Re: [GMG-Devel] Survey requires nonfree Javascript

[ayleph]

Congrats, you're my first plonk on the MG list.

address@hidden wrote:
>Some of you people love to label people dont you?   First you label the
>first poster as "unjustified" and now I am trolling.  Now that you have
>labeled me as a Troll perhaps people will dismiss me instead of pay
>attention to a potential problem with the code?
>
>Who are people supposed to trust first?  LibreJS or some other
>organization?  You guys can do what you want but I am going with
>LibreJS, if it tells me some code is blocked, there is a good reason
>for it. Have a nice day fellas.
>
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aaron Williamson [mailto:address@hidden] 
>Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:57 AM
>To: address@hidden
>Subject: Re: [GMG-Devel] Survey requires nonfree Javascript
>
>Pretty sure you're trolling here, but this is the untrue statement: "If
>
>LibreJS is blocking something, it is likely non free." In fact, most of
>the
>
>free Javascript in the world will be blocked by LibreJS, because the
>
>license notation LibreJS requires is not yet widely used. So the only
>
>conclusion you can reasonably draw when LibreJS blocks some javascript
>is
>
>that the javascript does not contain the notation, not that the license
>is
>
>unfree.
>
>
>
>On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:51:15 -0800, <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> That is not true? That the developers should test the code with
>LibreJS
>
>> before releasing it? If LibreJS has a defect, they should notify the
>
>> developers of LibreJS I would think. If LibreJS is fine, then the new
>
>> conventions should be followed. In the meantime, i would avoid taking
>
>the
>
>> survey.
>
>> 
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Joar Wandborg [mailto:address@hidden] On Behalf Of Joar
>
>Wandborg
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:39 AM
>
>> To: address@hidden
>
>> Subject: Re: [GMG-Devel] Survey requires nonfree Javascript
>
>> 
>
>> On 11/12/2013 07:33 PM, address@hidden wrote:
>
>>> Can the developer do their own testing with LibreJS to make sure
>
>> beforehand
>
>>> that their code will not be blocked?   *If LibreJS is blocking
>
>something,
>
>> it
>
>>> is likely non free.*
>
>> 
>
>> Regarding the above emphasized sentence: That is simply not true,
>
>LibreJS
>
>> requires some brand-new commenting conventions that previously have
>not
>
>> been
>
>> necessary to designate make a JavaScript file free.
>
>> 
>
>> All of our JavaScript and code is released under OSI-approved
>licenses,
>
>> LibreJS is simply not clever enough to detect it at the moment.
>
>> 
>
>> 
>
>> 
>
>> 
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> devel mailing list
>
>> address@hidden
>
>> http://lists.mediagoblin.org/listinfo/devel
>
>_______________________________________________
>devel mailing list
>address@hidden
>http://lists.mediagoblin.org/listinfo/devel

-- 
ayleph