denschub

Here's something for the next time you want to "expose" a phony: before linking me to your investigative source, ask for exact date-stamps when I made changes to the robots.txt and what I did, as well as when I blocked IPs. I could have told you those exactly, because all those changes are tracked in a git repo. If you asked me first, I could have answered you with the precise dates, and you would have realized that your whole theory makes absolutely no sense. Of course, that entire approach is mood now, because I'm not an idiot and I know when commoncrawl crawls, so I could easily adjust my response to their crawling dates, and you would of course claim I did.

So I'll just wear my "certified-phony-by-orangesite-user" badge with pride.

Take care, anonymous internet user.

the robots.txt on the wiki is no longer what it was when the bot accessed it. primarily because I clean up my stuff afterwards, and the history is now completely inaccessible to non-authenticated users, so there's no need to maintain my custom robots.txt.

> Is it all crawlers that switch to a non-bot UA

I've observed only one of them do this with high confidence.

> how are they determining it's the same bot?

it's fairly easy to determine that it's the same bot, because as soon as I blocked the "official" one, a bunch of AWS IPs started crawling the same URL patterns - in this case, mediawiki's diff view (`/wiki/index.php?title=[page]&diff=[new-id]&oldid=[old-id]`), that absolutely no bot ever crawled before.

> What non-bot UA do they claim?

Latest Chrome on Windows.

What's the actual issue you're facing? I just tested the Stripe Dashboard in Firefox, and everything works fine.

"I'm in Europe so I don't have to care because software patents are not enforceable here" isn't the solution. Yes, patent law doesn't apply - but copyright law does, and they very much can take down content that references the spec just based on copyright law alone.

The page you linked to has a FAQ section.

> Q: Is membership in the Thread Group alone, at any membership level, sufficient to gain and receive royalty-free intellectual property rights (IPR) for Thread technology? A: No, membership at any level is not sufficient to gain and receive royalty-free intellectual property rights (IPR) for Thread technology.

and an Associate membership does not apply because I am not white-labeling or rebranding existing products.

It's baffling that some people here can read a sentence like

> Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications.

And somehow think that the restrictions only apply when you "ship", but not when you "implement" or "practice".

> I'm sure Thread Group would love to stop Google making OpenThread available

Google is a founding member of the Thread Group. OpenThread exists publicly because it's the only widely available implementation that's shipped in a lot of places. Nordic's SDK, for example, uses OpenThread.

OpenThread is built by and for members of the Thread Group, and used by them. It's fairly clear that Google doesn't care much about anyone else.

This is not what the license says.

Lawyers have little issue defining blogs like mine as "with commercial interest". I have a side-business, so lawyers could make the argument that I use my blog as advertising. I have a Ko-Fi link in the bottom of one specific site, that's a commercial interest, too.

Unless your blog is "I'm sharing holiday photos and nothing else", there's a lot of instances where it could be define as an outlet with commercial interests.

And, ultimately, I have no desire to spend any time and money on fighting even completely invalid claims. I'd rather spend my time watching cat videos on YouTube instead.

This issue was caused by Google on their server-side, without any relation to a change in Firefox, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to yell at my Mozilla-colleague.