Re: Choice of bug tracker

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > The fact that LibreJS complains doesn't mean that the software is 
  > non-free. It just means that the annotations that LibreJS would 
  > recognize are missing. Most of the Internet is missing those.

That is the understatement of the year.  Most of the Web is full
of nonfree Javascript, and detecting it is why we need LibreJS. 

                                                                  The 
  > overall mission of having JS files come with licenses in some form or 
  > other doesn't sound bad, but it shouldn't be a hard requirement for our 
  > platform, I think. It's not an urgent thing to fix.

It is ok to skip the LibreJS check for a specific site if we check its
licenses carefully "by hand".  If done right, that answers the same
question.

But that is harder than one might think.  Many sites load HTML from
other sites.  When they do that, the Javascript used by those other
sites' HTML and Javascript is included by reference into the site
being checked.  So we would need to check the pertinent parts of those
sites too.

We ought to recheck the site from time to time, if we can't get
LibreJS to do it for us.  Or perhaps diff it against its old HTML, to
notice when to recheck.


-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)