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

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: GNU LibreJS

#141

Post by cyphar »

Karunamon wrote: post #140
cyphar wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not paranoia if proprietary software companies do take advantage of you. And they do.

It's the taking advantage of that's evil, not the political status of the code.

The actual issue is that proprietary software puts you in a position where you can be taken advantage of. Free software puts you in a position where that can't happen. Sure, you can have proprietary software that doesn't spy on you. But much of it does, and even though it doesn't spy on you today it could spy on you tomorrow.

So, if you consider "putting people in a situation where they have no control over their lives" as bad (I do), then the concept of proprietary software is wrong -- not just the ones that happen to misuse their power.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#142

Post by braderhart »

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…

I think what it comes down to more than anything is equality. What happens when someone discovers a breakthrough to reverse aging or to improve cognitive functioning? Should that information be public, or only accessible to the rich?

Now take the same analogy to computing. How many people have access to entire data centers to run algorithms for machine learning and AI? Doing your own computing is the opposite of that. Instead of sharing your information, it's saying we should build software and applications that run locally and that are open source so that we can audit the code. It's sad that the norm is everything in the cloud these days without any concern for privacy.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#143

Post by icebraining »

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.

It's not like he doesn't consider it software, just that he's OK with not being Free. That said, small details at the edges hardly invalidate a philosophy.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#144

Post by icebraining »

Touche wrote: post #100
Delmania wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you not have control over your life if proprietary pants software cools your legs when it's hot? Do you have the source code to firmware on the chip in the pants? Can you install a custom version? That would be consistent with the FSF's viewpoint. They want the user to have full access and control over the software he uses in all devices he uses.

Over time this will be unsurmountable; you'll not have the time to audit everything you contact (it all can be software and you not even know it). The only solution is to live an isolationist lifestyle.

Remember that rms mainly opposes the distribution of proprietary software. His main goal has always been to have enough FOSS written to satisfy the needs of users, allowing them to avoiding having to choose between performing some task or keeping their rights.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#145

Post by icebraining »

ymse wrote: post #139
richardfontana wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source as formally defined by the OSI is also not necessarily free of charge and readily available to everyone. The GPL of course is an open source license, some revisionist tendencies to use "open source" to refer only to non-GPL-family licenses notwithstanding.

I had never looked up the OSI definition[0], but you are of course entirely correct. So the difference between free and open source software is the "four freedoms", which I think we all knew to begin with.. :) 0: https://opensource.org/osd

The OSI definition includes the four freedoms, just stated in different ways:

"The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" - "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor."

"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" - "The program must include source code (...) The license must allow modifications and derived works"

"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor" - "The program (...) must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

"The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others" - "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."

That's why almost all software considered "open source" is also "free software" and vice-versa.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#147

Post by icebraining »

Delmania wrote: post #59
pessimizer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding. Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.

> The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting. > maybe you just don't agree with them. What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attit…

The FSF compromises when it makes sense. In the past, rms has advocated for using non-copyleft licenses when it was a more programmatic solution. And they don't have enemies; for example, the FSF has congratulated Microsoft in the past when they released some software under a Free license.

Where they don't compromise is in situations where it would go against the very purpose of the organization, and why should they?

Re: GNU LibreJS

#148

Post by icebraining »

Karunamon wrote: post #92
oneweekwonder wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS takes the polar opposite position to proprietary software. Is his viewpoint always practical; maybe, maybe not. But by creating such polar opposite he gives space for a lot more "lessor" free, more practical solutions and options. So he plays a very important guardian kind of role; which a lot of people will chalk up to paranoia.

It's still paranoia at the end of the day. Consistent paranoia, thoughtful paranoia, but still, ultimately, paranoia. I think what bothers people about Stallman (or at least, what bothers me about him, and extrapolating) is that he takes a moralistic approach. Non free software isn't a non optimal thing to be fixed for well-thought-out reasons X, Y, and Z, it is an Evil , and you are Wrong for perpetuating it.

What's wrong with having an ethical position?

Re: GNU LibreJS

#149

Post by icebraining »

stephenr wrote: post #105
matt4077 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget that he's the impractical idealist who created gcc, bison, emacs, make, the GPL. I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. Thousands of startups were probably made possible by access to tools – not just because they couldn't afford it otherwise, but also because a large part of cs education depends on a 12-year old's ability to clone stuff on github.

> I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. 70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.

What are you thinking of? MIT/BSD/Apache/etc are all considered Free by rms and the FSF (even if they prefer copyleft licenses).

Re: GNU LibreJS

#150

Post by [deleted] »

roywiggins wrote: post #87
callesgg wrote: post #46

To me it would seam this boils down to a philosophical issue regarding what is information and what is code, and i guess ownership of information. If someone gives me something directly (like a book or information in a conversation) without a disclaimer or some sort of contract. I would assume it is now mine and i assume the law does to. And from my perspective getting a response from a http server is the same thing…

It may be yours to view, but it's not yours to copy and republish. That's what copyright is all about- the right to view and the right to copy are explicitly unbundled, and the former hardly ever implies the latter. You can't assume that if someone lets you into their house, they've implicitly granted you the right to enter their house whenever you want or invite your own guests. There's no disclaimer needed, ever, b…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN