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

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: GNU LibreJS

#121

Post by ashitlerferad »

connorshea wrote: post #66

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…

Could you also make it work without JavaScript enabled? I'd like to be able to use it with text-mode browsers.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#122

Post by pron »

pythia__ wrote: post #120
pron wrote: post #114

I find the FSF's mission extremely important on an educational, "meta" level — regardless of the particular content of their ideology — especially in the Silicon Valley culture. According to the SV ethos, laws come in two flavors. The first is man-made laws, like the laws of government. Those are often described as "silly", "outdated" or downright "stupid"; it is imperative that SV culture hack those — as in break —…

>the entire goal of technology is fight the actual laws of nature I find this a very questionable premise. Technology, being constrained by physics, necessary works with the laws of nature at least to that extent[1]. Well-designed technology, however, most often also works with rather than against its materials[2] and with, rather than against, the human mind that is intended as its user. [1] E.g., airplanes do not f…

I meant to fight the limitations that the laws of nature place on human action. I thought that was clear. Obviously, technology can't actually change the laws of nature as they are (assumed to be) immutable. But in that sense, we "fight" them (i.e. their effects on us) with technology to the best of our abilities. Social laws, however, can and constantly do change by human action, and yet SV culture seems to fear putting as much as a fight against them as it does "against" the real laws of nature, and even shows some aversion to studying them in depth (i.e. beyond tallying them with data and statistics, akin to how the early astronomers studied the heavenly bodies centuries and millennia ago).

Re: GNU LibreJS

#123

Post by jeena »

jordigh wrote: post #79
the_af wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like you mentioned in your article, this indeed seems to be Bruce Perens' opinion. However, notice how both Eric Raymond (on the side of open source) and Richard Stallman (on the side of free software) disagree with him. If you listen to people like Eric Raymond, open source is all about quality. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow", etc. If you listen to people like Richard Stallman, free software is all about users' r…

Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.

That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)

Re: GNU LibreJS

#124

Post by ashitlerferad »

madeofpalk wrote: post #50
jordigh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much HTML and CSS nowadays is not really readable, but minified or obfuscated. It's not the 1990s where reading other people's static HTML was a good way to learn how to make your own websites.

Eh. HTML and CSS is the easy part - you can't really obfuscated, only minify it to remove whitespace, which is easily reversible. All great browser dev tools have built in ways to unminify web assets. And it's even easier for HTML and CSS as they're easily viewable in parsed form (DOM).

CSS is often compiled from other languages like SASS.

HTML is often built from complicated templates.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#125

Post by gkya »

jjawssd wrote: post #119
cyphar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is GNU/Linux. Claiming that Linux is the most important part of the system is rewriting history (the GNU project started almost a decade before Linux was created).

GNU would have gone nowhere without Linux. Do you really think GNU/Hurd would have taken over?

Gnu over a BSD kernel could have. Linux was there at the right time.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#126

Post by Natanael_L »

sooheon wrote: post #113
Spooky23 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 S…

Well if the FSF had its way prompt would never have been made to the degree of polish and quality that it was, because there would have been no financial incentive, no?

In the same way that Red Hat isn't a thing, right?

Re: GNU LibreJS

#127

Post by Natanael_L »

Touche wrote: post #99
0xcde4c3db wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put a bit of a finer point on it: Stallman has said (paraphrasing; I'm having trouble finding a good source) that self-contained embedded firmware/microcode without an update mechanism isn't "software" in a sense relevant to the Free Software movement. Rather, it's equivalent to a hardwired state machine, and we can judge its behavior as a single object, notwithstanding what its architecture looks like internally.

When did he say this? In the 80s when he established the FSF or recently when the issue came up? This is my entire point, over time the definition of "software" has to be re-evaluated to justify the existence of this ethos; if one man defines what is "software" under this philosophy it doesn't feel like a real philosophy at all.

From his site:

https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because annoying them is not the way to convince them.

Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue, which would arise just the same even if they did use free software. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.)

That's my policy about using a machine once in a while. If I were to use it for an hour every day, that would no longer be "once in a while" — it would be regular use. At that point, I would start to feel the heavy hand of any nonfree software in that computer, and feel the duty to arrange to use a liberated computer instead.

Likewise, if I were to ask or lead someone to set up a computer for me to use, that would make me ethically responsible for its software load. In such a case I insist on free software, just as if the machine were mine.

As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that case, I think the user need not take cognizance of whether the device contains a processor and software, or is built some other way. However, if it has an "update firmware" button, that means installing different software is a normal part of use, so it is a computer.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#128

Post by oblio »

EuAndreh wrote: post #71
connorshea wrote: post #66

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'd like to note that GitLab not only is doing an awesome job with the FSF, but they are also themselves embracing free software tools for their internal work. They're switching from Slack to Mattermost[0], from Google Analytics to Piwik[1], looking for a free software commenting software to replace Disqus[2]. [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/08/18/gitlab-loves-mattermost/ [1]: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/11/27/g…

I don't think there's any OSS solution that can rival Disqus right now. Discourse comes closest in terms of features but it actually redirects the users to the forum when it is embedded, instead of allowing commenting inline on the blog/site. Bad UX :(

Re: GNU LibreJS

#129

Post by ymse »

jeena wrote: post #123
jordigh wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm very well that they refer to philosophical differences. But they are both talking about the same damn software. Not the same philosophy, but the same software. This is something everyone agrees about, not just Bruce Perens. This is also the official position of OSI, not just Bruce Perens': that open source is just another name for free software.

That is not true, because every free software is open source, but not every open source software is free. (this is me oversimplifying to make a point)

It's not that simple. Open source implies the source is out there for anyone to study. Free software is not necessarily free of charge and readily available.

Nothing prevents you from paywalling a GPL program as long as you distribute sources to legitimate users on request. Free as in freedom, not as in beer.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#130

Post by zxcvcxz »

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…

>why disrespect people who care?

It's called FUD.

All cultures are welcome except free-software culture. Have you ever noticed that?

Apparently having certain software standards puts us on the same level as religious fanatics. I don't worship GNU, I don't threaten to chop heads off if people don't use free software.

The reality is that free software culture poses a threat to proprietary business practices and so many companies have incentive to create a narrative where those of us who prefer free software and certain philosophical ideals are seen as crazy fanatics.

Meditate for a few hours a day? no problem.

Pray toward mecca seven times a day? fine.

Prefer free software on your computer? GOD I HATE FREE SOFTWARE FANATICS AND THEIR INSANE PHILOSOPHY!

Post reply on HN