[arch-projects] [archweb] Licensing issues with JS code

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

About the upgrade to GNU GPL 3 (or even better: GNU GPL 3+, *if* the
dependencies would allow to), would be that Archweb would be compatible
with the Apache License 2.0 and also with konami.js (which I assume to
be under GNU GPL 3 (only), so we could only upgrade Archweb to GNU GPL
3, not GNU GPL 3+).

As for the license notices on top of the JS code or on the first script
element of HTML pages if these pages have scripting elements (/e.g./:
script tags, HTML/JS/DOM events): these license notices are needed in
order for the JavaScript software to receive the essential freedoms and
for this to be clarified to the website guest/visitor. This is specially
true for JS code written by the Archweb project (there are some
requirements like the "@lic"* comment elements, and the "@source"
comment element in case of JS code written by Archweb which is generated
from a series of files, but I won't discuss the implementation of these
now).

For JS code written by third-parties and which originally don't have the
license notices (or which those notices were removed by Archweb for some
reason), Archweb can provide a simple HTML page that has a table (with
an specific id attribute, per the GNU LibreJS documentation) which has a
column linking to the object/delivered/minified/obfuscated code, a
column linking to the (maybe various) licenses in which that script is
under, and a column linking to a file that can be downloaded directly
and that is (or has) the complete corresponding source files.

For more information on the recommendations for licensing (and visible
license notice and source markup), see the GNU LibreJS documentation:
[[https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/html_node/Setting-Your-JavaScript-Free.html#Setting-Your-JavaScript-Free]].

It must be noted however, that all what was said about JS code license
notice markup, "@lic"*, "@source" and GNU LibreJS compatibility is
ideally done only *after* these license incompatibilities are solved. We
can do the markup now of course, and in such case I can provide patches
for it, but I think it would be similar to putting the wagon in front of
the horses. ;)