The Adblock Project Forum Index The Adblock Project
Pull up a seat ...stay a while.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Feature Request: Subscribe to Filter

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tallguy
Guest





PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005    Post subject: Feature Request: Subscribe to Filter Reply with quote

I use filterset G, and I would love an AdBlock feature to allow me to "subscribe" to a filterset and have it automatically update from that set on a regular basis.

Great extension!
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=774
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately that isn't going to help much unless G puts the latest under a static name, you'll just be syncing with an old version.
Back to top
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a few reasons why I don't have a static file for the current version. Most importantly, it forces people to refer others to the base directory, which contains installation instructions, contact information, changelog, etc. If people could refer the filterset to friends with a direct URL, it's unlikely people would ever know those documents exist. In addition, the current format makes it obvious when the filterset has been updated.

I am not willing to make such sacrifices for an unofficial build.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ken Cooper



Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 110
Location: Holland, MI USA

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G wrote:
I am not willing to make such sacrifices for an unofficial build.


I was buying into your argument for not maintaining a static file until your last statement. So are you saying that if the official version offers subscription updates you would then maintain the requested static file? If so, your previous comments weren't worth the bits required to display them.
_________________
My Firefox Page
NOTE: Firefox is spelled “F-i-r-e-f-o-x”; only the first letter capitalized. The preferred abbreviation is “Fx” or “fx”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

honestly, i just installed the whitelist version of adblock. it has a set of filters already in it. these filters work fine on every site i have been too.

i see very little need for filterset g, even though it is the best.

what needs to happen:

1. dev crew puts out .6. soon, i figure.
2. dev crew adds g to team.
3. g puts filterlist on official server
4. filterlist is autosynced with adblock by default.
5. ???
5. Profit.
Back to top
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I could link it to an official build, I could ensure that the proper documentation was available through the official site.
_________________
Filterset.G


Last edited by G on Tue May 17, 2005; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Starks



Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, my name is Starks, co-author of the Text to Image and GameFOX Firefox extensions. I am wondering if I could use your filterset to host a static and sync-able link that can be updated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. I have already explained why I do not want a static file for the current version.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Starks



Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

You cannot hold a monopoly over an extension or a filterset. Because your filterset is not under any sort of license or GPL. There is nothing protecting your filterset from such synching... Anyone, including myself could do that and you wouldn't be the wiser. You are trying to enforce the impossible here. I tried to see your side of the argument, but now you are starting to come off as a stubborn coder, unwilling to accept new ideas or innovation. Your filterset, unless stated otherwise, can be used in any many the end user sees fit.

Quote:
Instructions for Adding Your Own Filters:

1. Clear all filters from Adblock (Adblock Options > Remove all filters..)
2. Add your personal filters (do not enter anything from Filterset.G)
3. Export the list
4. Import Filterset.G and *overwrite* the list
5. Import your supplement and *do not overwrite*

Follow steps 5 and 6 whenever you update Filterset.G
Be sure to check the changelog to see if your filters have become redundant


This statement basically spells out that I can do whatever I want with your filterset once I download it, and because I have a soul, I'd give you credit for creating the filterset.


Last edited by Starks on Tue May 17, 2005; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have spent countless hours on Filterset.G in the hopes of making the internet a friendlier place by eliminating distracting advertisements and reducing the amount of unwanted data transferred. I receive no personal gain from its widespread use, however I feel compelled to protect my work. I had hoped I could avoid posting a restrictive license, however your threat has forced me to do so. If any part of it is unclear, please let me know. It is intended only to stop unauthorized redistribution, and not hinder legitimate use in any way.

http://www.geocities.com/pierceive/adblock/license.txt
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Starks



Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps the greatest thing a coder can realize is how precious his work is. I commend you as a fellow coder for taking steps to protect it. I shall leave you be, at least some good came from our argument. You can sleep now with a deeper sense of security.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kstahl
Support


Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1202
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I fail to see how bullying G into posting a restrictive licence for his filterset can be considered "good" in any way...
_________________
Adblock 0.5.3.042
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.Cool Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to suggest that G consider a Creative Commons license, which would still protect his work, but could be a tad less restrictive.
_________________
Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

My only goal is to prevent redistribution, which is permitted by CC and GPL.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcm_ham



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I apologise G for the pressure you have been put under because of my hack, the fact that everyone does refer to your list is testiment to your good work and is appreciated. I thought there were good reasons posted in the "Load default filters from web" thread for having the feature.

But maybe there are other ways around this that addresses your concerns that would benefit everyone. There's nothing to stop us putting more information directly into the UI about synchronization and community based filter threads. There we could list common ones (which is just yours for the moment) with description of its strengths/weaknesses and full contact details. I would be interested in any ideas of what and how we should expose that information.

Personally though I would like comment from the Adblock developers about Adblock Plus. I don't want to steal their thunder away nor put pressure on them to include particular features into the next Adblock. My intention was just to add the two main requested features and fix the few remaining bugs.


Last edited by mcm_ham on Mon Jun 06, 2005; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G wrote:
My only goal is to prevent redistribution, which is permitted by CC and GPL.
aw, shoot.


I was hoping a strict CC lic like this one would be to your liking:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
Quote:
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0

You are free:

* to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must give the original author credit.

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
* Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.



anyway -- thank you for the effort you've put forth, you've done a great service and you deserve to have your work taken seriously
_________________
Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear G,

I'm honestly interested in how this works. What are you protecting exactly? The first version of the filterset? The last version? All of them?

Can you retroactively put a restrictive license on things which you already gave without any license?

Can you even do that on a list of regular expressions? If you intend to protect the first version of filterset G, isn't there some sort of prior art idea floating around? I mean, it’s nothing special. I could make it too. I guess that just applies to patents, which I'm assuming you wouldn't be dealing with here.

So, this is more of a copyright issue? If that is so, I really don't see what would stop anyone from creating a separate list that enforces the same basic regular expressions in slightly different ways.

Basically, what I am trying to say is: "Be realistic"

Ask people not to redistribute your work, but if they do just ignore it. I mean, honestly, does it matter to you? The entire point of open source stuff it to allow people to modify and improve other people’s work.

Right now, you are the best. I doubt anyone disagrees. But, it is pretty short sighted to think that you can keep yourself in power by trying to keep other people down. Like the people who make Debian crying that they are losing users to Ubuntu.

Make the better product, people will use it.

I'd take that license down because, quite frankly, you are lowering yourself. I mean, maybe if you were selling it. But you aren't. Oh, and everyone already knows you made it, so I think your reputation should stay just fine. Actually, the only thing that lowers your rep is this license.

Smile

You are awesome, your list is awesome. License? Not so awesome.
Back to top
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, "everyone" doesn't know who makes Filterset.G, and that is a very small way to look at a very big issue. The following are the major problems that develop without restrictions on redistribution:

1. Someone redistributes Filterset.G and tacks on their own rules or modifies it.
People then complain to me about bad rules that aren't of my devising, and their opinion of my work is lowered, despite the fact that I had nothing to do with the junk rules that are causing problems. I get enough email just dealing with valid feedback. It gets even better when people don't update their parts (though normally they just don't anything at all), but still update Filterset.G. Their filters start becoming completely redundant as Filterset.G expands, and no longer serve any purpose but to bring on false positives. More commonly, they don't update Filterset.G, and problems that I've fixed are not resolved in their lists.

2. Someone redistributes Filterset.G with no modifications or posts a "latest.txt" of the most recent version.
People refer each other to the redistribution, and not my page. People are no longer able to find instructions, contact information, changelog, etc. If people don't provide feedback, Filterset.G stops evolving, and if I can't change the documentation as needed, problems will not be dealt with. In addition, there's nothing to stop this from turning into situation #1, nor is there any way to ensure that it is updated properly. I've been fighting a "latest.txt" file for far longer than this "Adblock Plus" could sync lists - while it would make life easier for many users at first, it will have tangible impacts on the amount of feedback I receive, which will hurt them in the end. Most people will refer others to the "latest.txt" file, and not the base directory, so that new users are completely oblivious to the documentation and contact information. Even if "Adblock Plus" provided a way to make it clear what the homepage was, most people are using the official release, which does not.

3. Someone includes Filterset.G rules in their filter list.
No one has any idea who made the rules which took me months (now approaching years) to craft. Credit is falsely assigned to the person who tacked them on. I expect that I'll become more permissive towards this as Filterset.G grows, but for the moment, I'd prefer to have credit for my work.

I've dealt with all three of these situations often enough. Redistributing Filterset.G will only make it less effective as feedback is reduced, and make me far less inclined to continue working on it. As long as I am actively developing Filterset.G, I will do what is necessary to ensure that the experience of its users continues to improve. I did not post the license because I wanted to restrict people, I posted it so that I could continue to serve them.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jpt



Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starks wrote:

You cannot hold a monopoly over an extension or a filterset. Because your filterset is not under any sort of license or GPL. There is nothing protecting your filterset from such synching... Anyone, including myself could do that and you wouldn't be the wiser. You are trying to enforce the impossible here.

Anonymous wrote:
Dear G,
Can you retroactively put a restrictive license on things which you already gave without any license?

Contrary to popular belief, and unlike patents, copyright attaches automatically to anything copyrightable that you create. Moreover, the "default" copyright license is none -- without explicit permission from the author (such as a note explicitly placing it in the public domain, or a nonrestrictive license), you DO NOT have the legal right nor privilege to copy, redistribute, or create derivative works of the author's work. G has legal recourse against everyone who redistributed FS.G before (or after) his licence was posted, if he wanted to.

Similarly, "prior art" does not apply; we're talking about copyrights, not patents, which are different beasts entirely.

Starks does have a point in that enforcement is likely to be extremely-difficult-to-impossible. G isn't even paying to host FS.G; I can only assume that he would be unwilling to spend thousands of dollars in investigating, and taking legal action to stop, its redistribution. However, I do hope that the publication of the FS.G license on the main site would be enough to stop polite persons from making the problem worse than it is.

G, thank you for your hard work, and good luck.

P.S. By the way, you may want to include in the license one of the standard disclaimers of implied warranty (you can find one in any software license or in the instruction manuals of most consumer electronics).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wonkothesane
The Other Developer


Joined: 22 May 2004
Posts: 210

PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just thought I'd chime in and note that jpt is spot-on in his analysis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
guest
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005    Post subject: how about Reply with quote

Why not just take the existing product, give it a new name and make it your own, and then distribute it as you describe? That way, the filterset.g can go on and if people like that better, they can choose it. If not, they can choose yours. Everybody wins!
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous wrote:
honestly, i just installed the whitelist version of adblock. it has a set of filters already in it. these filters work fine on every site i have been too.

i see very little need for filterset g, even though it is the best.

what needs to happen:

1. dev crew puts out .6. soon, i figure.
2. dev crew adds g to team.
3. g puts filterlist on official server
4. filterlist is autosynced with adblock by default.
5. ???
5. Profit.


Anonymous wrote:
Dear G,

I'm honestly interested in how this works. What are you protecting exactly? The first version of the filterset? The last version? All of them?

Can you retroactively put a restrictive license on things which you already gave without any license?

Can you even do that on a list of regular expressions? If you intend to protect the first version of filterset G, isn't there some sort of prior art idea floating around? I mean, it’s nothing special. I could make it too. I guess that just applies to patents, which I'm assuming you wouldn't be dealing with here.

So, this is more of a copyright issue? If that is so, I really don't see what would stop anyone from creating a separate list that enforces the same basic regular expressions in slightly different ways.

Basically, what I am trying to say is: "Be realistic"

Ask people not to redistribute your work, but if they do just ignore it. I mean, honestly, does it matter to you? The entire point of open source stuff it to allow people to modify and improve other people’s work.

Right now, you are the best. I doubt anyone disagrees. But, it is pretty short sighted to think that you can keep yourself in power by trying to keep other people down. Like the people who make Debian crying that they are losing users to Ubuntu.

Make the better product, people will use it.

I'd take that license down because, quite frankly, you are lowering yourself. I mean, maybe if you were selling it. But you aren't. Oh, and everyone already knows you made it, so I think your reputation should stay just fine. Actually, the only thing that lowers your rep is this license.

Smile

You are awesome, your list is awesome. License? Not so awesome.


Both of those posts are from me, just so you know what I am thinking.

What I am trying to point out is that filterset G, quite frankly, could be reproduced with not a huge amount of effort.

Think Unix->Linux but 1 millions times easier. I'm well aware you own a copyright to your origonal work. But you don't really own much beyond that. If anyone wants to, they can make a very similar filterset without using anything you have created.

If all you are worried about is people emailing you about problems that don't exist in your filterset, why not just ask people, if they chose to expand your work, to name it something seperate. "FiltersetEnhanced, based on FiltersetG" for example.

Again, I'm trying to help you, but I'm getting the distinct feeling that you think people are out to get you or something.

We like your work. A lot. That is why people want to use it.

Smile
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Me again--

Oh, additionally:

While the license would restrict people copying your work, it doesn't restrict how they access it at all.

For example, it would take about 30 minutes for me to piece together some javascript that would grab your directory listing, use some reg expressions, and grab the most recently dated filename.

Then, I could easily have my extension just get that file.

Static naming just makes that process easier.

Oh, to note: I do develop extensions, but I have no interest in filterset g other than the fact that I like it and I use it.
Back to top
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no way to reproduce Filterset.G without reference to the genuine article. Sure, you'll happen upon a number of similar elements (especially for simple filters) when making your own, but Filterset.G isn't based on one person's surfing experience. I've received well over a thousand emails from all over the globe regarding advertisements and false positives from thousands of websites in dozens of languages. Without such feedback, there's simply no way to end up with something like Filterset.G.

If you can find a way to sync the most recent version of Filterset.G without violating my license/copyright, be my guest. I would certainly encourage you to try, and even make the method/utility publically available. All I ask is that no one redistribute Filterset.G - if you can have the process completed on your own computer using only what I post, why would I object?
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G wrote:
All I ask is that no one redistribute Filterset.G - if you can have the process completed on your own computer using only what I post, why would I object?


Well, didn't you say that one of the reasons that you didn't want to make a static file was that it would allow users to get the file without ever seeing the instructions in the directory?

And as far as making a script that could grab the latest version of the filterset, it wouldn't be hard at all. And, users would never see your instructions on the directory.

The point is, I don't want to. Like I said, I like the fact that users see the instructions. What I am saying is that it is very possible to get around seeing the instructions and still having an extension get the latest file.

Again, I'm not into making adblock like extensions. I think this crew does a good job, albiet pretty slow recently. I'm ok with that though, cause it works.

Again, you need to join up with the adblock crew and integrate syncing your list (which would then be official).

Then, users could add seperate lists that they deal with themselves, whitelist and blacklist included.

Your list stays synced, the user's lists get managed sperately.

Oh, and as far as making a list that works just about as well as adblock, I think I could do an ok job with that as well. In fact, I have a suggestion. You mentioned that you have lots of people giving you false positives, etc. It might be a reasonable idea to automate this process using a webpage and moderation/voting techniques.

Again, I have no intention of taking what is yours, and I love your work. All I am saying is that you are coming off defensive and arrogent. I'm not saying that you are, because I really, really doubt that is true, just that you aren't putting yourself in the best light.

rue, other devs?

Just add him to the team and sync his lists in 0.6.
Oh, and change the front page colors. Smile

Please.
Back to top
fanboy
Guest





PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I actively use a number of lists (and merge it into my own list), including G's list, and every line of 'code I borrow gets recongition. I haven't simply ripped everything from G's list, I have merged some parts. Because up till now, there were no license on G's list, so it was Public Domain.

Its like saying, heres a website: hyfntrak.com, its a bad popup tracker website, is that website url copyrighted to my list? no. anyone can use that address, they're free to use it, however if they find that url from my list and use it in their own public list, then I want some credit. Same thing applies for any regex borrowed, I give credit where credit is due.

Looking at the creative commons license, looks suitable, however I can't place my list under the license since it would require everyone who's contributed (directly and indirectly), which also includes G's list to give his "ok".
Back to top
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm being defensive because I was attacked. The only reason I posted the license was because someone threatened to redistribute against my pleas.

I have to assume that the people that would use such a utility would be the most advanced, and would already be familiar with the documentation. My main concern is regarding new users, and a publically available static file would directly impact them.


fanboy: Filterset.G was never public domain. I have owned the copyright for as long as it has existed. I only posted the license because I knew that some people would dispute whether it could be covered by copyright (I firmly believe that it is, but I don't feel like getting into arguments about it).
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

you rock G, thanks for making an awesome filterset

reading all the posts, I can sorta see both sides, but I think G has a point in protecting what's his. It's sort of like creating a business from the ground up, you don't want just anyone being able to do what he/she wants with it, you want to preserve it and for it to stand for whatever reasons you had in creating that business in the first place

well whatever, I'm rambling

good job G Smile

-dmatthew
Back to top
Ken Cooper



Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 110
Location: Holland, MI USA

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G has stated that his decision is final, and doesn't care who "buys" into his argument. I use Filterset.G because it works, and more importantly is frequently updated -- this saves me time. I continually refer new Fx users to AdBlock and Filterset.G, and to be honest, once I walk them through the process of installing G's filterset (they won't read instructions -- it's easier just to ask how), they 'never' get an update again, even if I ask them when the last time they did. Furthermore they don't even know who wrote the regex and don't care as long as they don't see ads.

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, and change the front page colors. Smile

Please.


We couldn't agree more. I say we, because as far as I know, Rue is the only one who would disagree.

http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#tech-color-contrast
_________________
My Firefox Page
NOTE: Firefox is spelled “F-i-r-e-f-o-x”; only the first letter capitalized. The preferred abbreviation is “Fx” or “fx”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpt



Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

fanboy wrote:
I actively use a number of lists (and merge it into my own list), including G's list, and every line of 'code I borrow gets recongition. I haven't simply ripped everything from G's list, I have merged some parts. Because up till now, there were no license on G's list, so it was Public Domain. (emphasis added)

I must reiterate that this is not true! A copyrightable work is not in the public domain unless its author explicitly places it there, e.g. by attaching to it a written note saying "this work is in the public domain." Copyrights are not trademarks, so the mere failure of an author to defend his right in the past does not cause the work to fall into the public domain either.

What this means, fanboy, is that if you have given anyone else a copy of your derivative work of Filterset.G, you are guilty of copyright infringement, even if you were using an old version of the Filterset, or if you redistributed it before the license was posted, or if you hadn't read the license, and despite the fact that you ostensibly gave credit to G, and despite any other mitigating excuse you may have!

Another thought for G: you may want to include an additional comment line in future versions of the Filterset that says something like
Quote:

!Redistribution in whole or in part prohibited, see [http://www.geocities.com/pierceive/adblock/license.txt]


(This post is in the public domain; the author hereby disclaims all copyright thereto.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G,

I'm pretty sure the CC license (which I gave as an example) covers the following concerns you mentioned. I only mention this because I think that people are as about as likely to follow your current license as the CC one.

G wrote:
... restrictions on redistribution:

1. Someone redistributes Filterset.G and tacks on their own rules or modifies it.
People then complain to me about bad rules that aren't of my devising [...]

2. Someone redistributes Filterset.G with no modifications or posts a "latest.txt" of the most recent version.
People refer each other to the redistribution, and not my page. People are no longer able to find instructions, contact information, changelog, etc. [...]

3. Someone includes Filterset.G rules in their filter list.
No one has any idea who made the rules [...]


1. They would still have to credit your work (distinctly from your own, if you specify that).
2. The CC license would make them still have to credit your work (which would likely mean giving your info and a link to the original location of the filterset).
3. This is explicitly handled by the CC license.


I'm not pushing you to change anything. As jpt has clearly explained (and I already understood), you are well within your rights to do as you wish with your creation. I am merely offering a compromise which I think would make everyone happy (but I would not be surprised if there's a hangup I didn't consider). If you don't like it then I am still interested to hear what's exactly wrong with my proposal (in your opinion).

It seems to me that you could even modify the CC license to say pretty much whatever you want so that all your concerns are covered exactly.
_________________
Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

The goal of my license is to prohibit redistribution/modification, while the goal of the CC license is to permit it. The two stand in stark opposition to each other.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

It sounded like you wanted to prevent (possible) unfortunate side-effects of distribution, not the distribution itself.

It seemed to me that the CC license would prevent those side-effects.
_________________
Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hugoheden



Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Thu May 26, 2005    Post subject: Re: Feature Request: Subscribe to Filter Reply with quote

Tallguy wrote:
I use filterset G, and I would love an AdBlock feature to allow me to "subscribe" to a filterset and have it automatically update from that set on a regular basis.


A reasonable solution for me was to get myself an account on http://www.watchthatpage.com/, a service that automatically sends a notification by email when the content of a web-page is updated. I added the Filterset.G "page", http://www.geocities.com/pierceive/adblock/, to my account. Whenever G adds an update to the Filterset.G I get a nice email. This works excellently.

It's not a totally automatic procedure, but that is a Good Thing: I feel I do owe it to G to give feedback and suggestions regarding the filterset -- that's what keeps the filterset alive I guess -- and I probably would have forgotten all about that if it was an automatic under-the-hood subscription.

Cheers
Hugo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
njyoder
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005    Post subject: Filterset.G is not copyrightable Reply with quote

People are missing two key points here:

1. Filterset.G is nothing more than a relatively small list of websites and regular expressions. A simple list like that does not even fall under copyright law.

It is true that "prior art" only applies to patents, but a similar concept exists in copyright. The work must be "original and creative." It would technically be original in the sense not other list exists *exactly* like it, but it is certainly not creative as other lists that very similar exist.

Hell, only 37 out of the 137 current rules contain regular expressions. The rest is just a raw list of domain names. Is he really claiming copyright to 100 domain names?

Due to it's nature as a simple regexp ruleset, Filterset.G rules can, have been and will continue to be duplicated in other very similar forms without any exposure to the original list. That makes it non-copyrightable.

So if you want to copy and modify it, feel free. Not falling under copyright means that is in the public domain and you can do as you please with it. Ignore the author's whineyand power tripping ramblings.

2. Creating a list like this isn't even that hard. With the way the author talks about the "blood and sweat" he put into it, you'd think he wrote the Linux kernel or something.

I find it laughable that people call him a coder. No legitimate coder would consider such a scrawny, easy to make piece of work to be worthy of any protection. It's only one step up from trying to copyright "hello world!."

This guy said he put hard to work into it over several YEARS. Really, from start to finish he's spent about 240 days on it. With 230 total changes from the beginning, that's about one change per day on average. If you look at the dates it seems like he'll spend a few minutes a day for several days in a row, then take a break for a week or two.

If this guy is really a "coder", then he's one of the laziest ones I've met. I've met college students who are rather stupid, that hate programming and were forced to take a course put more effort into their work. Really, this guy is putting in a few minutes every couple days. HARD WORK.

Give me a blarging break. This guy is only overprotective because he hates that people are treating the work (that was so hard for is puny brain to put together) like what it really is, an unoriginal list compiled with very small bits of effort over a long period of time.

240 days since it was originally created.
230 changes since its inception.
137 items currently in it.
100 of them are just domain names.

Think about it.
Back to top
Ken Cooper



Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 110
Location: Holland, MI USA

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005    Post subject: Re: Filterset.G is not copyrightable Reply with quote

njyoder wrote:
137 items currently in it.
100 of them are just domain names.

Think about it.


I did, and of the 37 items you counted, remember that they are Regular Expressions, increasing the total exponentially! G is providing a wonderful service to our community, and others who contribute with their own lists are not as efficient as Filterset.G - to my knowledge. I personally know how much time and effort it takes to create a great filterset, and that is why I rely on G to do much of it for me. All the e-mails he receives and then works through to eliminate false-positives does indeed take much time...you should try it sometime, and you will come to appreciate the contribution that G provides.
_________________
My Firefox Page
NOTE: Firefox is spelled “F-i-r-e-f-o-x”; only the first letter capitalized. The preferred abbreviation is “Fx” or “fx”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
njyoder
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005    Post subject: Re: Filterset.G is not copyrightable Reply with quote

Quote:
I did, and of the 37 items you counted, remember that they are Regular Expressions, increasing the total exponentially!


No, those aren't increasing the total exponentially, they're increasing it linearly. I'm talking about the total number of rules. One regular expression rule is still just one rule. You're using an absurd metric here, one that measures the number of sites blocked by it instead of the actual effort put into making the filter itself.

Quote:
G is providing a wonderful service to our community, and others who contribute with their own lists are not as efficient as Filterset.G - to my knowledge.


Yeah, "to your knowledge." I'll bet if you take a compile list of what other people had it would easily beat out what he has. But that would be bad according to G, as collaborative efforts are evil. The idea of people working TOGETHER to combine their work? Forget about it, that's totally against the spirit of the open source software community! Oh wait, nevermind...

Quote:
I personally know how much time and effort it takes to create a great filterset, and that is why I rely on G to do much of it for me.


I honestly don't think you do. notice how the people saying he's overzealous are actual programmers (something which G is not). The people praising him are power users, at best. I think the programmers, myself included, have a better idea of what goes into this.

If you actually average out the work he does, assuming he's not braindead stupid, he'd only be spending a few minutes per day, for several days a week.

To a mere power user those regular expressions might look intimidating, but then you realize they were created through small, incremental improvements over a long period of time. If he came up with these overnight, it might be impressive, but he did nothing of the sort. Plus you also have to realize that regular expressions are much easier for someone to create than they are for someone else who hasn't seen what it's trying to match to read.

There's only about 5 or so regexps there that you could really consider complex anyway, the rest of those are just "ORed lists" of websites of the form foo.com|bar.com|blah.com with a little extra other trivial regexp stuff.
Back to top
Ken Cooper



Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Posts: 110
Location: Holland, MI USA

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ njyoder

If Filterset.G is so simple for you to duplicate, why are you taking up bandwidth and our time to personally attack G? Take a few minutes of your time to create a filterset as efficient as G's instead, and provide it here for us to use. I look forward to making a comparison, yours should be so much better I can hardly wait for it. I'll check back in an hour, that should be plenty of time for a programmer to have it done.
_________________
My Firefox Page
NOTE: Firefox is spelled “F-i-r-e-f-o-x”; only the first letter capitalized. The preferred abbreviation is “Fx” or “fx”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
njyoder
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's something you fail to understand Ken, it's that filter's are built slowly over time. You obviously haven't been reading what I said, which was that it (along with all other filters), was built with slow incremental improvements over time. Notice how I specifically made a distinction between doing it overnight and doing it over the period of 230+ days.

The reason that is necessary is because the only way you can develop rules is by actually examining the ad urls themselves, or at least that's what us without psychic powers do. (Sane) people just examine the ad urls as they come across them in regular browsing, they don't spend hours on end searching for every single ad url. That would just be tedious and asinine.

So no, I'm not going to engage in extremely tedious grunt work of hours of deliberately looking for ads just to prove a point and end up reinventing the wheel. The actual time spent writing the regular expressions would be small by comparison.

Honestly, it's sickening that they are treating him like he wrote Firefox itself, when all he did was write a few regular expressions.
Back to top
hugoheden



Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

njyoder,

Your main points (it's a little tricky to extract them from behind all that arrogance you leak) seems to be that

(1) G:s work cannot be copyrighted because it is just too little work (240 days, tops)
(2) G gets too much credit (which is very annoying, especially for programmers), regular expressions is pretty easy stuff
(3) There should be a way to collaborate -- in the spirit of Open Source -- to create/compile/maintain a filterset, instead of making it a one mans job.

Comments:

(1) (I have no idea)

(2) The credit goes to G:s seriousness and effort (even though it's a mere 240 days of work), not to the usage of Regular Expressions. (I suggest that you just let that go -- come on, it is not really that big a deal. Is it?)

(3) Yes -- agreed!

a) ... It would be cool if there was some intelligent service with a database of Filtersets, perhaps updated automatically based on what users seem to want to block out. And clients could automatically download/update to new Filterset in some intelligent manner, based on browsing habits. For example, since I often browse Swedish news-sites, I would need some Filterset that handles those domains -- though the typical non-Swede would probably not want to spend CPU-cycles blocking out Swedish adservers. But there is currently no such service that I know of.

b) Another option would be to just add, append, peoples' filters to some "absolute/ultimate" filterset. For filter performance we would want to use Regular Expressions in many cases, not just plain domain names. But how do you handle RegExps that "overlap"? This is a performance issue as well. Can you write code that automatically detects and removes overlaps in regular expressions? I think not. Am I wrong? That would be so cool, please point me to any resources about that that you may know of.

c) A third option would be to have a little group of people that work as "moderators". As people suggest a new domain name or URL to block out, the job of the moderators is to add it to TheFilterset in a manner as "efficient" (performance-wise) as possible. The drawback with this system is that the maintainers of the Filterset would need to have feedback on it, to keep it "alive". Perhaps a restrictive license regarding redistrbution of TheFilterset is needed for this reason. (Another drawback could be all the credit those moderators/maintainers would get for their efforts -- some "programmers" would get annoyed, since it is more of an administrative effort than a technical one. But let's treat that as a non-issue. There is always gonna be some dork complaining about such things.)

The Filterset.G is probably using something like the third collaboration model above, (c), (right?) The Filterset.G is a collaboration effort. Maybe it is not the perfect collaboration model, but it works reasonably well.

G states somewhere that the filterset is carefully crafted not only for completeness but also performance, and I have no reason not to believe him.

Please njyoder, share your own ideas regarding how Filterset collaboration should be administered.

Cheers
Hugo


Last edited by hugoheden on Thu Jun 02, 2005; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed



Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005    Post subject: Re: Filterset.G is not copyrightable Reply with quote

njyoder wrote:
Notice how the people saying he's overzealous are actual programmers (something which G is not).

Are you just assuming this or do you actually know what G does for a living ?

njyoder wrote:
If you actually average out the work he does, assuming he's not braindead stupid, he'd only be spending a few minutes per day, for several days a week.

So doing a good job without spending hours at it is a bad thing ? Most programmers where I work spend weeks turning out bad code then whine when I call them at 2 AM to tell them their program bombed.
_________________
Running: WinXP(SP2)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414
Adblock v.5 d3 Nightly * 42
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotmy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

njyoder wrote:
There's something you fail to understand Ken, it's that filter's are built slowly over time.

Novels are built slowly over time too, many are worked on for less than an hour a day, and the vast majority of them contain only natural-language words -- most of those simple words that even a six-year-old knows. I think you're on to something here; I'll go start up my printing press.
Back to top
Zachariah



Joined: 21 Jul 2004
Posts: 703
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

A company's air conditioner stops working so they call a repairman in to fix it. The repairman comes in, takes a look at the appliance for a few minutes, taps it a few times with his hammer, and the appliance starts right up, good as new.

“That’s great! The guy says. “How much do I owe you?”

“500 dollars”, says the repairman.

“500 dollars! That’s outrageous!” exclaims the guy. “All you did was hit the thing with your hammer a few times!”

“That’s right”, says the repairman. “That’s 1 dollar for my time, and 499 dollars for knowing where to hit!”
_________________
Latest Adblock!

• If all else fails try a really fresh install of Firefox
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed



Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zachariah wrote:
A company's air conditioner stops working so they call a repairman in to fix it. The repairman comes in, takes a look at the appliance for a few minutes, taps it a few times with his hammer, and the appliance starts right up, good as new.

“That’s great! The guy says. “How much do I owe you?”

“500 dollars”, says the repairman.

“500 dollars! That’s outrageous!” exclaims the guy. “All you did was hit the thing with your hammer a few times!”

“That’s right”, says the repairman. “That’s 1 dollar for my time, and 499 dollars for knowing where to hit!”
I hope he doesn't work for the government, he would never be able to pay that hammer off at those prices Razz
_________________
Running: WinXP(SP2)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414
Adblock v.5 d3 Nightly * 42
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotmy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The RedBurn



Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is what I suggest to G and mcm_ham:

- Modify AdBlock Plus 0.5.6 to make it parse the auto-imported adblock list to search for things like "\\ credits begin" and "\\ credits end". It would then be possible to add the name of the base list author in the preferences of Adblock. This name could be made clickable to show a window with the credits and some links coded in the credits part of the list.
- (Perhaps is it already in place) Mark the end of the auto-imported list so at the next update, only this part of the Adblock list is changed (so the user doesn't loose what he added).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
guest
Guest





PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005    Post subject: GPL, anyone? Reply with quote

Doesn't the filter list become GPL'd when grafted onto Firefox? I'm not sure of GPL specifics...

--Akshun J
Back to top
jpt



Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2005    Post subject: Re: GPL, anyone? Reply with quote

Akshun J wrote:
Doesn't the filter list become GPL'd when grafted onto Firefox? I'm not sure of GPL specifics...

No. FS.G is not a derivative work of Firefox and is not subject to its copyright protections or license agreements. However, the FS.G license does mean that it is unlawful to distribute, say, a copy of Firefox with FS.G included.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jpt



Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Jun 02, 2005    Post subject: Re: Filterset.G is not copyrightable Reply with quote

njyoder wrote:
1. Filterset.G is nothing more than a relatively small list of websites and regular expressions. A simple list like that does not even fall under copyright law.
(...)
If this guy is really a "coder", then he's one of the laziest ones I've met.

A four-note advertising jingle falls under copyright law. How many bits in a note? Let's say four for length (ranging from a semiquaver to a whole note), and six for pitch (well more than is needed for a three-octave range), for a total of ten bits per note; that's 40 bits of information. Filterset.G clearly has more bits than that; I don't see why it shouldn't qualify for copyright protection based solely on grounds of "simplicity."

Telephone directories also get copyright protections, so claiming that the list of URIs gathered by G is not copyrightable seems bunk as well.

And where I come from, laziness is considered a great virtue of computer programmers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005    Post subject: Well, Regular Expressions are not that difficult after all Reply with quote

I suggest to start a new filterset, perhaps with some free rules from privoxy as basis and then improve the ruleset step by step. Maybe there is also a way to write an algorithm, to generate a ruleset from heuristic analysis of a list of known adurls. So the more "identified urls" there are, the better, more powerful and unfortunately bigger the list gets. Most problems we'll have is to optimize the rules, otherwise the result will be painful. I do not think that regular expressions can be simplified automatically, however there are good chances to get an optimized regex (not optimal) set if you generate it on the fly from a list of given urls.

Think about that, and let G go to hell...

Guest
Back to top
navrose
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005    Post subject: feature request Reply with quote

please put a image in status bar instead of text
thank you.
Back to top
mcm_ham



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

navrose, install the icon version from here.
http://bene.sitesled.com/install.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
hugoheden



Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005    Post subject: Re: Well, Regular Expressions are not that difficult after a Reply with quote

Guest wrote:
I suggest to start a new filterset, perhaps with some free rules from privoxy as basis and then improve the ruleset step by step.


Sure. This sounds pretty much like the stuff G is doing right now. It'd be interesting to see a growing adblocking community (like the spam-filteríng one) working on filtersets in a systemized manner.

Again, it'd be cool with different filtersets for different "surfing habits", perhaps different localities etc.

Guest wrote:
Maybe there is also a way to write an algorithm, to generate a ruleset from heuristic analysis of a list of known adurls. So the more "identified urls" there are, the better, more powerful and unfortunately bigger the list gets.


"Maybe there is"? Maybe. But where do we get that list of "known adurls"? We would need the user community to provide with feedback to keep such a list alive. Hence, no redistribution of filtersets. Hence, restrictive license needed. (Also, I guess we need to maintain a list of non-ad-urls, to prevent false positives.)

Also, I'd want the filter-engine to slowly learn which filters that are never used for a given User, so that those can be automatically disabled (for performance reasons). And then when User hits some new site with a lot of flashing ads, User can tell the filter to "Try Harder On This Site" and thus give the filter a chance to realize what filters should be reenabled. (I think this functionality is in the pipe for Adblock 0.6(?).)

It'd be interesting to see the technology you're describing -- automatically generating "optimized" Regexps from a set of "adurls" (as well as a set of non-ad-urls). At first glance the idea seems to be Not Possible To Realize, but hey, some people are really smart.. Resources, anybody?

Guest wrote:
Think about that, and let G go to hell...


Hmm..? You'll grow up. Most people stop using that kind of language on public forums when they hit puberty. So there's hope (unless you're actually retarded, in which case that's your excuse).

Regardlessly
/Hugo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emjay
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005    Post subject: I was Guest before Reply with quote

Quote:
Hence, restrictive license needed. (Also, I guess we need to maintain a list of non-ad-urls, to prevent false positives.)


Why that? If a program is able to generate a more or less useful list of regular expressions from a set of adurls, why should anyone be restricted, of course feedback is needed, but that doesnt necessarily mean we are not going to get it, if everyone is free to use it at the terms of GPL for example.

Quote:
Also, I'd want the filter-engine to slowly learn which filters that are never used for a given User, so that those can be automatically disabled (for performance reasons). And then when User hits some new site with a lot of flashing ads, User can tell the filter to "Try Harder On This Site" and thus give the filter a chance to realize what filters should be reenabled. (I think this functionality is in the pipe for Adblock 0.6(?).)


About that "learning": There is a problem. Complicated stuff like baysian filtering (known from spam) is probably not the best thing, since those algorithms usually deal with very few emails/user. A webbrowser is confronted with hundreds of urls per page, i guess most machines would be too slow for that.

Emjay
Back to top
hugoheden



Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 18
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005    Post subject: Re: I was Guest before Reply with quote

Emjay wrote:
Quote:
Hence, restrictive license needed. (Also, I guess we need to maintain a list of non-ad-urls, to prevent false positives.)


Why that? If a program is able to generate a more or less useful list of regular expressions from a set of adurls, why should anyone be restricted, of course feedback is needed, but that doesnt necessarily mean we are not going to get it, if everyone is free to use it at the terms of GPL for example.


Yes.. hmm.. I am not talking about restrictions on usage, but on redistribution.

What I meant was that we need a way to ensure that we get feedback. One option is to prevent redistribution by imposing a restrictive license so that everybody downloads the filters from *our* site. User will then know from reading documentation that feedback is very welcome. Redistribution of filterfiles would increase the risk of sloppiness regarding this issue. For example, a filterfile that is redistributed *with modifications* would render feedback on that file useless for our purposes.

This is pretty much as I understand G:s reasons for the restrictive license he/she poses onto redistribution of Filterset.G anyway.

However, there might be other less provoking options for resolving this issue Smile

Regards
/Hugo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

He.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bobby_Peru



Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a very intriguing discussion. It would be great to be able to implement some of the ideas related above. Surfing with Fx with such a tool, combined with rapidly evolving NoScript, RIP, (and perhaps a hosts file) would really be a pleasure, again!
_________________
Fx-1.0.6 AdBlockPlus (0.5.9.1), TBE (07-13:01), NoScript, RIP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

why not have adblock plus include an option to sync automatically to a static address for Filterset-G and when the checkbox option is selected, a popup msg prompts the user with a msg giving credit to G for his work - in addition to this, have a link next to the checkbox where users can click on to be directed directly to G's website.

Hence, credit is given to where it's due and we get auto sync. Just my 2-cent
Back to top
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no static address to sync to, and cannot be. Most people use the official version, and would get no such prompting upon importing a from a static URL.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcm_ham



Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G wrote:
If you can find a way to sync the most recent version of Filterset.G without violating my license/copyright, be my guest. I would certainly encourage you to try, and even make the method/utility publically available. All I ask is that no one redistribute Filterset.G - if you can have the process completed on your own computer using only what I post, why would I object?

This statement suprises me, because if someone creates such a utility and makes it public isn't it going to defeat the reason why you don't maintain a static filterset in the first place?

Another thing I don't understand, you are concerned that if people share just the URL of the static filterset they won't know how to contact you. But you've put your website details in the first line of your filterset, isn't that enough? You could even add a few more lines with a bit more detail. And if your concerns are that it's not so obvious then isn't the way you've laid out your website to people as a directory listing also not as obvious about what to do.

Anyway that's just what I've been wandering about. It's your filterset and you can do what you like with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

You state: "Be sure to check the changelog to see if your filters have become redundant"


How do we tell this?

Thanks.
Back to top
bene



Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 123
Location: Home, I think

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

The changelog lists what's new. If you're using Filterset.G to complement a set of filters of your own, then you'll want to verify your filters vs. the new Filterset.G filters so that you don't end up having multiple filters that do the same thing.

If you don't have your own filters, don't worry about it!
_________________
Whitelisting? <DIV> Blocking? More?
AdBlock Plus.

AdBlock Plus Forums here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

bene wrote:
The changelog lists what's new. If you're using Filterset.G to complement a set of filters of your own, then you'll want to verify your filters vs. the new Filterset.G filters so that you don't end up having multiple filters that do the same thing.

If you don't have your own filters, don't worry about it!


I do have my own filters which is why I asked.

So, anyone know the answer?
Back to top
G



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 550

PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

bene is correct; you should always check your filters against the changelog to make sure you don't have anything redundant.
_________________
Filterset.G
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G wrote:
bene is correct; you should always check your filters against the changelog to make sure you don't have anything redundant.


Let me rephrase my question:

"How do I do that?"
Back to top
bene



Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 123
Location: Home, I think

PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's say you've last updated your Filterset.G on Tuesday the 26th of Mapril. It's now the 14th of Jylune, and you've got a few minutes to spare to update your filterset.

You've configured everything according to recommendation, so you have one file that has all your filters in it that you import and append each time you update Filterset.G.

You head on over to http://www.pierceive.com/ and take a look at the changelog.txt. Starting down at the 26th, you scroll up while comparing against your filters. Oh, look there, on the 3rd:

2036-Jy-03a
Blocked foo.bar

You've been blocking foo.bar in your filters, time to drop that one! You keep going all the way to the top, maybe noticing one or two others that have been added that now overlap with your own filters.

It's a bit of work, but prevents having the same check repeated on every element of every page that you ever browse to.
_________________
Whitelisting? <DIV> Blocking? More?
AdBlock Plus.

AdBlock Plus Forums here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey G.

I'm the guy (Guest) who initially stated that it would be trivial to create a script that would find the latest version of the filter.

I just wanted to say "I told you so." Childish? Sure. Fun? Yes.

In all seriousness, I would like to extend a helping hand your way.

It is equally trivial to check that the incoming HTTP request is coming from an appropriate referrer or client.

A simple solution would be to ensure the referrer is the page you want people to be coming from.
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

G wrote:
There is no way to reproduce Filterset.G without reference to the genuine article. Sure, you'll happen upon a number of similar elements (especially for simple filters) when making your own, but Filterset.G isn't based on one person's surfing experience. I've received well over a thousand emails from all over the globe regarding advertisements and false positives from thousands of websites in dozens of languages. Without such feedback, there's simply no way to end up with something like Filterset.G.

If you can find a way to sync the most recent version of Filterset.G without violating my license/copyright, be my guest. I would certainly encourage you to try, and even make the method/utility publically available. All I ask is that no one redistribute Filterset.G - if you can have the process completed on your own computer using only what I post, why would I object?

http://www.pierceive.com/filtersetg/+what_happened.txt wrote:
An unauthorized extension that was designed to automatically synchronize
Filterset.G took out my Geocities site.
1400+ people downloaded it before I
found out and had the folks over at umo take it down. The extension
resulted in constant connection requests from its users, and since Geocities
(like most hosts) doesn't allow many before cutting a site off, they took
it down. For those who are confused, bandwidth isn't the issue, connections
are. GoDaddy's Economy package (which is what I'm using now)
allows 50 simultaneous connections, which is enough for normal usage,
but won't stand up to anything automatic or a Slashdotting.

Autosync extensions and mirrors are strictly prohibited unless I authorize them.
I'm working with two people on autosync extensions, and I am requiring that they
only sync with specially-created mirrors that auto-update no more than twice a
day. If you can host a mirror (must be able to deal with a decent number of
connections), let me know.


I would just like to point out that you did, in fact, quite explicitly 'authorize' any and all extensions that would sync with your list.

I still think your list is good, but you have repeatedly conducted yourself in a manner that is not cool.

Just sayin.
Back to top
CharityFirst
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2005    Post subject: umm Reply with quote

Um let's not browbeat G into hiding. I GREATLY appreciate his seemingly tireless effort. I certainly don't have the time or the energy to provide an awesome community service

My post is copyright me. I wrote it. It is now copyrighted. This is how copyright works.

"filterset G is just code" .... hmmm "Photoshop is just code"

hmmm
Back to top
jokers
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

So in all this debate you're all saying that I can copyright this:

\|/||?]|\?=-+|\?/

Sorry, but all these symbols or characters are protected by "PUBLIC DOMAIN"

Yes, there is a way to make a better Filterset.G your list is not perfect and NO I will not distribute my work as I know what lies ahead. Best thing you should have done is keep it within the Open Source community and listen to what people have to say instead of trying to place some rediculous license on your so called copywritten material.

Are you just trying to pull off another "I created the net" scandal? I hate to sound brash, but really you did Great work and appreciate the efforts as so many others do.

The fact of the matter lies with scum bag technicians who price gouge Internet Services which causes the rise in advertising and gready round (fat asses, big boned.. whatever) scum bags reaping the benefits. I own several business' and my advertisement.... "by word of mouth" it's less intruding and more tasteful and no advertisements on my sites besides my own marketing. Unlike most of these bottom feeding scums who initially came up with the idea of advertising. The internet is not a marketing campaign and was never designed for it, it's informational technology.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Adblock Project Forum Index -> Main All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group