5 ms·
Perhaps a good start would be to have a standard way to signal the licence of the JavaScript received by the browser. At least users would be able to see it, o
by jiehong 6y ago
Perhaps a good start would be to have a standard way to signal the licence of the JavaScript received by the browser.
At least users would be able to see it, or only allow the ones with a licence they agree with.
- marcodiego 6y agoA possible solution: .js files should be hashed and, html should indicate the hashes of the .js files it uses. The browser than could run only scripts from a allowed list.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y agoYou're describing LibreJS, referred to in the opening line of the article as GNU's "first response to the problem of nonfree JS code".
- jiehong 6y agoNo, I'm speaking about a W3C standard, and not about a web browser extension. I want a website to say <script licence="MIT"></script> in the html, so any browser can use it, and let the user decide. LibreJS is just a allow-list extension on a per-website basis.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y agoI understand what you're talking about. The conflict here is that you don't understand the thing that I'm talking about (and rather than going to check it out, you're doubling down). > LibreJS is just a allow-list extension on a per-website basis No, it's not. Now you're making things up. > say <script licence="MIT"></script> in the html Like LibreJS.