61–70 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who care more about the delusional ranting of Stallman than actually using any web service today? Oh yeah, using jquery is "non-trivial". What a load of crap.
jQuery, even in its compressed form makes a license known. / ! jQuery v1.11.1 | (c) 2005, 2014 jQuery Foundation, Inc. | jquery.org/license / It's not ideal, but I'll take it.
The $.doSomething(); example
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But something like: it uses dynamic JavaScript constructs that are difficult to analyze without interpreting the program calling methods with the square bracket notation feels like a totally arbitrary restriction. That has nothing to do with free software and everything to do with the difficulty of analysis. Stupid.
They're reasonable signs that the JavaScript is non-trivial, not restrictions. You can write a program that uses them and release it under a free software license and LibreJS will run it. Here's a good example of a trivial JavaScript program. click me For any non-trivial JavaScript programs, a free software license is required if you want it to be run by LibreJS -- a program designed to block any nonfree software fro…
this is great for its audience(true gnu believers) and idk why every other comment is defensive like you feel personally slighted by some peoples' decision to avoid unsigned/licensed js code running on their machine without explicitly feeding it to a runtime(don't tell me they should curl down 'source' and dependencies and check licenses before viewing a page, this actually does it for them!). If you don't care about…
He's upgrading to a Thinkpad X60 with Trisquel GNU/Linux and Libreboot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is a set of directives so wildly out of step with common engineering practice how so? It's just a set of guidelines for how program such as LibreJS might interpret what trivial JavaScript code looks like. If you think it's wrong, write to RMS and tell him, or tell me and I'll pass it along.
It might be useful to automatically cross reference to a source like GitHub or NPM. Code could very well have licensing information at the source, but not serve it to web clients. Just the name of the library would be enough to get a lot of these.
I don't want to be negative about this, but TBH I can't think of a webpage -besides Wikipedia- that will work fine restricting non-free JS. At this point I can't put my faith in web authors, since they could not even take care of prefixing the CSS for non-webkit browsers (not trying to fault the web authors, but trying to point out that prefixes were a less-from-ideal solution that ended up in the -webkit-disaster)..…
> How can I expect from them to license their code with a free license? Some examples of JavaScript code under a free software license: * jQuery * extJS * Handlebars * Backbone * Angular * Ember In fact, pretty much any JavaScript library that people are using. Then you have stuff like node, which is being used extensively on the server -- also free software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a license, the assumption is that it is proprietary.
So, all that in-line javascript on my website suddenly is "proprietary" even though it's usually just a few lines? (as a consequence, my entire site won't work for users with this enabled)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without a license, the assumption is that it is proprietary.
So, all that in-line javascript on my website suddenly is "proprietary" even though it's usually just a few lines? (as a consequence, my entire site won't work for users with this enabled)
Their definition of "non-trivial" includes using computed member expressions, so the following program is not supported: var greetings = {world: "Hello World"}; var subject = 'world'; console.log(greetings[subject]); This is zealotry in action, who do they think is going to use this?
You can put in arbitrary heuristics and argue how many expressions, lines, or words should be required for copyright status, but then there will always be up to a judge if you guessed right.
The options here seems to either not include any detection for the copyright scope, or try invent something and hope that people will send in patches when it hit a false positive.
If you think such plugin should detect something as trivial code which it currently classify as not, send in a patch.
this is great for its audience(true gnu believers) and idk why every other comment is defensive like you feel personally slighted by some peoples' decision to avoid unsigned/licensed js code running on their machine without explicitly feeding it to a runtime(don't tell me they should curl down 'source' and dependencies and check licenses before viewing a page, this actually does it for them!). If you don't care about…
I really enjoyed the part about not buying a parrot. Something along the lines of "If we haven't explored other options, then please don't book a hotel for me. I would rather stay at someone's house if someone will have me at their house. If there is someone with a parrot, I will generally prefer to stay with that person. Please also nobody should go out and buy a parrot, if you're not completely sure what you're getting into; having a parrot is a big commitment especially since they are very emotional creatures, and you can scar a parrot for life if you don't know how to take care of it. Also chances are the parrot will probably outlive you, so just don't go out and buy a parrot. It's a big decision and should not be taken lightly."
You know that's got to be in there I'm sure because someone actually did go out and buy a parrot for him once.