I was asking about the CURRENT principle for LibreJS, not for "good" or "bad" of theoretically prossibilities.
El 22/02/18 a les 09:35, Ivan Zaigralin ha escrit: > On Thursday, February 22, 2018 08:43:38 Narcis Garcia wrote: >> Which is the principle for LibreJS to approve JavaScript functions >> and/or files? >> A license mention? > > Can be regarded as necessary, but not sufficient. > >> A signature? > > Useful for creating a trust model between users and web parties, but this is > already implemented by https+noscript, and it solves a different problem, not > directly freedom-related. > >> A well-known functions comparison? A code analysis? It replaces funcions? > > A code analysis is pointless. Detecting obfuscated code, in particular, is an > intractable problem. If you could define "obfuscated" formally, chances are, > there would be a formal proof that the detection is unsolvable by a TM. But > generally speaking, a good way to obfuscate is by writing a virtual assembly > interpreter, and then feeding it "binaries" which appear to be perfectly > cromulent, poetic even, JavaScript sources. And obfuscated code cannot be > considered free. > > None of this is purely academic. Dynamic, obfuscated JavaScript bitcash > miners > are all the rage right now. This is where we are today. > > > > -- > http://gnuzilla.gnu.org > -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
