It seems a crazy strategy.
If GNU distributions used this kind of analysis instead of trusting
software from subscribed repositories, all our computers could be a
jungle (either with scripts and compiled files).
How does LibreJS check an script's license?
El 22/02/18 a les 18:43, Ivan Zaigralin ha escrit:
> From what I can pick up, LibreJS tries to detect and whitelist "trivial" code
> first, meaning, the code which an algorithm can recognize as data-like and
> harmless. For all other code, it checks the license. I don't have details on
> how these things are done, but both can clearly be programmed in a variety of
> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:57:28 Narcis Garcia wrote:
>> 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:
>>>> 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"
>>> And obfuscated code cannot be considered free.
>>> miners are all the rage right now. This is where we are today.