On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:06:57PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
That patch is basically ok, but please explicitly mention that
minified or otherwise transformed JS code needs to point to the source.
Here is a second version of the patch, adding this note. I've also changed
the orthography of "Javascript" as suggested.
J'
--
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
? GCS.patch
? js.patch
? js2.patch
? maintain.info
Index: maintain.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/gnustandards/gnustandards/maintain.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.253
diff -U 3 -r1.253 maintain.texi
--- maintain.texi 7 May 2015 19:33:01 -0000 1.253
+++ maintain.texi 7 Aug 2015 10:05:04 -0000
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
@c For double-sided printing, uncomment:
@c @setchapternewpage odd
@c This date is automagically updated when you save this file:
-@set lastupdate May 7, 2015
+@set lastupdate August 7, 2015
@c %**end of header
@dircategory GNU organization
@@ -2109,10 +2109,18 @@
and it will have the effect of granting legitimacy to the non-free
program.
-If you use multiple sites, they should all follow that criterion.
+@cindex Javascript
+If you use Javascript in your web pages, please ensure that the Javascript
+is free software, and that it contains license tags as described in
+@url{http://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html} and
+make sure that LibreJS does not detect any page as non-free.
+If a Javascript file is minified or obsfucated in any way, the file must
+contain a @@source tag pointing to the unobsfucated original.
+
+If you use multiple sites, they should all follow the above criteria.
Please don't link to a site that is about your package, which the
public might perceive as connected with it and reflecting the position
-of its developers, unless it follows that criterion.
+of its developers, unless it follows these criteria.
Historically, web pages for GNU packages did not include GIF images,
because of patent problems (@pxref{Ethical and Philosophical
Index: standards.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/gnustandards/gnustandards/standards.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.242
diff -U 3 -r1.242 standards.texi
--- standards.texi 23 Apr 2015 15:48:55 -0000 1.242
+++ standards.texi 7 Aug 2015 10:05:05 -0000
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
@setfilename standards.info
@settitle GNU Coding Standards
@c This date is automagically updated when you save this file:
-@set lastupdate April 23, 2015
+@set lastupdate July 8, 2015
@c %**end of header
@dircategory GNU organization
@@ -4082,6 +4082,11 @@
major version and a minor. We have no objection to using more than
two numbers, but it is very unlikely that you really need them.
+Making a release means providing a package for distribution. If you
+use a version control system, you might also want to tag the point in
+the history where the release was made. But this in itself is not
+sufficient.
+
Package the distribution of @code{Foo version 69.96} up in a gzipped tar
file with the name @file{foo-69.96.tar.gz}. It should unpack into a
subdirectory named @file{foo-69.96}.
@@ -4128,6 +4133,11 @@
install whichever versions of whichever packages they like. Do not
induce new dependencies on other software lightly.
+Don't allow any part of the build or configure process to open a
+network connection in order to download files remotely (or for any other reason).
+The distribution should successfully build on a machine disconnected
+from the internet.
+
Non-source files that might actually be modified by building and
installing the program should @strong{never} be included in the
distribution. So if you do distribute non-source files, always make
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
