On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:24:50AM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Dmitry Nezhevenko <dion@inhex.net> wrote: > > > > Upstream distributes in both "source" and "minimized" forms: > > > > http://masonry.desandro.com/jquery.masonry.min.js > > https://github.com/desandro/masonry/blob/master/jquery.masonry.js > > > > How this particular file should be handled? The only idea I've is to > > remove this file in my get-git-snapshot-source step and download "right" > > one instead. > > I don't see anything wrong with either file. It's under an MIT (i.e.; > free) license and it's human readable source code. It's not even > "obfuscated" -- it's just missing whitespace. I ran the "obfuscated" > version through JSBeautifier[1] and got something that looks like the > "non-obfuscated" version[2]. > > [1] http://jsbeautifier.org/ > [2] http://paste.debian.net/165689/ > > While it may be ugly, it's certainly easy to clean up. I don't know > if there are any pretty printers in Debian for JavaScript but someone > with a text editor can easily re-insert the whitespace without too > much trouble. How does this "obfuscation" (I use quotes because I > don't believe it's obfuscated) prevent its inclusion in Debian > directly? Why does special consideration need to be made for this > file? Regardless, embedded code copies are bad, so the OP shouldn't use it either way. (see §4.13) > > -- > Chris > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > Archive: [🔎] CAOEVnYt2S-BE64Xfi0-4kuE2pAt14f7YRDmdj1HXfD6yBg9xOg@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CAOEVnYt2S-BE64Xfi0-4kuE2pAt14f7YRDmdj1HXfD6yBg9xOg@mail.gmail.com >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature