Linked by snydeq on Tue 16th Aug 2011 16:46 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 485500
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-03-30
Just let us look at security. When security *does* matter, it is the right way to have access to the sources. You *can* look for security issues. You can't do that on closed systems. You have do secure your system, regardless of the point. Regardless if the user can see the code or not. They can always disassemble or you have to do it server-side. It will be attacked sooner or later.
*But* there is another thing that is a part of this all: Copyright. Do you have a license for all the parts of the html5 & JavaScript code? And a redistribution license? And a license that doesn't need to be accepted by the user? (Just imagine: enter a url and get asked if you like to accept the printed GPL. And you have to accept it to get the JavaScript Code, which renters the web site, ... )
This might not be relevant now. But when lawyers start to sue site owners and users, it will be different. And as we know the lawyers, it will be.