[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Dear Ciarán, > LibreJS is a good idea in theory, but it's an incredibly difficult thing to > work with. For example, if you have a project using a build tool such as > Webpack, the licence files will be scattered or the licence declaration > stripped at compile time and LibreJS will not recognise them. This means > that even free software projects will be flagged as non-free by LibreJS. > It would be nice if there were more development around it to create plugins > for these build tools, but it looks like the appetite is not there as it's > not a trivial thing to do. This means a lot of projects simply don't bother > and rely on the central project licence. For example: go to Peertube with > LibreJS turned on. Even though Peertube is FLOSS, LibreJS won't think so (at > least not the last time I checked!). > > Ciarán Sadly for LibreJS I have to agree with you on this. There are many sites with free JS that don't get recognised as such. However, I would have thought that the inconvenience of actually using it is a requisite for improving the situation; when the base project is free software and has its code hosted publicly there is an opportunity to patch it for LibreJS that would probably go unnoticed if nobody used LibreJS. Maybe the easiest option to get the ball rolling would be to have a script that runs after Webpack/Browserify/BungleBundle (!) and adds the necessary labels [1] at the developers' direction - so not an automatic solution but rather a tool to help developers who have already ensured that their projects contain only freely licensed modules. Best wishes, Sebastian [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/html_node/Setting-Your-JavaScript-Free.html -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG https://mailman.dcglug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq