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

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: The Javascript Trap

#51

Post by randallsquared »

mattmaroon wrote: post #29
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…

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.

He's already accomplished a very great deal, exactly by doing things in the way you say will prevent him from accomplishing anything. Of course, you may believe that this is incidental.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#52

Post by azanar »

tlrobinson wrote: post #48
azanar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fixed. :-)

Re: The Javascript Trap

#53

Post by axod »

jrockway wrote: post #22
hank777 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course, but we already do this. I block all ads, which means I'm modifying your app to not make any money off of me. Such is the reality of the Internet and general purpose computers.

No, you just think you block ads. It's extremely naive to think you actually block all ads. I'm sure a lot of people have made money out of you online from advertising you don't recognize as advertising.

edit: Sure, downvote me if you like. If you like to think adblock etc actually block all adverts I guess it's up to you. It blocks a small class of 'obvious adverts'. Several websites will pass outgoing links through a jump script which may or may not then go through affiliate links. Adblock is useless against such things. There are several such examples.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#54

Post by axod »

mahmud wrote: post #47
axod wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

I agree, once you've grown to pretty much the size you'll be, and have captured a good amount of your sectors market, for many social based webapps releasing the source code may be a win. Reddit didn't suddenly drop in usage when they did.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#55

Post by omouse »

axod wrote: post #46
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…

Ah, the open source advocate! The type who doesn't really care about freedom, who only cares about what is pragmatic in the short-term.

RMS isn't being extremist in this case at all. Your only two options are to fully enable or disable JavaScript. That's not much of a choice because if you enable JavaScript you let in some company's proprietary code to be run on your machine. Imagine you're coding a Free Software Javascript library and the proprietary competitor's product is run on your machine. They can prove that you've run their code, and maybe you looked at it and now you're setup for copyright infringement.

If you fully disable Javascript with NoScript, then you won't be able to run "safe" Javascript.

Two choices that are both extreme. The real extremism is in the web browser that doesn't allow you to create a blacklist/whitelist or to use replacement JavaScript.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#56

Post by azanar »

critic wrote: post #49
azanar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_code

2. I'd assume as lines are normally counted. The number of line-feeds and/or carriage returns in a file. I don't see what the big deal is anyway; if you are at all concerned, just include the license text. Is doing so that big a deal?

Re: The Javascript Trap

#57

Post by duskwuff »

boucher wrote: post #34
duskwuff wrote: post #31

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.

GMail is not built with GWT (and to my knowledge, no major project at Google is).

I don't know about GMail, but the Google Docs code (http://docs.google.com/doclist/client/js/1263044158-doclist_... for the current version) looks a lot like the GWT-generated code I've seen (http://gwt.google.com/samples/Showcase/com.google.gwt.sample... for instance). It might not be using the GWT toolkit, but it's probably output by the same compiler.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#58

Post by omouse »

mattmaroon wrote: post #29
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…

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.

There sure are a lot of Free Software extremists then! Even if you're in the open source camp, you're still part of the Free Software camp to some extent. It seems like a lot of people actually like fighting this fight?

Re: The Javascript Trap

#59

Post by dave_au »

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.

If you can arbitrarily modify the server side of any instance of the application then you can also just pay using someone elses credit card details.

Although I think what Stallman would probably prefer is the source to the site / web application being available so that people can run their own instances.

HN and reddit have their source available. I don't see anyone using the reddit code in a way that's any threat to reddit, mainly since the size of the community is an asset that's hard to compete with.

Potentially off-topic, since I'm not familiar with the prevalent licensing, but the various django applications look pretty nice for this kind of thing.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#60

Post by jodrellblank »

_cbsz wrote: post #50
dmv wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You get the code without charge, but you don't get it with (legal, licensed) freedom to tinker with it, which is RMS's ongoing concern.
Post reply on HN