Hi, to me there are (at least) two categories of JavaScript here that
need to be addressed. When I look at the page source for a Web app
(specifically, picolisp-gosper), I see two things:

(1) JavaScript which is loaded straight out of the files that come with
the release. As near as I can tell, these served files exactly match the
ones in the picolisp release.

"""
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://localhost:8080/@lib/canvas.js";></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://localhost:8080/@lib/plio.js";></script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://localhost:8080/@lib/form.js";></script>
"""

(2) Inline JavaScript on the page which calls functions from those
files. This JavaScript is, presumably, what is generated by the picolisp
program.

"""
<canvas id="$testID" width="800" height="600"
onmousedown="csMouseDn(this, event)" ontouchstart="csTouchDn(this,
event)" onmousemove="csMouseMv(this, event)"
ontouchmove="csTouchMv(this, event)" onmouseup="csMouseUp(this)"
ontouchend="csTouchEnd(this)" onmouseout="csLeave(this)"
ontouchleave="csLeave(this)" class="canvas"></canvas>
<script type="text/javascript">onload=drawCanvas('$testID', 200)</script>
<br/><br/>
<input type="submit" name="*Gui:-1" value="C"
onmousedown="inBtn(this,1)" onblur="inBtn(this,0)" class="submit"
id="i2--1"/>
"""

I believe it would be best to view (1) as library files, which are
covered under the release license (hopefully the same one as in
COPYING). On the other hand, (2) should be viewed as separate developer
code making use of said libraries. The library files should be marked
with appropriate licensing headers. The developer code which calls it
need not be under the same license, or any license, at least in this
case, as your license is not full copyleft in the sense that the GPL
licenses are. In any case, I don't think the existence of (2) eliminates
the need for proper licensing of (1).

On 03/13/2017 10:14 PM, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 03:57:00PM -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
>> confusion and uncertainty.) The JavaScript is a special case because
>> 90%+ of the people who will see/use the JavaScript will receive it from
>> a Web server and, if they inspect the source of the JavaScript, will
>> only see "Copyright so and so" and will have to assume that it is
>> proprietary.
> 
> Especiall for the case of JavaScript I do not understand the argument.
> 
> The JavaScript code in PicoLisp is deeply interacting with the server's Lisp
> code, and makes absolutely no sense to be used (or parts of it) is isolation.
> Should we put a licence on every line?
> 
> ♪♫ Alex
> 

-- 
https://qlfiles.net
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe

Reply via email to