Erm. The Google Docs JS source is (in all likelihood) "obfuscated" because it's generated code - it's the output of the GWT Java-to-Javascript compiler.
The Javascript Trap
31–40 of 117 posts
Re: The Javascript Trap
#32Whilst respecting what Richard Stallman has achieved in the past, I just couldn't read his latest post on javascript without getting a bit hot under the collar.
His position is, in my mind, completely untenable. He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs. It's not enough for him that a Google Docs javascript file be free (gratis) – he objects that the file is not easy to read and has no comments. The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing. What is this guy on?
I have in mind a special device for Stallman, Raymond and the other gratis software nutters. It consists of a big plastic bag that envelops their heads and into which is pumped the aroma of roasted coffee beans. It is required that they use this apparatus until such a time as their eyes light up and they utter the required phrase.
Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality. In the recent past it was easy to find some chump to lend you all the money required to buy that house/car/tv you really couldn't afford, or finance your startup based on a 10 page deck and the words “web 2.0”. But things have changed. And perhaps for the better.
The open software movement cares more about its users than it does its developers. Hacker kudos doesn't pay the fucking rent. I want to know whether all the people writing iPhone or Facebook apps would have tried so hard if they knew their expected return would be exactly $0? Somehow I don't think so.
We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis). If you use it and can afford to pay for it then why should I give it to you for free? Note: I'm not arguing against open-source, I'm arguing against working for free. If I spend a great deal of time writing a funky database application and big_multi_national dumps Oracle in favor of my code and saves itself $20million in the process, why shouldn't I get my sniff? There's nothing wrong with making an honest dime...
If the same code is used by some charity or someone's personal website then I'm happy to tip my hat and say 'glad to be of service', but not if they're Coca Cola, or Hertz, or... (you name it).
If there existed a fair and balanced way of rewarding open source developers then I believe the whole sector would explode with a level of commitment and energy that would dwarf the already impressive achievements seen by the community.
That time has come.
It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place.
David Semeria Milan, Italy
Re: The Javascript Trap
#33Look, dude, web software is often part of a software as a service model. If I let you dig through my JS, you would get the service for free. In short: No.
Facebook can release its entire application platform as Free software and you could not take their user base away from them. I think web developers are over estimating the sophistication of their work :-)
If their software was available from the very start - eg before they had any users, it's quite possible someone else may have 'won'.
You can't argue based on a 'network effect' website that has obvious lock-in.
Look at some non-social webapp. Say an online image editor. If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share. There's no upside to releasing the source code, and obvious downside (Assuming you're in it to make money and not just spread love).
Re: The Javascript Trap
#34Erm. The Google Docs JS source is (in all likelihood) "obfuscated" because it's generated code - it's the output of the GWT Java-to-Javascript compiler.
GMail is not built with GWT (and to my knowledge, no major project at Google is).
Re: The Javascript Trap
#35RMS 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.
That's because the LGPL is only meant for very specific situations were licensing under the GPL would hurt the free software movement. This is hardly the ever the case (a notable exception would be a high quality library) and thus the encouragement for the GPL.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#36Apart from the political squabbling, the feasibility of implementing something that "detects" JavaScript released under a free-as-in-freedom license seems tricky and error prone.
The suggestion in the article that you put a license delimiter and then parse the text of the license seems error prone; not because the license is particular difficult text to parse, but because text parsing in general is a rather fussy and fragile enterprise. And someone could put after the licensing tag "Just kidding, here's the real license..." which the parser wouldn't catch, but someone litigating a case of copyright infringement would.
Maybe I'm not being imaginative enough, but I can't think of a way this is feasible with just the client attempting to glean licensing on its own.
Having a global registry of free JavaScripts wouldn't solve the problem, either. Assuring correct URL parsing in every case is a risky thing to rely on for such restrictive behavior, and nothing stops the web site owner from renaming the free script to something else, or renaming one of his non-free scripts to the same name as the free script. Verifying file hashes wouldn't really help, since the free script is allowed to be modified.
Regardless of the political ramifications, the feasibility of this seems really questionable. Are there ways of doing this I am not realizing?
Re: The Javascript Trap
#37RMS 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 b…
Sorry, I made a leap there and you misunderstood me.
What good is free javascript in a web application where a significant portion of the code lives on the server?
The fundamental issue of software freedom is trivial when you are running software locally. I'm running this software locally, and I want to be free to do with it as I will.
However web application software has the local component (JS) and the server component. The software that is running on the server is clearly not being run by the end user and therefore the notion of freedom is not so clear. Sure, we can make it "free" by releasing the source of the server code, but setting up a server may be non-trivial. Or it may be useless without the data from the service. Maybe the user's data could be released, or maybe it's intertwined with other user's data.
The point is, I care very much about freedom of software in general, but having free javascript by itself is essentially useless to me in the vast majority of cases.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#38RMS 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…
That's bullshit. He's not fighting any good fight, and even if he were, he's doing it in a way (very much like PETA) that makes sure he's seen as an unpalatable nutjob by any sane individual. His own extremism will prevent him from accomplishing anything.
[deleted]
Re: The Javascript Trap
#39There's a disturbing lack of understanding in this community about free software, the GPL and other licences, and RMS himself. Of course Stallman is an extremist. Every leader of such a movement by definition must be an extremist, even if it makes them look foolish. The ACLU for example takes cases that make them look like a joke, but they are forced to because they must exhibit unwavering believe in their ideals. As the leader of the free software movement, RMS must act in the way that he does.
And as for the commercial viability of open source software, consider 37signals. Their entire tool set (Rails) is open source, and they make millions. Keeping Rails closed source was not necessary for their success. When you pay for a 37signals app you pay for their reputation and quality. If someone else made the same application a year earlier, it wouldn't sell nearly as well. Saying that you need to keep your software closed source is overvaluing the software. That's only a small piece of what makes a successful product. Hell, 37signals probably could open source Basecamp today and they would still make millions.
Re: The Javascript Trap
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook can release its entire application platform as Free software and you could not take their user base away from them. I think web developers are over estimating the sophistication of their work :-)
If their software was available from the very start - eg before they had any users, it's quite possible someone else may have 'won'. You can't argue based on a 'network effect' website that has obvious lock-in. Look at some non-social webapp. Say an online image editor. If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share. There's no upside to releasing the source code, and ob…
"If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share."
Image-editing algorithms are published in text-books. Graphics API for the web (flash, java, canvas, etc.) are published in API documentation. Nothing is secret. If someone copies your GPLed Free software and improves on it you can go and copy the improved version if you want it.
If a competitor is blindly copying you, you probably have nothing to worry about (should I elaborate?.) And if your competitive edge can be taken away with cut-and-paste, then you have ALLOT to worry about.