Follow-up Comment #4, sr #110659 (project administration): > Yes. most of these scripts (probably all) are clearly uncopyrightable. applying licenses to uncopyrightable works is pointless.
What do you mean that they are not copyrightable? Are you saying most of these scripts don't have a license? If so then we have a bigger problem: the GNU project is hosting projects on a nonfree program. > if the criteria LibreJS uses say that such scripts should be blocked because they have no licenses, then the criteria should be reconsidered. "No license" means nonfree[1]. LibreJS's purpose is blocking nonfree nontrivial js, so blocking scripts without licensing is working as intended. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NoLicense > and things like extension shouldn't confuse it---after all, they don't confuse the browser, do they? LibreJS is not confused by the php extension - it blocks it as it is annotated as scripts. It's just plain bad practice to include a .php file in <script>, with only js code in it. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/support/?110659> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/
