Re: [arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

2018-01-14 Thread Eli Schwartz via arch-projects
On 01/15/2018 12:07 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote: > From what I see, that's a minority position, but of course I run in > FSF circles, so my perception is a bit skewed. :P > > If that's the official position that the archweb team wants to take, I > won't argue. I dunno what jelle/angvp/the gang

Re: [arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

2018-01-14 Thread Luke Shumaker
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:51:07 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote: > > On 01/14/2018 08:34 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote: > > Note that without even being concerned with license compatibility, > > archweb is currently in violation of konami.js, as it does not > > include, link to, or in any way provide

Re: [arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

2018-01-14 Thread Eli Schwartz via arch-projects
On 01/14/2018 08:34 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote: > Note that without even being concerned with license compatibility, > archweb is currently in violation of konami.js, as it does not > include, link to, or in any way provide instructions on how to obtain > non-minified source code. This would be

Re: [arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

2018-01-14 Thread Luke Shumaker
On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 18:04:01 -0500, Luke Shumaker wrote: > - take konami.js from commit >ec0f686e647765860ff4d2fcb7b48122785432b75 I'm sorry, I made a typo when pasting that. It should be: c0f686e647765860ff4d2fcb7b48122785432b75 -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker

Re: [arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

2018-01-14 Thread Luke Shumaker
On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:46:01 -0400, Andrew Gregory via arch-projects wrote: > > On 07/09/17 at 11:21am, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > > Looking at the issue on the bugtracker, I'm not sure what you want to > > achieve? personally I don't see any point in upgrading to GPLv3. > > Presumably, the main

Re: [arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

2018-01-14 Thread Luke Shumaker
On Sun, 07 Jan 2018 11:34:59 -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote: > > On 01/07/2018 10:55 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > > Not really sure what the issue is, are we actually in violation of > > anything, and if so what? For example, quickly googling for konami.js > > shows me several github repos that *all*

[arch-projects] [namcap] elffiles: Check for FULL RELRO

2018-01-14 Thread Jelle van der Waa
Instead of checking for RELRO, check for FULL RELRO which is the default now. --- Namcap/rules/elffiles.py | 15 --- namcap-tags | 2 +- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Namcap/rules/elffiles.py b/Namcap/rules/elffiles.py index

[arch-projects] [namcap] elffiles: Add rule for no PIE binaries

2018-01-14 Thread Jelle van der Waa
Verify if packages where build with PIE enabled by checking if it's an EY_DYN file with a DT_DEBUG entry. --- Namcap/rules/elffiles.py | 33 ++ Namcap/tests/package/test_elffiles.py | 38 ++- namcap-tags