Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m not affiliated with LibreJS, yet let me tell you, that no, you probably > misunderstood the goal. That is not the main reason, not even the secondary. > Freedom has little to do with maliciousness or ‘privacy’. Only with freedom.
Sorry, I should have phrased that a bit differently to eliminate confusion. I meant 'malicious' in broader sense, that includes the limiting of the four essential freedoms the user have. > Well, how can you provide a fake information about the licence? Except > perhaps, when you grant rights, which you are not eligible to grant (because > you are not the proprietor of the program or otherwise). Note, that does not > necessary require any evil intentions, it also may be a honest mistake. In > any case, that’s a thing we hardly can fully control whatsoever, for any type > of creative work. AFAIK, LibreJS looks for some license headers or metadata in specific format(s). By supplying free license data that way, and at the same time embedding something like non-free EULA in the code in format that's not recognized by the extension, it seems this is possible to provide fake license info just to work around LibreJS blocking. > This is not panacea, however. It is possible, that the source is not directly > runnable by browser, but indeed may require some building from another > language, such as Coffescript. Or TypeScript, or whatever. That's exactly what I meant, please excuse me for confusion again :) > I chose µMatrix, since unlike µBlock (by the same author) it not only blocks > scripts but also properly shows <noscript> content when they are blocked This is a bit off topic, but latest versions of uBlock Origin have master switch to disable all JS (also works on per-domain basis). Good news is that unlike separate features for blocking of inline, 1st- and 3rd-party scripts, it honors <noscript> tag as you might expect.
