A Facebook crawler was making 7M requests per day to my stupid website

Post by onli » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #199

PetahNZ wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is unless he's distributing it (not just serving it from a website) he doesnt need to release his changes. That's what the AGPL is for.

It's not the copyright on the server code that is at issue, but the copyright on the HTML and CSS files (and portions thereof) that get distributed by the server.

Post by type0 » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

timy2shoes wrote: post #150

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite how it sounds, I ask this with zero judgment and pure curiosity. Why do you care?

Please read https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm... . My understanding is that if you do not enforce your copyright (or copyleft in this case) you can lose the copyright.

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

PetahNZ wrote: post #161

ruuda wrote: post #140

Hi Napolux, It looks like your site is using a theme based on my website ( https://ruudvanasseldonk.com/ , source at https://github.com/ruuda/blog ). That is fine — it is open source after all, licensed under the GPLv3. But I can’t find the source code for your site, and I can’t find any prominent notices saying that you modified my source. Could you please add those?

My understanding is unless he's distributing it (not just serving it from a website) he doesnt need to release his changes. That's what the AGPL is for.

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:35 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #211

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the copyright on the server code that is at issue, but the copyright on the HTML and CSS files (and portions thereof) that get distributed by the server.

You see the contradiction, right? If it's about the HTML and the CSS the user has that code directly by visiting the site. No further action would be needed. If it's about something that creates the HMTL and CSS, then OP has no requirement because of the GPL just from people visiting the site and accessing the output CSS/HTML. Because that's not distributing the code as defined by the GPL. The original author should…

    a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.  


    b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.   


    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.  


    d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.  


  

Post by aetherspawn » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

stiray wrote: post #216

lun4r wrote: post #29

We've had the same issue. They were doing huge bursts of tens of thousands of requests in very short time several times a day. The bots didn't identify as FB (used "spoofed" UAs) but were all coming from FB owned netblocks. I've contacted FB about it, but they couldn't figure out why this was happening and didn't solve the problem. I found out that there is an option in the FB Catalog manager that lets FB auto-remove…

I dont really understand what is the issue. On my welcome page (while all other urls are impossible to guess) i give browser something that requires a few seconds of cpu at 100% to crunch. And tracking some user action in between, visting tarpitted urls etc. In last few years no bot came through. Why bother with robots.txt, just give them something to break their teeths... (I would give you the url, but I just dont w…