Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] Evals and press released published

[Aaron Wolf]

this draft patch says:

"Important site functionality does not work without running nonfree
JavaScript" for Sourceforge. That's not even clear or valid! As far as
we know, it might be free JS! The only thing we know is that the
functions don't work with LibreJS active, and that's the criteria, right?

Why is this so hard?

The criteria says:

"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."

So, if a site fails this criteria, the wording should be:

"Essential functions are not possible without running JavaScript that
LibreJS fails to recognize as free."

Or something similar to that. It is only okay to go from "LibreJS fails
to recognize as free" to "non-free JS" if we *know* that it is non-free,
and we should then say how we know.

There should not be any implication in the reviews that we know the free
status of JS where we don't actually know.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature