Re: LibreJS (was Re: CodeBerg addition)

[Aaron Wolf]

On 2024-03-19 7:48, 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. ]]]
>
>   > >    > "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
>   > >    ><https://www.gnu.org/software/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.
>
> If the proposed change consists of adding the text in asterisks,
> that is a bad idea.  My decision is no.
>
> Depending on a "human-verifiable" page means telling each user
> to redo the work of verifying the code based on that page.
> That is a substantial amount of work.  Instead of posting a
> "human-verifiable" page, they should post LibreJS tags
> or labeling, so that the verification can be done with LibreJS.
>
> That avoids the need for various humans to "human-verify" it.
>
>
>
>     
    
Richard, when you first replied to this same suggestion, you said it looked good and asked for anyone else to comment. The proposal is just a first-draft wording, but the point is not to remove the LibreJS criteria but to shift it to the next letter in the grading.

The context was to suggest that C could be granted to sites that get false-flags from LibreJS but which are truly known to be all free. Then, grade B would include the requirement to work correctly with LibreJS.

Working with LibreJS is preferable indeed, but saying that a site is unacceptable without it is quite extreme if we know the site to be 100% free.