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 problem. (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.)