Hi Anthony,
Anthony Carrico writes:
> The original implementation flip-flops between cached and normal
> classes (six statements removed in the original patch), whereas my
> clone adds and removes a class name from the classList (three
> statements inserted in the original patch).
Thanks - I
Hi Bastien
Em [2021-04-26 seg 18:57:19+0200], Bastien escreveu:
> I hope both you and Anthony agree with this, or at least recognize
> that the current solution is acceptable.
Yes, I find acceptable to license Anthony’s code under the GPLv3+, if
that is what you meant. If you want to keep
I've trimmed the CC's, and condensed my answers to the various threads
below:
To Bastien: You are doing a good job respecting the code. Thank you.
The original implementation flip-flops between cached and normal classes
(six statements removed in the original patch), whereas my clone adds
Hi Jorge,
Jorge P. de Morais Neto writes:
> Therefore, when a verifiably public domain script
> is blocked by LibreJS, LibreJS users (like me) get unhappy; this ought
> to be solved.
this has just been resolved - see my other message today.
Legally, one could dispute the fact that these lines
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
Hi Anthony,
thanks for your explanations around this issue.
I made a mistake when applying your patch here:
https://code.orgmode.org/bzg/org-mode/commit/471054136
https://orgmode.org/list/20200617002335.l4lg3slfxm74vx3h@silver/
The original Javascript lines were written by Carsten 12 years ago
On 4/22/21 4:29 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote:
Practically speaking, the script included by org-mode is in the public
domain, so it could never conflict with whatever license the author
chooses. Therefore, we should remove the LibreJS tag from the
On 4/22/21 5:20 PM, Tim Cross wrote:
Appreciate the intention. Perhaps we need to clarify what exactly we are
licensing here
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were missing the context; it is a
tiny
Anthony Carrico writes:
> On 4/20/21 12:55 AM, Tim Cross wrote:
>> The error from libreJS is correct - public domain is not a valid
>> license.
>
> Everyone is licensed to use public domain works (except to obtain a copyright
> on
> them). I think you mean that libreJS is working by design
On 4/20/21 12:55 AM, Tim Cross wrote:
The error from libreJS is correct - public domain is not a valid
license.
Everyone is licensed to use public domain works (except to obtain a
copyright on them). I think you mean that libreJS is working by design
when it blocks them, which is apparently
Hi all. Thanks for the note. I took a look at the LibreJS docs to try to
understand the problem. My analysis:
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
Kyle Meyer writes:
> Jorge P. de Morais Neto writes:
>
>> Hi. The HTML export has JavaScript that LibreJS does not recognize as
>> free.
>
> Thanks for noting this. That's certainly not ideal.
>
>> My first attempt at an workaround (inspired by the Org Mode mailing
>> list) was merely
Jorge P. de Morais Neto writes:
> Hi. The HTML export has JavaScript that LibreJS does not recognize as
> free.
Thanks for noting this. That's certainly not ideal.
> My first attempt at an workaround (inspired by the Org Mode mailing
> list) was merely encoding the ampersand in the magnet
Hi. The HTML export has JavaScript that LibreJS does not recognize as
free.
My first attempt at an workaround (inspired by the Org Mode mailing
list) was merely encoding the ampersand in the magnet link, but that
*did not make LibreJS happy*. Then I checked LibreJS manual and saw
this excerpt:
14 matches
Mail list logo
