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

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: The Javascript Trap

#101

Post by manish »

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…

I agree with you. RMS has been telling from long time, its is not about convenience, it about freedom.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#102

Post by benhoyt »

jodrellblank wrote: post #66
critic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or, given the context, should that be Free-DOM?

Re: The Javascript Trap

#103

Post by ars »

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.

That makes his point stronger, not weaker. It means that the GWT Java source code is when needs to be released, and the javascript is not enough.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#104

Post by hymanroth »

azanar wrote: post #75
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…

He sees everything through his 'free software' glasses, the same way a dyed-in-the-wool communist sees everything through his Breznospecs. Just as a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist sees everything through their Smith-o-specs. We have always lived in a world of complete economic reality, by obvious tautology. It is that economic reality that gave rise to the GPL and the Free Software Movement. These were market instrument…

[Calmer now] Open source is fantastic. It is a stunningly efficient and elegant way to create software. I love open source.

What I don't love is the notion that either all software should be free (gratis) à la Stallman, or the less extreme view that you can make money from it as long as you do so in a very inefficient and non-scalable manner (basically charging for support).

Also, I find it quite ironic that some people describe (with a straight face) the supply of proprietary extensions to open source code as an 'open source business model'. That's akin to funding a peace march with the proceeds from arms sales.

And whilst I have lots of respect for what the community has achieved, and the people who helped make it happen (including Stallman and Raymond) I would argue that there is no inherent conflict between open source ideals and the notion that some users should pay for the code. If a developer wants to give his code away for free, then that's his or her choice and I respect that. But if another developer decided that his code is not free for commercial use, then I respect that position as well.

I hold the view that a low-friction and equitable licensing system for open source software would have a further galvanizing effect on this already vibrant sector.

DS

Re: The Javascript Trap

#105

Post by gjm11 »

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…

I think you're entirely wrong about the "copy of the GPL" business. The LGPL consists of the GPL plus a bunch of extra stuff. The LGPL document found e.g. at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html lists only the extra stuff. Therefore, whenever it imposes any requirement to distribute a copy of the licence, it says "a copy of the GNU GPL and this license document". That's all. If there were a requirement to distribute your stuff under the terms of the (not-L)GPL, then it would say so. (Merely distributing a copy of the GPL along with your code would not put the code under that licence.)

Those terms to which you object mean, I think, the following: If your object code includes bits of the library header files, and if those bits are substantial, then you have to (1) say that you're using the library, (2) say what licence the library is covered by, and (3) include a copy of the documents that define that licence.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#106

Post by axod »

vinutheraj wrote: post #64
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…

>> "if it weren't for this guy you wouldn't be starting all these startups on shoestring budgets"

I don't think you can really argue that at all. If he hadn't done some useful stuff, someone else would have.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#107

Post by pmarin »

derefr wrote: post #99
ynniv wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate those fighting the cultural battles for individual freedom (GOOG's history pretty much confirms for me that being a big requires exploiting the consumer), Stallman's message is unfortunately crippled to me as a programmer. Free software is better in almost every way. It is easier to install, possible to fix, increases the wealth of every owner of a compatible computer, lasts longer (defined by runn…

> Since it doesn't have to be free as in beer Neither does FOSS software, you realize. Let's say Google charged money for Google Earth. Now, if they open-sourced the client, they would still make money from it, because they'd still be the only one with the license to the map tiles themselves. There are many situations like this, where the software is actually worthless without some resource (perhaps just your brand)…

>The GPL would give it rights (it would be "free"), while >the BSD license would allow it to be sold into slavery >("non-free.")

Conclusion: The BSD license gives the freedom to to be sold. (Really-free).

Re: The Javascript Trap

#108

Post by FooBarWidget »

pmarin wrote: post #107
derefr wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since it doesn't have to be free as in beer Neither does FOSS software, you realize. Let's say Google charged money for Google Earth. Now, if they open-sourced the client, they would still make money from it, because they'd still be the only one with the license to the map tiles themselves. There are many situations like this, where the software is actually worthless without some resource (perhaps just your brand)…

>The GPL would give it rights (it would be "free"), while >the BSD license would allow it to be sold into slavery >("non-free.") Conclusion: The BSD license gives the freedom to to be sold. (Really-free).

On the other hand, the BSD license does not give _me_ the freedom to obtain the source of _your_ closed modifications, therefore making it less free for me.

The GPL guarantees that I can obtain the sources of your modifications, making it more free for me than the BSD license.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#109

Post by vlisivka »

I have same thoughts as RMS.

As leader of our national Ukrainian Linux Users Group, I involved in fixing of various problems with support for Ukrainain language in foreign programs.

Here is my experience: MS: some problems still around for more than 20 years (from MS DOS era till today); SUN: almost 10 years to fix trivial problem; Apple: good support; IBM: good support of official standards, not so good support for net standards; Google: some problems are still around for years, nobody response to my letters, no way to fix. Linux/*BSD/GNU: very easy to fix (or create) problem in any supported program, much harder when program in no longer in development (need to maintain our own version of program in our own distribution).

All these problems are trivial (charset support, proper charset translation, national keyboard support, message translations, etc.), so they are very easy to fix. Currently, then only OS'es that have no problems with Ukrainian language is GNU/Linux. Even Non-GNU/Linux systems are easy to fix in most cases.

I agree with Stallman: web services are closed, so they introduce high risk for our freedom.

Re: The Javascript Trap

#110

Post by pmarin »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #108
pmarin wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The GPL would give it rights (it would be "free"), while >the BSD license would allow it to be sold into slavery >("non-free.") Conclusion: The BSD license gives the freedom to to be sold. (Really-free).

On the other hand, the BSD license does not give _me_ the freedom to obtain the source of _your_ closed modifications, therefore making it less free for me. The GPL guarantees that I can obtain the sources of your modifications, making it more free for me than the BSD license.

It is true but... what are we talking about? freedom of the code or your freedom?
Post reply on HN