RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone would deobfuscate LGPL for me.
I have always read LGPL as "Look for another piece of software which does this and save yourself some headaches."
The Javascript Trap
11–20 of 117 posts
Re: The Javascript Trap
#12Yes, RMS is an extremist, but his central point is valid. It's very difficult to develop and deploy open source web apps.
However, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be easily done if there was a demand for it. Most web frameworks come with easy ways to run the environment locally, so you should be able to release a RoR app open source without many problems. It just doesn't seem to be in high demand.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#13RMS is awesome. The fact that he's out there fighting the good fight every day so I don't have to is incredible. We all owe him a lot, and we should demonstrate that by contributing back to open source as much as we can.
That said, I think he's totally out of his league on the software as a service model. At the very least he needs to spend a lot more time mulling it over. As far as I see it, freeness of javascript more or less meaningless in a web application. The fact is that the barriers to making web applications free are much higher, and there are a lot more legitimate arguments as to why it shouldn't be free. Of course Stallman would argue for freedom under all circumstances, and he's right that web applications do present a risk to freedom of software in the long run, but I don't think it's as easy to argue from his idealogical standpoint when it comes to web apps. Too much baby flying out with the bathwater.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#14RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone would deobfuscate LGPL for me.
It seems that GNU have kind of disowned the LGPL (maybe that is too strong a word) but they do everything they can to make you consider GPL over it.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#15"Current free browsers do not offer a facility to run your own modified version instead of the one delivered in the page."
GreaseMonkey can do that in Chromium [http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scr...]. Stallman mentions Greasefire later on, but it sounds like he might not clearly understand that Greasefire finds applicable GreaseMonkey scripts, while GreaseMonkey enables user scripting. He may not realize it, but I think the infrastructure is already mostly available for building the detect-and-substitute feature he wants.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#16Richard Stallman is an extremist. Seriously.
rms is arguably not totally in the mainstream -- but the world is a better place because rms is in it just based on emacs, gcc and the GNU (-: no editor war-answers, please. I don't have the time :-). (Also, note that the guy's opinions and world view have been getting more and more popular.)
In the early days free software was the norm. Everyone in computer science took it for granted. RMS, however, saw which way the wind was blowing, and helped codify the free software ideals for posterity. If it was not for him, we may very well not have Linux or any significant open source software today. We may think he's a wacko, but his extremism is necessary in a world where our freedoms are bought and sold by monied interests. He represents the public good in the software world in a way that benefits everyone (including many businesses and almost every startup). These young YC whippersnappers with dollar signs in their eyes owe him respect.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#17what a whacko. I should allow you to access my servers and services for free? I should allow you to control how you use my resources in a way that guarantees I loose money? Stallman is a digital socialist. The idea of services (or anything other than direct labor) that people charge for offends him. That offends me.
I don't see anywhere where he demands free-of-charge access. Stallman supports "free software" where the "free" means that the user's liberty to manipulate the program is preserved. In Stallman's dream world, you would be free to charge for your service, or put ads up, or whatever you like. But your service would use standardized file formats, and the user would be able to modify the application (both server-side and…
if you can "modify" the server side and the client side, you can "modify" the need to pay.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anywhere where he demands free-of-charge access. Stallman supports "free software" where the "free" means that the user's liberty to manipulate the program is preserved. In Stallman's dream world, you would be free to charge for your service, or put ads up, or whatever you like. But your service would use standardized file formats, and the user would be able to modify the application (both server-side and…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the two ideals (being able to charge for your work VS. being able to modify others' work) contradictory? I have zero experience with Firefox extension development, but everything I _have_ seen about it points at it being very difficult to mirror in a closed source environment.
These are not contradictory. People still buy services. Also, you don't have to charge users directly. Three simple examples:
- firefox - open, free, gets money from google
- openmoko - open mobile, you can even download their pcb design and CAD files, but they do sell the product
- specialised apps - company I work for releases some code as open-source, but that doesn't mean that our users have resources to provide the same service themselves, so we don't lose anything
Re: The Javascript Trap
#19RMS is awesome. The fact that he's out there fighting the good fight every day so I don't have to is incredible. We all owe him a lot, and we should demonstrate that by contributing back to open source as much as we can. That said, I think he's totally out of his league on the software as a service model. At the very least he needs to spend a lot more time mulling it over. As far as I see it, freeness of javascript m…
As far as I see it, freeness of javascript more or less meaningless in a web application. The fact is that the barriers to making web applications free are much higher, and there are a lot more legitimate arguments as to why it shouldn't be free.
But you'll keep running them on those servers powered by free software running on a free operating system stating how open solutions are better, wont you? How is that for bigotry? It's like you are deliberately trying to stir up a troll-storm.
But please: Do give me some insights on why making web-based applications free poses any more challenges than freakin' kernel-code.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#20[deleted]