--===============4972596138390037415== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e064f9468104eca50b6f --001a11c2e064f9468104eca50b6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ok, so how to fix this? up until now, the code was bascically the same as now, just that jslint was an external dependency. it downloaded nonfree code without user agreement or notification. should i just return to the downloading begavior for JSLint and show the user a license agreement when they first try to use JSLint? or should i remove JSLint and only leave JSHint (which is plain MIT licensed) again: reverting is NOT an option, since the previous behavior had the same problem, just less visible 2013/12/3 Milian Wolff > On Tuesday 03 December 2013 15:41:54 Philipp A. wrote: > > GOD DAMMIT i=E2=80=99m sorry. Afaik only JSLint, not JSHint is under do= ug=E2=80=99s > > modified MIT license (wikipedia is wrong that they allegedly use the sa= me > > license). and the phrase doug added which made JSLint=E2=80=99s MIT lic= ense > nonfree > > is ridiculously =E2=80=9CThe Software shall be used for good, not evil= =E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6 If we > > however identify as =E2=80=9Cminions of IBM=E2=80=9D, then we can freel= y use it, since he > > explicitly allowed IBM (and their minions) to use his software for evil > :) > > > > i still want the user to be able to use JSLint, and there should be a > > solution. while the old python lib that got used to provide JSLint > > functionality =E2=80=9Cgot around it=E2=80=9D by downloading JSHint on = demand, i doubt > that > > this is OK. the only difference is that it=E2=80=99s not in our repo, b= ut that > > doesn=E2=80=99t change the fact that js_utils used the code before just= like it > > uses the code now. so my change only directed attention to it, and didn= =E2=80=99t > > add a new incompatible license. > > > > i think we could require the user to click a one-time messagebox which > says > > =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=99re only allowed to lint your JavaScript for good, = not for evil=E2=80=9D, > and, > > if he declines, fail to load the js_utils plugin with a > > UserIsEvilException. sounds good? > > No. The KDE source code must not contain non-free code which this is. You > have > to remove it from the repository. > > Bye > -- > Milian Wolff > mail@milianw.de > http://milianw.de > _______________________________________________ > KWrite-Devel mailing list > KWrite-Devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel > --001a11c2e064f9468104eca50b6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ok, so how to fix this?

up until now, the code was bascically the same as now, just that jslint= was an external dependency. it downloaded nonfree code without user agreem= ent or notification.

should i just return to the downloading begavior for JSLint = and show the user a license agreement when they first try to use JSLint? or= should i remove JSLint and only leave JSHint (which is plain MIT licensed)=

again: reverting is NOT an option, since the previous behavi= or had the same problem, just less visible


2013/12/3 Mi= lian Wolff <mail@milianw.de>
On Tuesday 03 December 201= 3 15:41:54 Philipp A. wrote:
> GOD DAMMIT i=E2=80=99m sorry. Afaik only JSLint, not JSHint is under d= oug=E2=80=99s
> modified MIT license (wikipedia is wrong that they allegedly use the s= ame
> license). and the phrase doug added which made JSLint=E2=80=99s MIT li= cense nonfree
> is ridiculously =E2=80=9CThe Software shall be used for good, not evil= =E2=80=9D=E2=80=A6 If we
> however identify as =E2=80=9Cminions of IBM=E2=80=9D, then we can free= ly use it, since he
> explicitly allowed IBM (and their minions) to use his software for evi= l :)
>
> i still want the user to be able to use JSLint, and there should be a<= br> > solution. while the old python lib that got used to provide JSLint
> functionality =E2=80=9Cgot around it=E2=80=9D by downloading JSHint on= demand, i doubt that
> this is OK. the only difference is that it=E2=80=99s not in our repo, = but that
> doesn=E2=80=99t change the fact that js_utils used the code before jus= t like it
> uses the code now. so my change only directed attention to it, and did= n=E2=80=99t
> add a new incompatible license.
>
> i think we could require the user to click a one-time messagebox which= says
> =E2=80=9Cyou=E2=80=99re only allowed to lint your JavaScript for good,= not for evil=E2=80=9D, and,
> if he declines, fail to load the js_utils plugin with a
> UserIsEvilException. sounds good?

No. The KDE source code must not contain non-free code which this is.= You have
to remove it from the repository.

Bye
--
Milian Wolff
mail@milianw.de
http://milianw.de
_______________________________________________
KWrite-Devel mailing list
KWrite-Devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel

--001a11c2e064f9468104eca50b6f-- --===============4972596138390037415== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ KWrite-Devel mailing list KWrite-Devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwrite-devel --===============4972596138390037415==--