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

Reply via email to