Re: Choice of bug tracker

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 30/08/2023 21:03, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <dmitry@gutov.dev> writes:
>
> > The fact that LibreJS complains doesn't mean that the software is
> > non-free. It just means that the annotations that LibreJS would
> > recognize are missing. Most of the Internet is missing those. The
> > overall mission of having JS files come with licenses in some form or
> > other doesn't sound bad, but it shouldn't be a hard requirement for our
> > platform, I think. It's not an urgent thing to fix.
>
> I'm afraid that this is non-optional according to GNU project policy:
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Freedom-for-Web-Pages.html

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

> I'm looking at the LibreJS documentation here...
> https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/html_node/Setting-Your-JavaScript-Free.html
>
> ...and here's a naive question: Is it that hard to fix this, if we are
> happy to just hack up a solution, even an "ugly" one?  (As opposed to
> doing a clean job, hooking into the correct Gitlab asset pipelines and
> what have you.)

Here's the latest on the issue: 
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/15196#note_327436569

But if we wanted to circumvent the upstream, I suppose someone could 
write a script which would go around every .js file in /assets/webpack 
and made sure the appropriate comment is added there. That would have to 
be run every time we upgrade refresh/reinstall Gitlab, I suppose. We'd 
also have to watch out for any changes in assets pipeline (maybe the dir 
changes, maybe an extra dir appears).

If LibreJS allowed a way to say "we've checked our dependencies and all 
of them are fine", maybe listing them all in a tag once, that would be 
easier. But more ambiguous in the legal sense.