[Script] WME Nexus Protocol

[RafaCintron]

Hi.
If you need any help with Spanish localization, let me know.

[JustinS83]

I have not reviewed for the other scripts mentioned, but this Chrome extension violates the GPLv3 license of RA Util. Remove the duplicated RA Util functionality and code, or modify with attribution to RA Util and fulfill the requirements of the GPLv3 license.

Per the GPLv3 you have 30 days to comply with the license and include attribution or you are in violation of the license, and my copyright.

[Horizon911]

I am not expert in licensing… Does he need syou mentioned in the header? Or how does it normally work?

[JS55CT]

License Compliance Notice

To: LAERCIO_MIGUEL (Developer, WME Nexus Protocol)

From: JS55CT (Maintainer, WME Junction Angle Info)

Date: 2026-05-14

---

Notice

Your WME Nexus Protocol extension contains code derived from WME Junction Angle Info, which is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. The nexusturngeometryaudit.js module uses identical angle classification thresholds (45.50°, 168.24°, 1.5°, 0.666°) and the same algorithm logic without attribution or proper licensing.

Evidence of derivation:

• Identical turn-angle thresholds (not industry standards; specific research values published in WME Junction Angle Info v3.x)

• Identical algorithm sequence (bearing → approach bearing → angle classification)

• Your own PROVENANCE.md falsely claims independence: “It is not derived from Junction Angle Info”

• Your THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md acknowledges WME Junction Angle Info exists

CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 requires:

1. Attribution to the original work

2. Use of the same license for derivatives (not MIT)

3. Non-commercial distribution (Chrome Web Store is commercial)

---

Required Actions

You have 30 days to comply with the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license by:

Option A: Add Attribution and Licensing

1. Add header to nexusturngeometryaudit.js:

/**

* Derived from WME Junction Angle Info

* (https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/35547-wme-junction-angle-info)

* Original author: Michael Wikberg (2013–2019)

* Current maintainer: JS55CT (v3.0+)

* Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0

*/

2. Correct PROVENANCE.md to acknowledge derivation from WME Junction Angle Info

3. Add WME Junction Angle Info to THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md with proper attribution

Option B: Dual-License This Module

Keep nexusturngeometryaudit.js under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0. Each module can use the appropriate license based on its source and requirements (MIT, CC-BY-SA, GPL, etc.)

---

Copyright & License

Per CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0, failure to comply with these requirements constitutes a license violation and copyright infringement.

JS55CT

Copyright holder, WME Junction Angle Info

Maintainer, WME Junction Angle Info v3.0+

[LAERCIO_MIGUEL]

Hi JustinS83,

Thank you for raising the concern.

I take GPLv3 compliance and the work of other WME script authors seriously. After your message, I reviewed the Nexus roundabout module again and made additional changes to reduce any possible ambiguity.

To be clear: WME Nexus Protocol does not intentionally incorporate RA Util source code, UI, assets, storage keys, dependencies, or implementation-specific identifiers. Nexus does not use WME_RAUtil, RAUtilWindow, RA Util button IDs, WazeWrap, turf, or RA Util’s UI structure. The roundabout functionality in Nexus was implemented inside the Nexus architecture, with its own module lifecycle, UI, logging, localization, settings, preview, diagnostics, and naming conventions.

That said, I understand that there is functional overlap in the roundabout domain. Operations such as moving, rotating, resizing, adjusting, and visually inspecting roundabout geometry are common WME geometry workflows, and I recognize that RA Util is an established tool in that space.

To avoid confusion, I have taken the following steps:

1. Renamed and restructured the Nexus roundabout module to use Nexus-specific naming and organization.

2. Removed legacy or ambiguous identifiers that could appear too close to RA Util terminology.

3. Added documentation explaining independent development and compliance criteria.

4. Added RA Util to the project documentation as a known WME ecosystem tool in a non-incorporation notice, not as incorporated code.

The current position of Nexus is that RA Util is acknowledged as prior art / ecosystem context, but its code is not incorporated into Nexus.

If you believe there is still duplicated RA Util code or implementation-specific material in Nexus, please send the specific files, functions, or line references from both RA Util and Nexus. I will review them directly and, if any RA Util material is confirmed to be incorporated, I will either remove it or address it according to GPLv3 requirements.

I want to resolve this respectfully and technically. My goal is not to disregard your work, but also not to incorrectly label independently implemented functionality as copied code without specific evidence.

[LAERCIO_MIGUEL]

We acknowledge that Nexus Turn Geometry currently uses angle threshold values that match values used by WME Junction Angle Info. We do not believe Nexus incorporates JAI source code, UI, assets, storage keys, or implementation structure. However, to avoid ambiguity and respect the WME scripting community, we are reviewing the module, removing categorical provenance wording, and will either replace the thresholds with Nexus-owned configurable defaults or remove the module from public distribution until the review is complete.

[JustinS83]

Laercio_Miguel,

This extension copies the layout design, UI terminology, and implemented functionality exactly (except the actual icons used). This alone makes it a derivative work and without attribution violates the GPLv3.

That aside, I read the code for the Nexus module implementation and there was a significant amount of the RAUtil code that was used in your extension. Not only are most of the function names exactly the same, much of the code in those functions are exactly the same (with some added checking added throughout). Whether this was implemented directly or through an intermediary tool, the resulting code is a derivative work of RA Util.

Your statement that you “made additional changes to reduce any possible ambiguity” confirms you recognized the similarity. Independently developed code requires no such changes.

Evidence (I also have a more thorough analysis that shows many methods are exact copies up that range from 50-90% exactly what is in RA Util):

1. 10/10 functions copied by name and logic — shiftRoundaboutLat, shiftRoundaboutLon, rotateRoundabout, changeRoundaboutDiameter, moveNodeIn, moveNodeOut, drawRoundaboutAngles, allRoundaboutSegmentsSelected, checkAndDisplaySegmentEditability, getSegmentsFromIds. Every single one.

2. COLOR constants copied verbatim — all five hex values with identical key names (NORMAL_LINES, NON_NORMAL_LINES, NORMAL_ANGLES, NON_NORMAL_ANGLES, AVOID_ANGLES). Values like #004000 and #FFC000 for angle severity colors are distinctive, non-obvious choices.

3. Angle calculation thresholds identical — the 135.0/90.0/180.0 deviation logic and the double negative-correction pattern (checking angle < 0 twice) are signature marks of your code.

4. Node-swap splice algorithm — the moveNodeIn/moveNodeOut coordinate-splice approach is non-trivial domain-specific logic that cannot have been independently derived.

By 30 days from your receipt of this message, I require:

1. A GPLv3 license declaration in the extension source

2. Direct attribution to WME RA Util by JustinS83 in the source

3. Confirmation that the full source is publicly available

If these requirements are not met, I will consider the license permanently terminated under GPLv3 §8 and file a DMCA complaint with the Chrome Web Store. Alternatively, remove all the functionality.

JustinS83

[GabiruX]

Hello,

I was planning to reach out tomorrow after gathering further evidence and related matters. However, I’ve noticed that other community members have also flagged potential plagiarism of tools created and maintained by our community.

The script in question was released directly at version 4. After a developer noticed the similarities and made contact, version 5 was released the following day, including a THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md file. This file claims that “Nexus does not intentionally incorporate their code, identifiers, UI structure, templates, comments, or implementation details.”

In practice, however, several well-established community scripts were bundled without any prior communication with the original developers. While the initiative to create helpful tools is always welcome, the correct approach would have been to collaborate, suggest improvements, or explicitly request permission.

The interface and features are remarkably similar to my own script, Pacotão 2.0. Other scripts listed in their notices include:

• WME Speed Display - by @luan_tavares_127
• WME RA Util - by @JustinS83
• WME Junction Angle Info - by @jondrush
• UROverview Plus - by @Twister-UK
• WME Rapid House Numbers - by @kjg53
• WME LaneTools - by @SkiDooGuy
• WME Place Harmonizer - by @MapOMatic
• Validator - by @berestovskyy
• WME Buddy - by @daflash

Furthermore, the street abbreviation features are a major point of concern. Within the Brazilian community, such tools often cause friction due to “point farming.” It is crucial that when a street name is modified, the associated POI name is also updated. @T0NINI is currently developing a tool that addresses these specific requirements to ensure no negative impact on the app or the user experience, while also reducing editor conflict.

---

[LAERCIO_MIGUEL]

Hello,

Thank you for raising these concerns.

I want to be very clear that I take this matter seriously, both from a licensing perspective and from a community-trust perspective.

I also want to apologize for the inconvenience, concern, and disruption this situation may have caused to the community and to the developers whose work was mentioned or affected by this review. Regardless of intent, I understand that the situation created uncertainty and discomfort, and I regret that.

As a precautionary measure, I have taken Nexus offline while the review is ongoing. This was done to avoid further distribution during the audit and to ensure that any licensing, attribution, originality, or community-impact concerns can be reviewed responsibly before the project is made available again.

The intent behind Nexus has never been to appropriate the work of other WME script developers, bypass community-maintained tools, or create confusion with existing projects.

Nexus was developed as an integrated editing-assistance environment. However, I understand that broad functional overlap with long-standing community scripts can raise legitimate concerns, especially when the tools operate in the same environment and address similar WME editing needs.

Regarding the THIRD_PARTY_NOTICES.md file, its purpose was not to dismiss the work of other developers or to imply that attribution alone resolves every licensing issue. Its purpose was to document projects being reviewed during a compliance and originality audit. I agree that the wording should be precise, and I am willing to revise it to make clear that inclusion in that file does not, by itself, mean that Nexus incorporates code from those projects.

I would like to distinguish between several different issues:

1. Functional similarity;

2. UI/UX similarity;

3. Similar terminology caused by the WME editing environment itself;

4. Direct code copying;

5. Modified or derivative GPL-covered work;

6. Behavior that may negatively affect editing quality or community standards.

Functional similarity alone does not necessarily mean code copying or license-covered derivation. Many WME scripts naturally inspect the same WME objects, use the same SDK concepts, interact with the same editor model, and solve similar editing problems. At the same time, I recognize that specific implementation details, copied identifiers, copied comments, copied templates, copied UI structures, or substantially similar protected expression would require correction.

Nexus has also used AI-assisted development during its implementation. I understand that AI-assisted development does not remove my responsibility to audit the resulting code. The relevant question is not whether AI was used, but whether the resulting code contains third-party protected material, license-covered code, copied implementation details, or derivative work. If such material is identified, I will treat it seriously and take corrective action.

Corrective action may include, depending on what is found:

• removing the affected implementation;

• rewriting the affected functionality independently;

• preserving required copyright and license notices;

• adding proper attribution where attribution is required;

• complying with applicable GPLv3 obligations where GPL-covered material is actually present;

• preserving applicable notices, attribution, license references, modification notices, and source availability obligations for as long as any third-party material remains present in the project;

• separating or disabling functionality that creates community conflict;

• improving documentation;

• adjusting UI/UX to avoid confusion with existing scripts;

• removing behavior that could negatively affect editing quality or encourage point farming;

• keeping the project offline until the affected areas are reviewed and corrected.

If the review confirms that any third-party material remains in Nexus and cannot be removed, isolated, or independently rewritten, I will preserve the applicable notices, attribution, license references, modification notices, and source availability obligations for as long as that material remains present in the project.

If such material cannot be safely isolated, removed, rewritten, or redistributed in a way that complies with the applicable license requirements, Nexus will not be redistributed with that material.

On the street abbreviation concern, I agree that this is a sensitive area in the Brazilian community. Nexus should not encourage mass edits, low-quality edits, point farming, or changes that negatively affect POIs, app search, routing, or the user experience. If this feature remains, it should be constrained by clear safeguards, including checks related to associated POI names and editorial impact. I am also open to coordinating with T0NINI’s work so that Nexus does not duplicate or conflict with a more appropriate community-driven solution.

For the scripts mentioned, including Pacotão 2.0, WME Speed Display, WME RA Util, WME Junction Angle Info, UROverview Plus, WME Rapid House Numbers, WME LaneTools, WME Place Harmonizer, Validator, WME Buddy, and others raised by the community, I am continuing a module-by-module audit. Where problematic similarity or license-covered material is identified, I will remove it, rewrite it, document it properly, or comply with the applicable license requirements before making Nexus available again.

To make this review accurate and fair, I ask that any concern be accompanied by specific technical references, such as:

• file names;

• function names;

• copied or substantially similar code;

• copied comments;

• copied identifiers;

• copied UI templates;

• screenshots of matching UI structure;

• implementation patterns believed to be derived from a specific script;

• commits or versions where the concern appears.

I would appreciate the opportunity to resolve this constructively. My goal is not to compete unfairly with or replace community-maintained scripts, but to ensure that Nexus follows acceptable licensing, attribution, originality, and community standards.

Please send any specific technical examples you believe demonstrate copied code, copied UI structure, copied implementation logic, or license-covered derivative work. I will review them carefully and respond with the specific corrective actions taken.

Regards,
LAERCIO_MIGUEL

[LAERCIO_MIGUEL]

Hi @luan_tavares_127

Since WME Speed Display was mentioned in the discussion, I would also appreciate your participation and technical feedback regarding any similarities, concerns, or licensing issues you may have identified related to Nexus.

I have temporarily taken Nexus offline while I conduct a broader audit covering licensing, originality, attribution, and community-impact concerns. My intention is to review any legitimate issue carefully and address it responsibly.

If you have specific technical examples, implementation concerns, UI similarities, or anything you believe should be reviewed regarding Speed Display, please feel free to share them here. I would rather handle this collaboratively and transparently than make assumptions about your concerns indirectly through other reports.

I also apologize for the inconvenience and community disruption caused by this situation.

Thank you.

[luan_tavares_127]

Vou escrever em PT-BR para sermos o mais claros possível. No momento, não estou com meu ambiente completo de desenvolvimento aqui, mas as evidências que coletei no código do Nexus falam por si sós.

Minha postura aqui é amigável, mas firme. Assim como o @JustinS83 pontuou, meu script (Speed Display) utiliza a licença GPLv3. Isso significa que, mesmo que você use uma IA para “refatorar” ou “limpar” o código, o resultado continua sendo uma obra derivada. A licença exige que os créditos sejam mantidos e que a origem do código seja respeitada.

Notei pontos que vão muito além de uma simples “coincidência de ideias”:

1. Configurações e UI: A estrutura das opções e até a funcionalidade recente de redimensionamento são idênticas às que implementei conforme as necessidades da comunidade surgiam.
2. Ícones de Renderização: Os ícones e o tamanho exato do elemento SVG (50) foram replicados da primeira versão do meu script.
3. A “Digital” no Código (Função Debounce): O uso da função debounce no Nexus é uma cópia exata da minha implementação, que utilizo há mais de 3 anos (desde meus trabalhos anteriores em 2020). Até o modo como ela foi aplicada nos eventos de renderização do mapa — uma solução específica que criei para lidar com múltiplos disparos no WME — está lá, apenas envelopada em um try/catch.

Configurações:

Nexus:

Speed Display:

Renderização dos ícones:

Nexus:

Primeira versão pública do Speed Display:

Código:

Nexus:

Speed Display v1:

Nexus:

Speed Display:

Nexus:

Speed Display v1:

O ponto principal é: O uso de IA para “reescrever” scripts da comunidade (o chamado washcode) não isenta o desenvolvedor de seguir as licenças originais. Se o Nexus utiliza a lógica, a estrutura e funções específicas do Speed Display, ele deve dar os devidos créditos e respeitar as obrigações da GPLv3.

Gostaria de ver esse reconhecimento no seu projeto, da mesma forma que prezamos pela transparência em toda a comunidade de scripts do Waze.

Acredito que a colaboração é o que move nossa comunidade, desde que as bases de respeito ao trabalho alheio e às licenças sejam mantidas.

Abraços.