A minor correction also: The practice of distributing any JavaScript
requires a license notice as described by the license text.
For example, in the case of Modified BSD License (3-clause BSD), "MIT
License" (Expat License or sometimes X11 License), the license text
itself says one has to use the full license text as its notice.
I have made a quick comparison on the length of the license notices (not
the topmost part, which is the copyright notice) and so far the latest
versions of {AGP,GP,FD}L are better both in terms of license notice and
in terms of end-user protection.
2017-11-24T15:19:09-0600 Caleb Herbert wrote:
>
> JavaScript is how a lot of people lose protection on Tor.
>
> Personally, JavaScript programs have put me in the following situations:
>
> * unable to highlight text in article with cursor
> * unable to copy text in article with Ctrl+C
> * pop-ups
> * fan acceleration
> * kernel panic (I'm looking at you, Twitch!)
>
>
> I do most the time.
>
>
> Even if I can assume a JavaScript program is not malicious, I still
> refuse to run it because it is proprietary software. My only exceptions
> are free JavaScript, job applications, and Reddit.
>
> Also, if I just installed a new system and haven't bothered setting up
> AVideo (youtube-dl without DRM or background JS execution) I will
> temporarily use YouTube's proprietary embedded player if I'm certain the
> video won't be blocked by DRM when I go to download it with AVideo.
>
> More info about AVideo: https://notabug.org/GPast/avideo
>
>
> LibreJS is pretty neat. It tries to automatically detect if the scripts
> embedded in a page are under a free license.
>
> Unfortunately, this only works on a tiny amount of sites, and even GNU
> projects like GNU Taler have issues getting their site to pass LibreJS.
>
> However, the practices required by LibreJS aren't just stupid
> requirements of LibreJS. They're actually probably the only way you
> could legally distribute embedded JavaScript if it is under the GNU
> General Public License.
>
> In addition, it's really the only polite thing to do. Everything else
> on a website has copyright information at the bottom of the page, so why
> do people just neglect the copyright information on embedded scripts?
> It's only logical that there is a page on the site disclosing ALL
> copyright info to readers, incl. copyright on scripts.
>
> People may hate LibreJS because it does not work at all and probably
> never will, but everyone should be telling site owners to be transparent
> about the copyright information of the programs embedded in their pages.
> Composing an email to ask about copyright is a lot more work than just
> going to the bottom of the page to see copyright notices.
>
>
> Yes. It prevents crashing from heavy web apps, and it limits what
> Facebook and other malicious sites can do when you type stuff in their
> forms. (They can't use JS to log keystrokes you never publish.)
>
--
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
(apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
