> Why do you think copyright has anything to do with the post?
Because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is for copyright. You haven't stated how the blog post infringes upon BK's copyright at all, so... yes, seems like a standard fraudulent DMCA claim.
> First thing first. This is NOT DMCA abuse. The DMCA is the only way to communicate with web companies and take down content. As such, it has become the legitimate way to take down any content that needs to be taken down, in the absence of alternatives.
This assumes that companies should be able to take down any content they do not like. This is very much not the case. The DMCA is very specifically only for copyrighted content.
From copyright.gov[1]:
> To be effective, a notice must contain substantially the following information:
> ...
> (v) a statement that the person sending the notice has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
> (vi) a statement that the information in the notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the person sending the notice is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner .
This is pretty clearly DMCA abuse. TFA isn't using any of BK's copyrighted content, which is what a DMCA claim alleges. Just because people have abused the form... pretty much since inception does not mean that it's not perjury to do so.
If BK wants to press charges for unauthorized usage of computer systems, that's another route. This would involve a police report, not perjury, and would probably not take down the website.
- The first thing on the "features" list should be something that other compilers cannot do. Esthetics (maybe just say "DX"?) is a nice to have - sometimes VERY nice to have - but should not be positioned as the most important item.
As the original post says the alternatives have poor ESM support - that's a good differentiator.
- Even though ES Modules are part of the ECMAScript standard, having a header stating "(Partial) Support for ECMAScript"- to me, at least - indicates the project does not support base JS features, not that ESM imports have problems. Maybe say "improved ESM support"?
- Docs seem a little bare. For example, the Usage section says:
# Preinstall Node.js on the target machine
astra install
Which machine is the "target" machine? I would assume, in the context of compiling, that the target would be the machine you are compiling for... but installing software remotely seems out of scope. Does it install it locally, or swap the bundled installation in the .exe?
Also, no mention of binary limitations in actual docs, despite mention in post.
Hopefully this does not come off as discouraging - this looks like a good project.
Thanks for the feedback! I'm constantly working on the project. It's hard to do bc node sea is still an experimental feaurte and there's no much documentation about it, and i want to make it highest quality possible. And it's my first open-source project what's actually getting attention.
I would really appreciate any help with this project!
As far as I remember from when I last read that article, it was a police-requested MiTM by the hosting provider. LetsEncrypt did a standard challenge (requesting http://webroot/.well-known/something) and the MiTM responded appropriately. This isn't really a problem with LE - if you can control the http response to all outside servers, it's fair to say that you control the domain and should have the cert. Bad on the hosting provider for doing so? Maybe, but there is no way for LE to know.
You should have read a few more lines of that source - it also sends an "active" message to the tab, which is what adds and removes the copy/cut/paste event handlers.
Was going to try this out, but the permissions required are too much for me.
View your email
Add and remove items in Your Library
Create, edit, and follow private playlists
Create, edit, and follow playlists
Manage who you follow on Spotify
Stream and control Spotify on your other devices
I understand. It seems like too much, but I've no intention of storing or doing something with the data. Spotify API lets us follow artists, like songs through the app, and create playlists. Also, there is a built-in player that we can listen to the songs and playlists directly without opening the Spotify app.
Somewhat similar experience for me- I canceled apple music today because the Linux experience is... not great. The web client has an issue where the emoji font (Noto Emoji) makes all spaces full width. There's an unofficial client called Cider, but it has issues with favoriting items. And neither web nor Cider support playing to a networked speaker.
The reasoning behind the banning of cross-server emojis in most "respectable" servers is that you can split an image into a 5x5 grid of "emoji" and post images in channels you're not supposed to. It's a mess.
Because the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is for copyright. You haven't stated how the blog post infringes upon BK's copyright at all, so... yes, seems like a standard fraudulent DMCA claim.
> First thing first. This is NOT DMCA abuse. The DMCA is the only way to communicate with web companies and take down content. As such, it has become the legitimate way to take down any content that needs to be taken down, in the absence of alternatives.
This assumes that companies should be able to take down any content they do not like. This is very much not the case. The DMCA is very specifically only for copyrighted content.
From copyright.gov[1]:
> To be effective, a notice must contain substantially the following information:
> ...
> (v) a statement that the person sending the notice has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
> (vi) a statement that the information in the notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the person sending the notice is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner .
This is pretty clearly DMCA abuse. TFA isn't using any of BK's copyrighted content, which is what a DMCA claim alleges. Just because people have abused the form... pretty much since inception does not mean that it's not perjury to do so.
If BK wants to press charges for unauthorized usage of computer systems, that's another route. This would involve a police report, not perjury, and would probably not take down the website.
[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/512/