[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Help-librejs] Webpack plugin proposal to generate Web Labels page

From: Dmitry Alexandrov
Subject: Re: [Help-librejs] Webpack plugin proposal to generate Web Labels page
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 17:41:13 +0300
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Antoine Lambert <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Imho, that is quite feasible for the aims of propaganda, but for practical 
>> freedom it would better have _working_ sourcemaps first.  They seem to be 
>> there, but the declaration is nonstandard (just 
>> ‘’ instead of 
>> ‘’), thus is not 
>> recognized by Firefox.
>> (By the way, it would be nice to have them for minified stylesheets too.)
> Thanks for spotting this, there was some issues in my webpack configuration 
> that was preventing correct loading of js/css sourcemaps. This is now fixed 
> and deployed.

Aha, thank you!

>> That’s by all means cool, but as a mere passerby, I am convinced, that 
>> LibreJS have to make use of sourcemaps on its own, without mandating use of 
>> another protocol.
> Indeed, sourcemaps could be consumed by LibreJS to extract license 
> information of the bundled source files.  Nevertheless, this requires that a 
> license header is present in those.

Well, not strictly necessary.  Nobody forbids to state a license in sourcemap 
(I believe, a debugger will not be much abashed by an unknown field there), 
when it’s unfeasible to inject it in human-readable form into source for some 
reason; because it is external rather than webpacked, for instance.

> There exist cases where such headers are not available.
> For instance in the core-js library [1], ..., there is no license header in 
> the source files.
> [1]

Alas.  Contrary to the fact that it is a clear requirement of nearly all free 
licences, with only notable exceptions, I can name off the top of my head, 
being WTFPL, CC0 and Unlicense.

Ignoring it is so ubiquitous, that FSF Licensing Lab recommends the second 
Apache licence for small programs on the grounds that it does not encumber 
everyone with an obligation to accompany a program with a full copy of the 
licence [1].  While in fact it does [§ 4.a].


>> I am not sure, if any of LibreJS developers actually read this (user’s) 
>> list.  It might make sense to crosspost to <address@hidden>.
> I do not consider my first message as a bug report so let's keep that thread 
> alive here.

Sure it’s not a mere bugreport!  But there is no <address@hidden> list, only 
<bug-librejs...>.  And the last time, when the question of bundled scripts was 
raised there, was a month ago [2].

However, as John Sullivan assures that developers do read this list (in spite 
of the lack of their posts here for the last year), I’ll hope that your efforts 
won’t stay unnoticed.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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