W. Kosior <[email protected]> writes:
Nice documentation - lots of food for thought, thanks! (Also the project looks like a great initialtive):)One minor question about the documentation:> LibreJS' strategy of judging scripts based on a license > notice > fails for example when someone takes an X11-licensed js > library, > modifies it and serves a minified version of the modified lib > on > their site. LibreJS will allow this script to execute, even > though the modifications are obviously nonfree. Why would the modifications be nonfree in this case? Minification is a derivative like compilation, and if the source is licensed under X11, and if the modified version is also under a free license, then there's no problem LibreJS allows it to execute.I am assuming the case where released are: - original source code, with free license - minified modified source code, with free license and the non-minified modified source code is kept secret
True, but in this case the webmaster would be lying, and it is equivalent to a bad developer making a binary out of proprietary code and saying the binary is from some freely licensed code. It would be good to verify the source-binary correspondence, but it is something extra, and not LibreJS's fault to allow the execution.
Actually, it does not even need to be a _modified_ library. A badwebmaster could just write some code from ground up and serve it minified-only with a free license attached.
This is almost equivalent to license a binary without source under GPL. IMO it is more of an issue of license compliance.
-- PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040 4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
