Re: A+ 0

[Aaron Wolf]

I guess the concern I've been bringing up relates to how disruptive or abusive some JS might be, and in practice it is unlikely that free JS is involved in such problems. However, I do think that, e.g. GitLab running some third-party request to CloudFlare and blocking access if it doesn't return a particular result — that seems to me to be a problem independent of the licensing of any JS involved. In practice, since this does not pass LibreJS validation, it is caught by that criterion. I just think that if somehow that was adjusted to pass LibreJS validation, it would still be a problem. Having said this, I don't care to discuss the issue further here.

On 2024-04-23 4:46, 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. ]]]
>
>   > elsewhere in the criteria there is language about functionality
>   > I think there's confusing with language of "impose"
>   > Many websites function with requests blocked. For example, Google 
>   > Analytics being blocked doesn't break anything.
>
> The intention of the criteria about JS code is that the site should
> work if the user blocks the _javascript_ code.  I don't see a need to
> give a site a bad mark for referring to Google Analytics or anything
> else that doesn't stop the site from functioning with LibreJS.
>
> Our general policy towards JS is that if you appreciate the issue
> you should make your browser block it, so we judge sites assuming you have
> done that.
>
> However, I wouldn't okject to an A+ criterion of "no nonfree JS at all
> in the pages" or "no JS at all in the pages."
>
>