Re: [fsf-community-team] Enhancements and fixes for js-encumbered websites

[W. Kosior]

> >> Why would the modifications be nonfree in this case? 
> >> Minification 
> >> is a derivative like compilation, and if the source is licensed 
> >> under X11, and if the modified version is also under a free 
> >> license, then there's no problem LibreJS allows it to execute.  
> >
> > I am assuming the case where released are:
> > - original source code, with free license
> > - minified modified source code, with free license
> > and the non-minified modified source code is kept secret  
> 
> True, but in this case the webmaster would be lying, and it is 
> equivalent to a bad developer making a binary out of proprietary 
> code and saying the binary is from some freely licensed code. It 
> would be good to verify the source-binary correspondence, but it 
> is something extra, and not LibreJS's fault to allow the 
> execution.
> 
> >
> > Actually, it does not even need to be a _modified_ library. A 
> > bad
> > webmaster could just write some code from ground up and serve it
> > minified-only with a free license attached.
> >  
> 
> This is almost equivalent to license a binary without source under 
> GPL. IMO it is more of an issue of license compliance.

You perhaps know that you can legally put GPL on your own binary-only
code. So, as long as you are the copyright holder, you're not bound by
the GPL or any other license. Also, putting, say, Expat license on
binary-only program is not lying, in strict sense (although, well, we
could call it misleading). The license only says "you can do this,
can't do that". It doesn't say "what you received is libre software".


Wojtek

-- 
website: https://koszko.org/koszko.html
PGP: https://koszko.org/key.gpg
fingerprint: E972 7060 E3C5 637C 8A4F  4B42 4BC5 221C 5A79 FD1A

pgpr1nhnaXavQ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature