Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition)

[Aaron Wolf]

Making this a specific proposal for discussion/consideration:

I propose the wording of the first paragraph of C0.0 be modified from

"Regarding sending code that runs on the _javascript_ platform, any such code used by an important site function either (1) is free software, and labeled properly for LibreJS to recognize as free, or (2) isn't necessary, so that the function works properly even if _javascript_ is disabled in the browser."

To

"Regarding sending code that runs on the _javascript_ platform, any such code used by an important site function either (1) is free software, either labeled properly for LibreJS to recognize as free or with a human-verifiable reference that links to relevant source code and license files, or (2) isn't necessary, so that the function works properly even if _javascript_ is disabled in the browser.

(as a concrete example, I added a comment at https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/64#issuecomment-1531719 suggesting Codeberg could better direct people to the relevant source code and licenses even prior to getting LibreJS functioning)

Aaron

On 2024-01-15 7:32, Richard Stallman wrote:

> [[[ 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. ]]]
>
>   > What is the process to go ahead with this change? Splitting free JS 
>   > between "is free" (verified at the time of review) for level C and 
>   > satisfies-LibreJS for level B
>
> Th enext step is to see what other people have to say about it.
> I'm the one who makes the decision but other people's arguments will
> affect my conclusions.
>
>