Just installed, working GREAT! Thank you. Now lets do one for the scientific journals.
"Supported" sites include :)
Foreign Affairs
Newsweek
Reuters
The New York Times
The Washington Post
Barron's
Bloomberg
Business Insider
Forbes
Fortune
Harvard Business Review
The Wall Street Journal
ZeroHedge
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Chemical & Engineering News
Discover Magazine
Interesting Engineering
MIT Technology Review
National Geographic USA
Nautilus
New Scientist
Popular Science
Science
Scientific American
The Scientist
ESPN USA
Sports Illustrated
Medium (custom) domains like (opt-in to custom sites for unlisted)
Better Programming
Towards Data Science
America's Test Kitchen
Axios
Field & Stream
Harper's Magazine
National Review
Outdoor Life
The Atlantic
The Christian Science Monitor
The Intercept
The Daily Beast
The Daily Wire
The Juggernaut
The Nation
The New Atlantis
The New Republic
The New York Review of Books
I appreciate that the author took the initiative to improve upon the original project, yet it's also understandable that the original developer might borrow some of those improvements. After all, that's the essence of open-source—to collaboratively make something better.
It's a good thing you don't have to like someone to use their firefox/chrome extensions because the links in here with their responses are very unlikable.....
What a weird, overly-confrontational message from the fork's author! No need to call someone publishing work for free lazy, ignorant, not the sharpest tool in the shed etc. This is the pointless drama that discourages people from making their code open-source in the first place.
Plus, the original repository isn't even licensed https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome . So magnolia1234 probably forked it illegally after copying the name (although it seems like iamadamdev doesn't mind too much).
If there's a basically what amounts to a harassment/spam campaign against iamadamdev on his own repo, no wonder he deletes irrelevant issues to avoid stress.
I don't know exactly when they forked, from the issue it looks like November 2020, so the portion of code that was unlicensed might just be their own contributions?
Edit: from a first glance there are a lot of commits in between from different authors, and I don't want to track all of those down, so I'd say it's probably forked illegaly.
Edit2: looking at the history of the fork, it looks like it was actually forked earlier than when this issue was posted.
$ git log --after -after="2020-04-01" --author='^(?!magnolia1234).*$' --perl-regexp
commit af333918e66c6f79e713b676d766e271f6d9781f
Author: [redacted]
Date: Sat Nov 6 07:44:47 2021 +0000
Add allowlist for BPC extension (macOS)
commit a7210ea9816d4be70e094c0e67af8aa4cba1687b
Author: Dark Side <darksideofeurope@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Dec 8 18:48:00 2020 +0000
Add Madsack Mediengruppe (Germany)
Interesting! Ok, so my assumption about the fork being illegal probably doesn’t stand, but still, the fork’s author should chill out with the personal attacks
"Supported" sites include :)
Foreign Affairs Newsweek Reuters The New York Times The Washington Post Barron's Bloomberg Business Insider Forbes Fortune Harvard Business Review The Wall Street Journal ZeroHedge Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Chemical & Engineering News Discover Magazine Interesting Engineering MIT Technology Review National Geographic USA Nautilus New Scientist Popular Science Science Scientific American The Scientist ESPN USA Sports Illustrated Medium (custom) domains like (opt-in to custom sites for unlisted) Better Programming Towards Data Science America's Test Kitchen Axios Field & Stream Harper's Magazine National Review Outdoor Life The Atlantic The Christian Science Monitor The Intercept The Daily Beast The Daily Wire The Juggernaut The Nation The New Atlantis The New Republic The New York Review of Books