[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition)
From: |
Yuchen Pei |
Subject: |
Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition) |
Date: |
Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:53:09 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
On Fri 2024-01-05 08:24:53 -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> The one thought on LibreJS improvement I was imagining so far:
> Some sort of crowdsourced list of recognized free JS, like the way
> that adblocking lists are put together to block ads. I imagine a
> whitelist that just knows that Codeberg's JS is free, so it is
> whitelisted not by individual local users of LibreJS but by a
> collected list everyone gets by default.
For such a list to be authoritative enough to be used for forge
evaluation, it needs to be maintained and vetted. What would be the best
way to do that? A natural idea would be to draw from the Free Software
Directory, which FSF staff maintains by evaluating and approving entries
on weekly meetings. Does this process already evaluate javascript
libraries and applications? Are there already js projects in the FSD? I
see a submission of forgejo[1], but that may not be sufficient because
presumably codeberg has its own url under its own domain for the js
files, so naively either there needs to be a correspondence between
forgejo (possibly minified) js files and codeberg js urls. Technically
there should be hashes to the files also in case they get updated.
[1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Forgejo
> On 2024-01-05 4:08, Yuchen Pei wrote:
>> On Thu 2024-01-04 13:49:00 -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> Note that there's also this issue at Gitea:
>>> https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13393
>>> Anyway, I think it is not okay to downgrade Codeberg for not
>>> functioning with LibreJS when it is 100% free software anyway.
>>> Insisting on this particular tooling needs to not be such a strong
>>> requirement.
>>> I think LibreJS needs some improved options for operating and should
>>> not be a blocker to Codeberg getting a higher grade.
>>> In practice, if sites that are 100% free software are not being
>>> recognized by LibreJS, and the way modern sites are put together makes
>>> doing this non-trivial, then the problem is LibreJS's approach, not
>>> the site.
>> Suggestions on how to improve librejs to make site administrators life
>> easier to comply are welcome :)
>>> [... 33 lines elided]
>> Best,
>> Yuchen
>> --
>> Dr Yuchen Pei |https://ypei.org | Timezone: UTC+11
>> PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040 4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
>> https://ypei.org/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt
Best,
Yuchen
--
Dr Yuchen Pei | https://ypei.org | Timezone: UTC+11
PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040 4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
https://ypei.org/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt
- LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Jing Luo, 2024/01/04
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Richard Stallman, 2024/01/06
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Yuchen Pei, 2024/01/08
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Jing Luo, 2024/01/09
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Aaron Wolf, 2024/01/09
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Richard Stallman, 2024/01/11
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Aaron Wolf, 2024/01/14
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Richard Stallman, 2024/01/15
- Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition), Aaron Wolf, 2024/01/23