Conversation

Notices

1. MMN-o ✅⃠ (mmn@social.umeahackerspace.se)'s status on Thursday, 14-Apr-2016 19:48:48 UTC MMN-o ✅⃠

   • Free and Open Source Software
   • Hannes
   • Arun Isaac (அருண் ஐசக்)
   @arunisaac I know @hannes2peer has complained lots about how sucky/difficult #LibreJS is. It's apparently hard to make it conform to the requirements (and personally I don't see the point, as the problem with JS is security - and that's not solved by just putting JS malware under a !foss license).
   
   I prefer to just make stuff usable without javascript.
   • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 15-Apr-2016 01:04:10 UTC Mike Gerwitz

     in reply to

     • Arun Isaac (அருண் ஐசக்)
     @arunisaac @mmn #LibreJS-compliant #JavaScript is important, because it's currently the only way to verify that code is actually free software. Even if you're a JavaScript expert, you'd otherwise need a way to verify that all the code served to you is free by correlating it with source, and even still it might serve other non-free code with it.
     
     Making sites work without JS is important---I don't enable JS for 99% of the web, period; even free software can do bad things. But if you write JavaScript and I don't have a way to verify that it's free, then you may as well not write it. At the very least, that includes a license header. And if you have a license header, it may as well be LibreJS-compatible.
     
     https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this.
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • MMN-o ✅⃠ (mmn@social.umeahackerspace.se)'s status on Friday, 15-Apr-2016 07:46:01 UTC MMN-o ✅⃠

     • Qvitter
     • Hannes
     • Mike Gerwitz
     #LibreJS afaik also has caveats other than the license header, some bits about how code is run etc and statements that aren't allowed. And so far I've heard problems with people having a hard time figuring out _why_ their code doesn't verify as libre. If it happens to be really easy, I'd happily accept a patch and I guess @hannes2peer too (though last I read he had managed to fix it for !qvitter)
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 15-Apr-2016 12:39:33 UTC Mike Gerwitz

     • Annah
     @mmn @maiyannah The security risk comes from the indiscriminate running of ephemeral, unsigned, untrusted programs. Yes, recognizing a program as free software isn't a solution in itself---that could be a lie to get around LibreJS, or it could still be doing bad things. So this is nowhere near a solution to that problem.
     
     It's very rare that I actually permit a site to run JavaScript, even if I know it's free. But for those who _do_ want to run JS for a site, should they choose to do so, they should be able to have an idea what parts of it are free, and avoid all the rest.
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this.
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 15-Apr-2016 12:43:44 UTC Mike Gerwitz

     in reply to

     • Mike Gerwitz
     > some bits about how code is run etc and statements that aren't allowed
     
     There's no restrictions on the JS; perhaps you're referring to what it recognizes as "trivial" (and therefore not needing a license)? For example, "trivial" scripts can't define functions.
     
     If it's not working for whatever reason, it's worth asking about it at help-librejs@gnu.org. If it's a bug, then it can be improved upon.
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this.
     Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) repeated this.
   • Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) (clackemovedtoheldscalla@quitter.se)'s status on Thursday, 12-May-2016 12:44:43 UTC Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠)

     in reply to

     • Mike Gerwitz
     • Arun Isaac (அருண் ஐசக்)
     @mmn @mikegerwitz @arunisaac *A* problem with browser JS is security. Doesn't make other problems not worth solving.