mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

336K
active users

mcc

@drewdevault@fosstodon.org So here's the specific one that always bothers me:

I create a JavaScript/TypeScript library. I release it under the zLib license. Someone bundles it into a web page using Webpack or some other minifier. The minifier naturally strips comment such as copyright notices from the code. They distribute.

Is this zlib compliant? I think it's "yes" if the minified js is a "source distribution" and no if minified js is something else. But the zlib license doesn't define "source".

@drewdevault@fosstodon.org The GPL contains a definition: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". The MPL contains almost identical text. If zlib had this sentence added to it, the ambiguity would be resolved and minified js would be clearly free to redistribute without attribution (my intent).

But the OSI is under the strong opinion there are "enough licenses", so if I made this change, I couldn't get it OSI certified, so many people couldn't use it.

@drewdevault@fosstodon.org Then it gets worse. Here's a use case I really have: There's a game engine where the games are distributed as a .exe bundled with a .zip file; the .zip contains source written in Lua, the .exe contains a Lua interpreter. I want to make helper libraries for this game engine with "zlib rules". Is the exe+zip a "binary" or "source" for purposes of the gpl/mpl "source" definition? It's *not* the preferred modification form, but the preferred form can be recovered by feeding to unzip :(

@drewdevault@fosstodon.org There's like, a hole in the license ecosystem here, and I don't know how to fill it!