> Hi Adonay, thanks for taking this up! You're welcome! ;)
> So what does it say? AFAIK it seems that LibreJS fails to recognize a > number of Brotli-compressed assets. But I see no non-free code over > there. What would help LibreJS to go green? I guess some licensing tag > in the HTML would help it, but apart from that I see no reason to > change the FSD approval: do you see any? The compression/minification is not a problem per see. The issue is that it doesn't have either one of the following (any of these if done will probably be enough): a) if the scripts are yours, then: an indication for license notice, that is: exact notice as recommended by the license, the reason for this is to make the notice not just readable, but understandable for the visitor/guest/reader. If the goal was readability the notice would be: "Licensed under X" or even just "under X" or "X", but in understandability, it would be: "You are allowed to use, study, adapt share, sell, ... .... under the terms of license X". To understand this item (item (a)) better, think: How would someone completely new to web-based scripting learn about free/libre software? Certainly, simply inserting "Licensed under X" or "under X" or "X" doesn't help much the case for this new person. Unfortunatelly, for LibreJS to recognize both the copyright and license indicators, they must be between "@licstart The following is... " and "@licend The above is... " special comments ([1]). b) if the scripts aren't yours (e.g.: they come from Discourse or from someone else) and together with that they also don't have what is in (a), then: what is missing is a weblabels page, [1] has more information on this. The references in [2][3][4] also help further explain how to do (a) and (b). The same references also explain alternative ways you can do (a), but with some caveats. Also I must note that software is a human creation, so it has imperfections just like humans themselves, and I think I found one for LibreJS ([5][6]), which affects the case pointed in (a). Although I think I know why the bug referenced exists, it seems to be an incentive for people to use "-or-later" options for GPL and its family of licenses, and I personally agree with such incentive. ;) In any case, even if LibreJS doesn't recognize a free/libre software license --- say GPL-3.0-only ---, at least we should make the necessary markup prentending it would. Back to the lack of proper license notices. One must note that in case of minified/compressed/obfuscated JavaScript, the license-related fields aren't the only requirement, this is true for both (a) and (b), and the references I made have more information on this. Ideally, this should be pushed upstream, and should be the default, not just staying in FSFE's instance, because the benefit and software freedom would be greater if upstream receives this. However, upstream must of course be welcoming to the patches related to this, otherwise we might aswell know beforehand with which community we'd be trusting our communication tool to --- and believe me when I tell you that I already saw multiple hostile people (from either known projects or from websites) either telling me that I should stop or simply refusing my patches. All in all, you might as well be able to see now that this is no longer a matter of packaging said software into free/libre distros like Trisquel, GuixSD, Parabola or whichever. The issue is really in client-side scripting, and how clarified it is for the guest/visitor of a website. > The From: email address is configurable, so you can use a no-reply > email. Actually I came to create a private category for Staff and > assign it the 'no-reply' address, so that any reply comes to that as a > new topic ; you may also assign the address to a group so it becomes > like a support email. Interesting! ;) [1] <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html>. [2] <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/html_node/JavaScript-Detection.html#JavaScript-Detection>. [3] <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/html_node/Free-Licenses-Detection.html#Free-Licenses-Detection>. [4] <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/html_node/Setting-Your-JavaScript-Free.html#Setting-Your-JavaScript-Free>. [5] <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?52636>. [6] I plan to add an update to [5] so as to reflect the awesome decision from SPDX project to redo the "-only" and "-or-later" pair of variants for the GPL family of licenses instead of the easily missed no-"+" and "+" pair. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
