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

The Javascript Trap

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: The Javascript Trap

#41

Post by alecco »

Anybody who dares call herself or himself a hacker should respect RMS. The name calling on this page is disgusting.

You don't know the guy, you don't have any thing on him. He doesn't force anybody to use his licenses. He is just warning users of a proprietary software trap, that's all. If you happen to serve this kind of website it's stupid to just get into the name calling and instead perhaps state clearly your JavaScript isn't free software. Add a license, you need it anyway to cover yourself.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#42

Post by mjgoins »

critic wrote: post #28
dasil003 wrote: post #13

RMS 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…

This sounds like a web developer arguing that all software should be free, except web apps. In my opinion, all software should be free, when all groceries are free.

Groceries are (usually) free, meaning if you buy an apple, you're legally allowed to use it to grow yourself an apple tree.

I assume you didn't mean free in some other way, right?

Re: The Javascript Trap

#43

Post by azanar »

critic wrote: post #26
jrockway wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can link with it with absolutely no restrictions on the derived app? Yeah... that sucks...

That's what they want you to believe. Try reading the license. You have to know how many lines from the header file you are "distributing" (in the GNU lingo). If you are using C++ templates, you are probably screwed. You have to make sure you link dynamically (or else). LGPL seems to require advertising the library. And if you want do static linking, talk to a lawyer. Linus and RMS disagree on what constitutes "deriv…

You are talking about Section 3 of the LGPL? IANAL, but this section seems pretty logically simple to me, and I think you are misreading it. If you read the terms, you are required to do either of the following:

    * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is
         used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.
    * b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document.
How is needing to provide a mention of the LGPL'ed libraries and the fact that they are LGPL'ed in any way screwing you? You also have to provide a copy of the GPL and LGPL amended your own legalese. You are not required to distribute the source for the library, nor the source of your own application. I've seen several large commercial applications make mention of included libraries, some under the LGPL, and it has never bothered me, nor anyone else who purchased it.

I understand that you want to be able to charge money for the software you write, but that you seem to perceive the LGPL as a threat to this ability seems excessively fear-mongery. I agree that anyone concerned about licensing terms should consult an attorney, but because you want to understand things better, not because you are fearful of software development turning socialist.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#44

Post by axod »

mahmud wrote: post #40
axod wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, yo…

It's a decision that should be up to the author. And I personally have complete respect for both decisions.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#45

Post by sketerpot »

hank777 wrote: post #17
inklesspen wrote: post #5

Earlier 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…

if you can "modify" the server side and the client side, you can "modify" the need to pay.

Paying is usually more convenient. Convenience is worth money.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#46

Post by axod »

alecco wrote: post #41

Anybody who dares call herself or himself a hacker should respect RMS. The name calling on this page is disgusting. You don't know the guy, you don't have any thing on him. He doesn't force anybody to use his licenses. He is just warning users of a proprietary software trap, that's all. If you happen to serve this kind of website it's stupid to just get into the name calling and instead perhaps state clearly your Jav…

It's incoherent rambling. Extremism. There is no trap. No end users care.

What average user of a webapp even understands what a software license is? Why would they care either way if they can see comments in the javascript or not??

Obviously you need to make clear if your javascript is open source or not, and both should be respected decisions.

I think the majority just care if something solves their problem, rather than if its open source or not. Linux doesn't beat windows because it's open source, it beats it because it works far better.

One of the reasons it works better just happens to be because it's open source, which enables far more people to contribute than otherwise etc etc.

Are people seriously going to stop using webapps that don't provide their source code unobfuscated? Of course not.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#47

Post by mahmud »

axod wrote: post #44
mahmud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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, yo…

It's a decision that should be up to the author. And I personally have complete respect for both decisions.

Respects.

But allow me to add that the great majority of web startups are running on the value of a "social network". Remove the users and the service is worth nothing. You can't say that about shrink-wrap software; even if the great majority of the people don't use it, there is that one or two lucrative corporate or government contract to make it all worthwhile.

So in that light, shouldn't the users of web apps be entitled to something a little more than "free use"? Say, a little assurance that the platform they trust so much of their private lives is transparent, extensible, and should the company sink tomorrow, available for replication?

What happens when you strike it rich, sell the startup to a Mega Corp and move to Tahiti? The users will be at the mercy of greedy suits who will fill data warehouses with every click, persona and profile of your users, the very same people who made you rich.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#48

Post by tlrobinson »

azanar wrote: post #43
critic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they want you to believe. Try reading the license. You have to know how many lines from the header file you are "distributing" (in the GNU lingo). If you are using C++ templates, you are probably screwed. You have to make sure you link dynamically (or else). LGPL seems to require advertising the library. And if you want do static linking, talk to a lawyer. Linus and RMS disagree on what constitutes "deriv…

You are talking about Section 3 of the LGPL? IANAL, but this section seems pretty logically simple to me, and I think you are misreading it. If you read the terms, you are required to do either of the following: * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. * b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU…

Please add some line breaks in that quoted text.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#49

Post by critic »

azanar wrote: post #43
critic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they want you to believe. Try reading the license. You have to know how many lines from the header file you are "distributing" (in the GNU lingo). If you are using C++ templates, you are probably screwed. You have to make sure you link dynamically (or else). LGPL seems to require advertising the library. And if you want do static linking, talk to a lawyer. Linus and RMS disagree on what constitutes "deriv…

You are talking about Section 3 of the LGPL? IANAL, but this section seems pretty logically simple to me, and I think you are misreading it. If you read the terms, you are required to do either of the following: * a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. * b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU…

If, as you say, LGPL, is clear to you, what do you think "object code" refers to in the (b) clause you just quoted? How are the "ten lines" counted in the paragraph above (you didn't quote): separately or total? etc. etc.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#50

Post by _cbsz »

dmv wrote: post #23
_cbsz wrote: post #2

Look, 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.

That does not -- and should not -- immediately follow. If you consider your look and feel software to be your exclusive value-add, you are not a candidate for FOSS and RMS is irrelevant. The traditional SOAS advantage is availability and data access; having your client code freely available does not reduce either advantage. Accessing is not (should not) be equivalent to access. If I had the front-end javascript sourc…

Obfuscation adds an inconvenience barrier: you get the code for free (of course, because you can't be stopped), but you don't get nice, maintainable, well-written code for free.
Post reply on HN