GPLv2 is inappropriate for the Javascript file

[GoogleCodeExporter]

When the server sends the javascript to a web browser, the javascript is being 
"delivered" in the sense of the GPLv2. Whenever sofware, wven in source form, 
is being "delivered", the actual GPLv2 license must also be "delivered". This 
is not being done by the server and I very much doubt that this is the intent 
of the author.

I recommend that the license verbiage of this one file be replaced, either to a 
short BSD-style license or to a pointer to the license of the author's choice.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by DanClemm...@gmail.com on 23 Nov 2011 at 4:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The copyright block at the top of the Javascript file provides information on 
where to obtain the full text of the license. As the author, I believe this is 
sufficient to grant a license to the user. If you as a user do not believe that 
this information is in fact sufficient in your jurisdiction, the file would 
fall back to being copyrighted but without a license -- in that case, the user 
at his own choice can decide to not use ShellInABox.

Should you experience any difficulties obtaining a copy of the full license 
text following the instructions, please do contact me and I will be happy to 
provide you with a copy. Also, you will always be able to obtain a copy from 
http://shellinabox.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/GPL-2

I could be persuaded to include a copy of the GPLv2 in the actual binary and to 
serve it to users upon request. I could also be persuaded to include a link to 
http://shellinabox.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/GPL-2 as an alternative possibility 
for finding the file in electronic form. But apart from being a convenience, I 
do not believe there is a legal requirement to do either.

As with any software, you have to decide for yourself whether the program is 
legal to be used in your jurisdiction. I cannot make this decision for you. If 
you think ShellInABox is not legal for you to use, you are free to remove it 
from your system or to find a jurisdiction where it is legal.

Original comment by zod...@gmail.com on 23 Nov 2011 at 7:04

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I don't want to post a new issue just for clarification.

Could you please advise, whether vt100.js itself (apart from server side) 
contains any cryptographic code?

As I understand it from reading source code, vt100.js doesn't have any 
cryptographic parts. Nevertheless, could you please help to clarify this?

Thanks in advance,
Nikolay

Original comment by YurN...@gmail.com on 2 Jun 2014 at 3:41