On 05/03/13 17:29, Harald Kirschner wrote: > As I want to promote openness and that companies share their work I > only recommend putting "business critical" pieces in Emscripten. That > means code that companies wouldn't open source anyways, as its part > of their core business.
Let's not conflate "not obscuring" with "open sourcing". There are plenty of web pages out there which are not under open source licenses, but I can View Source them and be inspired nonetheless. Also, in passing, let's not perpetuate the idea that core business code can't or shouldn't be open-sourced. :-) There are plenty of counter-examples. > Even though obfuscation is a side effect of Emscripten; performance > and optimal memory use are others. Writing C++ and compiling to JS via Emscripten is now more performant and uses less memory than writing JS straight? > There are other needs, like DRM and message encryption; which depend > on protecting keys and sometimes protecting the algorithms. Even > though its a weak protection, partners ask for it; some music > streaming services bound by label contracts to have it. We can't get rid of other people's contracted foolishness; however, my concern is not that it never happens, my concern is that we don't recommend it. > I'd be happy to get some more ideas on how to get partners to open > source more code and worry less about protecting their client side > JavaScript. How do you see packaged apps fitting in the story we are > weaving around openness and hackability? Why would they be different to non-packaged apps? Gerv _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
