I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
effectively refused to do that, although it seems to be a very simple
operation to
Yaroslav Halchenko writes:
I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
I've asked the upstream to provide proper source code, but so far he
effectively refused to do that, although it seems
On Mon, 2007-29-01 at 14:06 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
So, if I read your comments correctly, the .js files aren't
intentionally obfuscated.
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 04:25:56PM -0500, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 2007-29-01 at 14:06 -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
I've ran into a problem: given firefox extension released under
GPL as shipped (.xpi files) has obscured .js files -- all
formatting was removed.
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
I was able to run the JavaScript code through GNU indent
(http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/ ) and get readable and modifiable
output. I think there are some special-purpose JavaScript beautifiers
out there that could give even better
So, if I read your comments correctly, the .js files aren't
intentionally obfuscated. Whitespace has just been removed in order to
speed up download. It may be misguided, but it's also pretty common
among JavaScript programmers.
Except the javascript file is zipped in a .xpi file, making
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Mike Hommey said:
However, the GPL requires the prefered form for modification to be
provided. And what the author uses to modify is definitely not the
whitespace-free version.
Given that the only difference between the
Mike Hommey wrote:
However, the GPL requires the prefered form for modification to be
provided. And what the author uses to modify is definitely not the
whitespace-free version.
The same could be true of any secret modifications to any program made
by its upstream author. Perhaps the debhelper
On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 08:59 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
The point is that the recipient isn't getting the preferred form of
the work for making modifications to it and can't therefore fulfil
the terms of the GPL when distributing the work.
It's obvious that some transformations are acceptable
Christmas came and this thread was dropped... just to tie off:
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Passing off is a little different, so I don't want to confuse that
with trademarks.
That's not something I know much about; a reference on the difference
would be
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
The same could be true of any secret modifications to any program
made by its upstream author.
They'd have to be publicly knowable, though, so secret modifications
don't really work.
Perhaps the debhelper that I actually develop is written in a very
11 matches
Mail list logo
