I'm about to release a JavaScript package under version 3 of the GPL.
The package itself consists of a single source file, which is bounded
by @license and @license-end comments. I also wish to provide a
minified version, which additionally has a @source comment. Are
relative URIs permitted with @source?

My other question is a little more complicated. My package can
scavenge and run fragments of JavaScript code in (trusted) application
data. It compiles them with the Function constructor. What license
information will be attributed to these fragments by LibreJS? If the
presence of a license comment in the HTML causes LibreJS to ascribe
that license to these fragments, then we're fine. If it assumes
they're untagged unless each and every one of them contains a license
comment, then that's problematic but acceptable. (I can add support to
my application for those who care to specify blanket license tags, and
insert them into each fragment before it is compiled.) If it ascribes
my application's license to those fragments, then we have a serious

(I specifically want people to be able to use my package along with
proprietary components, if they so choose, as long as they are GPL
compliant with the package itself. My main concern is making sure that
LibreJS is fully aware of the situation: whether the application is
Free, non-free, or simply untagged; and doesn't get confused by the
interconnection of my code and "other" code.)

Reply via email to