[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?

From: Loic J. Duros
Subject: Re: [Help-librejs] Offering option to block vs warn?
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 21:13:02 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Yes, good idea, and in fact I think Zak from FSF suggested this idea a
little while back as well. We could have LibreJS provide information on
the scripts on a page and their licenses while still running those
scripts, regardless of whether they are free or not. Of course this
would be an option and would have a warning.

One of the reasons we switched to using hashes to recognized every
script is for a closely related purpose as well. The idea is to let
people easily whitelist/blacklist any script. We only need the logic now
to allow/block scripts at an individual level and provide an interface
for users to choose whether to execute the script or not, just one time,
always, for this site or across all sites.

I agree, it's better to have people be aware of what they are running
and let it run anyway than let everything run and never know they did
or what ran in their browser exactly (probably the vast majority of
people do the latter.)

As I mentioned in a previous note, we need a more mature interface to
improve usability and add these features. I'm planning on taking some of
the UI from NoScript and/or RequestPolicy to save some time. Working on
this ASAP, but I also have a few other tasks to do on IceCat before
that. As always, anyone willing to volunteer and work on LibreJS is more
than welcome to. I'm available any time to provide pointers on getting


John Sullivan <address@hidden> writes:

> What do people think about offering an option for LibreJS users to set
> whether nonfree scripts should be outright blocked or if a prominent
> warning should be displayed?
> I think in the current state of affairs on the Web, frustrated people
> may disable the extension entirely. If they had a way that they could be
> warned about the nonfree JS and then still be provided a way to give
> feedback to the site, they might leave the extension on more.
> The default would/should still be to block.
> I understand it's tricky -- we don't want to encourage anyone to run
> nonfree JavaScript, but I think this option may on balance still be a
> good thing.
> -john

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]