Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GNU LibreJS

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 165 posts

Re: GNU LibreJS

#61

Post by aaronbrethorst »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #37
justinlardinois wrote: post #13

And it looks like to get your Javascript to be considered free, even if it already is free, you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get this to pick it up: http://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.htm... This is a joke.

I don't see the problem with putting a small license comment in my JS includes. A lot of people only want to run Free Software to the extent possible. Just as it's not unreasonable for restaurants to have offerings for people who are vegans, it's not unreasonable for software developers to offer software for hardcore FOSS types. If you don't understand or dislike it, you don't have to include license info in your Jav…

Vegans are probably much more likely to give you money in exchange for something.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#62

Post by AgentME »

justinlardinois wrote: post #13

And it looks like to get your Javascript to be considered free, even if it already is free, you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get this to pick it up: http://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/free-your-javascript.htm... This is a joke.

I use Browserify and a lot of NPM modules (and therefore their dependencies too) on my own sites. Some of the sites are only built from free and open source code, but manually complying with LibreJS's standards for listing all of the licenses involved seems painful. It would be really handy if there were a Browserify plugin that recorded the licenses of the packages of the files that went into my Browserify bundle, and then output that licensing info into a LibreJS-compatible way that I could reference in my pages.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#63

Post by the_af »

jordigh wrote: post #47
wvenable wrote: post #5

The majority of the sites on the web are non-free software that you interact with -- the browser is effectively a remote terminal. Whether or not large JavaScript is involved seems secondary. I understand the distinction between code running on a remote server and code distributed to me and run the browser but that seems like a more of a technical distinction than a moral one. (In terms of my own raw time, the percen…

> Unsure of exact licensing compatibility so I can't say it's all Free Software. Open source and free software mean the same thing, or at least they intend to mean the same thing. There are very few obscure examples where they differ (for example, the NASA license). You are very unlikely to run across a difference. https://opensource.org/faq#free-software https://lobste.rs/s/lexyz5/why_open_source_misses_the_point_..…

They do not mean the same thing. They are often coincidentally the same thing, but philosophically they are not the same:

"Why 'Free Software' is better than 'Open Source'": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en.h...

(Note: the title is not mine)

Re: GNU LibreJS

#64

Post by drdaeman »

justinlardinois wrote: post #33
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #2

Apparently it adds a "Complain" tab to your browser when it detects offensive JavaScript: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#Com...

> LibreJS includes a default subject line and body for the complaint email, with a link to the JavaScript Trap essay. If that's not some pedantic RMS bullshit, I don't know what is. At least it's easy enough for a spam filter to catch.

Either I really didn't get your comment, or you just wanted to call rms names, or you want to say that users shouldn't care about the licensing issues - or, at the very least - they shouldn't ever distract the site owners about what they feel about their site.

In a former case, please clarify and have my apologies. In two other ones - sorry, but that really needs some downvotes.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#65

Post by Spooky23 »

Touche wrote: post #52
Delmania wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the reason that's not considered a problem It's considered a problem: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...

> The original idea of web servers wasn't to do computing for you, it was to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what most web sites do, and it doesn't pose the SaaSS problem, because accessing someone's published information isn't doing your own computing. The more grey area that exists the harder it is for me to understand what Stallman's beliefs actually are. "doing your own computing", why i…

Because laws around digital intellectual property are profoundly different from physical goods, even when the goods are intellectual property like a book.

Consider a trivial example. I bought an iOS SSH app called prompt. The authors subsequently release a new version and removed the old one from the store. It works great on my phone and I decided decided to put it on another device. Guess what? It's not on the App Store any more, and my options for using it are limited.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#66

Post by connorshea »

At GitLab we've been working with some volunteers at the FSF/GNU Project to improve our score on the Ethical Repo Criteria Evaluation [1]. We've got an issue open about LibreJS [2] specifically, as well as another to fix the other issue preventing us from receiving a B grade. We're also working on resolving some of the A grade criteria, albeit not all of them [3].

It's disheartening to see the FSF demonized here, as I've been pleasantly surprised with the discussions I've had with most of their members. In the last HN thread about the Ethical Repo Evaluation, people called their requirements ridiculous. I agree with that for some of the A grade criteria, e.g. the GNU/Linux requirement, but I think people are misunderstanding the purpose of the A grade, which is to signal that a site is "sufficiently free" and can be used to host the GNU Project's source code. This is partly the fault of the FSF having poor communication, of course.

I'd like to highlight a comment by an FSF Volunteer regarding our work on some criteria for the A grade, "Thanks for taking the time on this; I'm very encouraged, and I'm happy with any progress made. Again: since these criteria are for hosting of GNU projects, they're a bit more strict and won't be met by most services."

GitLab CE is licensed under the MIT Expat License, not the GPL, and yet they're perfectly happy to work with us regardless. Outwardly they advocate for extreme ideas, but they're also willing to compromise.

Apologies if this is rambly at all, or comes off as "shilling" in any way, I just wanted to share my story of interacting with the FSF. Hopefully I can convince some people that they're not all living in caves yelling about how they'll never use non-GPL software.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html

[2]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15621

[3]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15678

Re: GNU LibreJS

#67

Post by throwanem »

Klathmon wrote: post #17
throwanem wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes I think RMS would be happier if the web had just stopped development after the release of the Mosaic browser. Or before. He doesn't really [1] browse the web: > I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git://git.gnu.org/womb/hacks.git) that fetches…

I saw that quote once and i thought it was satire...

Poe's law is in full effect with Dr. Stallman.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#68

Post by educar »

Touche wrote: post #52
Delmania wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the reason that's not considered a problem It's considered a problem: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...

> The original idea of web servers wasn't to do computing for you, it was to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what most web sites do, and it doesn't pose the SaaSS problem, because accessing someone's published information isn't doing your own computing. The more grey area that exists the harder it is for me to understand what Stallman's beliefs actually are. "doing your own computing", why i…

> The longer time passes, the more it feels like Stallman is holding a lifelong vendetta because he had trouble debugging some printers.

That ad hominem is uncalled for.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#69

Post by EuAndreh »

Touche wrote: post #52
Delmania wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's the reason that's not considered a problem It's considered a problem: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...

> The original idea of web servers wasn't to do computing for you, it was to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what most web sites do, and it doesn't pose the SaaSS problem, because accessing someone's published information isn't doing your own computing. The more grey area that exists the harder it is for me to understand what Stallman's beliefs actually are. "doing your own computing", why i…

The point of "doing your computing" is the concept of freedom within the Free Software movement.

According to RMS, "freedom is having control over your life". "In a computer system there are just two possibilities: either the user controls the program or the program controls the user".

So, "doing your own computing" is "having control over your life", and thus, having freedom.

Post reply on HN