Re: Bug: JavaScript in HTML export not recognized by LibreJS as free [9.4.5 (9.4.5-16-g94be20-elpaplus @ /home/jorge/.config/emacs/elpa/org-plus-contrib-20210412/)]

[Jorge P. de Morais Neto <jorge+list@disroot.org>]

Hi all!

Em [2021-04-22 qui 16:29:15-0400], Anthony Carrico escreveu:

> Hi all.  Thanks for the note.  I took a look at the LibreJS docs to
> try to understand the problem.

I also took a look at the LibreJS docs, the linked article "The
JavaScript Trap", and the text of the CC0.

> LibreJS is a web filtering plugin.  Users are making a decision to
> block content which is not explicitly licensed in the LibreJS syntax,
> including public domain works marked in that syntax.  Apparently
> LibreJS is working as designed.  I don't think we should attempt to
> work around a user's web filtering software.

The purpose of LibreJS, from the Overview section of its manual, is to
detect and block *nonfree* nontrivial JavaScript.  Then the article [1]
in the gnu.org website says "Please ensure these licenses are free and
GPL-compatible."  So if some script in a webpage is free software, then
LibreJS users want it to run without issue, especially if its license is
also GPL-compatible.  Therefore, when a verifiably public domain script
is blocked by LibreJS, LibreJS users (like me) get unhappy; this ought
to be solved.

1: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.html "GNU
Project - Releasing your JavaScript as Free Software"

> My understanding is that authors who want to get through the web
> filter should include an approved LibreJS license notice at the top of
> their page, and a separate license in a <script> when it conflicts
> with their chosen license.

But document processors like Org Mode are supposed to automate
everything than can reliably be automated.  In fact, many document
authors, having only partial existing technical knowledge about Org Mode
and LibreJS, may find it nontrivial to fix the situation manually and
therefore postpone (as I did) or ignore it.

In fact I suppose the most common course of action would be ignoring it,
because LibreJS unfortunately has too few users for most web authors to
care.  In fact, many will even be *unaware* of the issue.  Yet this is
important to us---the GNU community---because LibreJS is a fellow GNU
project and because we adhere to free software ethics.

And finally, from a pragmatic standpoint: simply "licensing" the script
into the CC0 would make the users of GNU LibreJS happy and I really
cannot see any downside or difficulty.  In fact, I put "licensing" in
quotes because it wouldn’t actually change the (absence of) terms of
use; it would in fact only /clarify/ them.

Did you read the text of the CC0[2]?  It simply puts the work into the
public domain, and then, as a /fallback/ for jurisdictions that would
not recognize the public domain dedication, it provides a license that
lets the user do anything she wants with the work.  It does not even
mandate that the license text be included with the work, not even with
the source code (as copyfree software licenses usually require).
Therefore, in my view, CC0 is *more* reliably public domain than an
informal dedication that may not be legally valid everywhere.

2: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

Regards

-- 
- <https://stallmansupport.org> "In Support of Richard Stallman"
- I am Brazilian.  I hope my English is correct and I welcome feedback.
- Free Software Supporter: <https://www.fsf.org/free-software-supporter>
- If an email of mine arrives at your spam box, please notify me.