage of the fact that in many programs errors have a short error propagation distance as they are often written as a main event loop and as long as you can get to the next iteration of the loop the error won't corrupt state. For example, if your server crashes on one request, it will probably be fine if it just gets invalid data instead, discards it as invalid, and then waits for the next response.
I'm not sure if this applies well to JavaScript. We might observe that most JavaScript is a set of disjoint event handlers. If one doesn't work right it probably won't break the rest of the site.
I played around with implementing FOP dynamically through DynamoRIO [2] as a class project but only got through a proof of concept and quickly remembered why I hate x86 assembly.
This is exactly what browsers do already. If one event handler has an error, that event is aborted. But the event loops continues, and js will continue to run.
I realize that this is a joke, but I can't help but wonder if there is a possible valid use for it. I could imagine needing something that fixed bad js for a crawler that needed JS on a poorly coded site, but I can't think of an occasion where discarded bad code would ever be useful. Maybe if a site deliberately injected bad JS to prevent crawling it would be worthwhile.
It's a general thing some people do. Anything that ends in an -er sound can be replaced with -ar for apparent hilarity. I think the most common (and maybe first) example is "winnar," though there are many more.
My apologies. I submitted, but when it has been submitted before it usually just redirects you to the previously submitted one. Not sure why it didn't do this for me this time!
No need to apologise. If something is missed the first time, people see it the second time and it gets voted up to the front page then people want to see it. With the voting system if it truly is a "dupe" it wont get voted up...
...but still, what does `FuckIt.moreConflict()` actually do and when would I use it? (I just desperately feel the need to use a function named `moreConflict`... don't ask!)
"If you are caught in a dire situation wherein you only have enough time to save one person out of a group, and the Author is a member of that group, you must save the Author."