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

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: The Javascript Trap

#61

Post by critic »

azanar wrote: post #56
critic wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. Whose object code? Is it talking about my object code or the library's?

Ten lines per function, per header, per library, per program?

Edit: I think you didn't understand LGPL yourself either. I think in the quoted lines, "object code" refers to your code, and accompanying them with a copy of GPL refers to having to release your code under GPL. Or do you think you only have to say you release it under GPL and not actually release it?

Re: The Javascript Trap

#62

Post by iofthestorm »

arebop wrote: post #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…

And of course, it originated in Firefox. I also think Opera can do this as well, although I suppose that's not a libre browser.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#63

Post by axod »

omouse wrote: post #55
axod wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ja…

>> "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."

Sure, most people using GMail or Google docs are programming open source javascript libraries on the side..... Very common I'm sure :/

If you're programming an open source js library and you're worried about a webapp suing you, don't use it?

Re: The Javascript Trap

#64

Post by vinutheraj »

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…

Exactly, I am sure a large number of the YC guys use free software on their servers and workstations, yet how many have given monetary support to the FSF in the form of donations or anything ? I won't be surprised to know the answer will be too few.

Anyway, just give the man some respect, he is somewhat an extremist, but if it weren't for this guy you wouldn't be starting all these startups on shoestring budgets and I know that everyone in their heart of hearts knows that the world is a better place because of RMS.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#65

Post by jodrellblank »

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…

It's incoherent rambling. Extremism. You do know who RMS is, yes?

His overriding concern as an ongoing basis is that people should have the freedom to tinker with software - to be able to read, improve, share the programs we are running.

He's not arguing that you're falling into a personal, small scale 'trap' like you will get your finger stuck or something, but that whole groups of people who care may not have noticed this set of events sneaking past them.

Or that this is yet another area where we should care, but don't, and that should change so that if you do care, you can do something about it.

No end users care.

That maybe true, but it shouldn't be true.

I think the majority just care if something solves their problem, rather than if its open source or not.

Exactly the problem - this week I saw an end user called us up asking us to help get some information out of a program they run. Luckily, it runs on a popular database backend. Unluckily, it's proprietary closed source software and there is no documentation of what the database tables and fields mean or how they are used.

They bought it because it "solved their problem". Now that lead to other problems. Problems which are both completely predictable (information stuck in artificially limited proprietary system) and avoidable (use artificial-limitation-free documented open system).

And on a more general level, promote the use of such across the entire computing industry so such programs become available.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#66

Post by jodrellblank »

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.

Freedom. Freedom.

Not cost-nothing, but without-legal-or-other-arbitrarily-imposed-limitation-on-use.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#67

Post by omouse »

hymanroth wrote: post #32

Whilst 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 (g…

>The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing.

You can still provide a link to the full, unobfuscated source code. That isn't difficult to do. Just put the link in an HTML comment where the source is loaded, or at the top of the source file.

You're another one of those so-called pragmatists who only thinks about the short-term, ja?

Just think, 20+ years ago there wasn't very much free software (nor very much open source software). Now look how much there is! It is now expected that developers release the source code of their projects. True that they are mostly side-projects but there are many serious businesses that are built using Free Software.

>It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place.

That was tried a number of years ago with the Open Source movement. Their philosophy is to never really talk about freedom, just talk about the benefits, mainly economic. Has it succeeded? Yes, but only as a marketing slogan, with companies co-opting it and the consumer never really knowing exactly what it means for software to be free.

>We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis).

You're allowed to charge money for any Free Software. The only catch is that you can't keep the source code closed or forbid the user from re-distributing it. Which basically means that when you charge money for Free Software, you're a redistribution fee, not a license-to-use fee.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#68

Post by bmj »

critic wrote: post #7

RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone would deobfuscate LGPL for me.

Yeah, and I'm not sure I follow this (the Obfuscript bit). You _do_ have the source code, albeit a bit difficult to read. I'm guessing there are plenty of GPL'ed programs out there with horrible style and horrible documentation.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#69

Post by jodrellblank »

hymanroth wrote: post #32

Whilst 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 (g…

Today, more than ever, we live in a world of economic reality

Politician speak alert!

If there existed a fair and balanced way of rewarding open source developer

Buy their software. And with it, get the source code and the freedom to do whatever you like with it.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Re: The Javascript Trap

#70

Post by azanar »

critic wrote: post #61
azanar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. Whose object code? Is it talking about my object code or the library's? Ten lines per function, per header, per library, per program? Edit: I think you didn't understand LGPL yourself either. I think in the quoted lines, "object code" refers to your code, and accompanying them with a copy of GPL refers to having to release your code under GPL. Or do you think you only have to say you release it under GPL and not…

The object code is the aggregate of your code and the library's header code.

If you have just your object code, you are not bound by the license of the library, then you don't need to include it.

If you have just the library header code, then you are not incorporating it into anything else, and have no obligations by the license.

If you have both the library header code incorporated into your object code , then you are bound by the license to provide attribution along with that incorporated object code.

As for you second question, I'd guess lines per file. But it is a bit ambiguous, as almost all legalese is. Again, you could just err toward caution, and include the license text regardless. Are you averse to this for some reason?

Oh, and as per the wiki link, object code is the compiled binary of your source code. At this point, whatever headers you included would already be integrated.

Post reply on HN