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.
