21–30 of 30 posts
From the article: "Further, we've recently seen companies such as Research In Motion (makers of the Blackberry) advising customers to entirely disable JavaScript in the WebKit browser on its devices because of a security problem that was discovered. While free software JavaScript can have security problems too, this example illustrates that we have a real need to be able to see what the code we're running on our comp…
JavaScript may be the most flexible language which web browsers natively understand, but HTML has long included forms (now with support for validation) and CSS lets authors program complex, interactive rules for presentation.
Even without JavaScript, websites like Gmail are undeniably applications (in this case, a mail reader, manager, and composer), some part of which are downloaded to and rendered by your own computer.
(P.S. I believe I've heard about more security vulnerabilities in browsers' handling of images than in their JavaScript engines. Also, CSS is turning complete: https://github.com/elitheeli/oddities/blob/master/rule110-gr...)
Isn't the javascript at Gmail machine generated with GWT? Did I miss something?
We released this all some time ago under apache 2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand the point, but is it really necessary to express it in a way that evokes the works of L Ron Hubbard? You may not be aware of the dangers of JavaScript — a problem we've deemed The JavaScript Trap — proprietary software running on your computer, inside your web browser. Danger! Your very soul is at risk! This page is even worse: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html Silently loading and r…
I agree, it is rather unsettling how they frame their argument--there really isn't an argument at all as to why these things should be released under such a license, besides a vague allusion to security concerns. I love open source stuff, but the Free Software Foundation always seemed to me like that annoying vegan friend who never leaves you alone about the evils of animal products the tagline in the link reads like…
Not to mention that should it be licensed under a free model, those security concerns don't just magically vanish. I agree with you summation their stance can be radical and preachy at times much like the Vegan community.
How weird. Their position here seems to be that proprietary software running on Google's servers generating html is ok, but proprietary javascript embedded in those pages is not ok. (because it runs in your browser?)
“The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run the program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the program that it's running. If what's running there is your modified version of the program, the server's users must get the source code as you modified it.…” — http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
presumably they dont want the back end of gmail being proprietary either but its not the point of the article?
April Fool's joke got out a little early?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand the point, but is it really necessary to express it in a way that evokes the works of L Ron Hubbard? You may not be aware of the dangers of JavaScript — a problem we've deemed The JavaScript Trap — proprietary software running on your computer, inside your web browser. Danger! Your very soul is at risk! This page is even worse: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html Silently loading and r…
I agree, it is rather unsettling how they frame their argument--there really isn't an argument at all as to why these things should be released under such a license, besides a vague allusion to security concerns. I love open source stuff, but the Free Software Foundation always seemed to me like that annoying vegan friend who never leaves you alone about the evils of animal products the tagline in the link reads like…
JavaScript is not different from HTML and CSS, all of these are generated by a sometimes proprietary service and executed in the browser.
This article is completely stupid because it not only misses the point of JavaScript, it even contradicts itself:
- if the UI is plain HTML/CSS and is generated server side and then fed to your browser, you will never even have a clue how it works
- if the UI is done with JavaScript on the client you can always de-obfuscate it
> Further, we've recently seen companies such as Research In Motion (makers of the Blackberry) advising customers to entirely disable JavaScript in the WebKit browser on its devices because of a security problem that was discovered.
It seems the FSF wants to build a reputation by taking things out of context and leaving out important bits. The security was probably found in the browser and not in JavaScript, this is the same as advising someone to unplug the computer because of a computer virus.
I am really disappointed by this short sighted article, the FSF should be better than this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, it is rather unsettling how they frame their argument--there really isn't an argument at all as to why these things should be released under such a license, besides a vague allusion to security concerns. I love open source stuff, but the Free Software Foundation always seemed to me like that annoying vegan friend who never leaves you alone about the evils of animal products the tagline in the link reads like…
Security concerns was not the only argument. "It's clear that JavaScript is a very powerful and useful technology in the right hands. Many free software developers have written add-ons and enhancements to popular websites thanks to tools like Greasemonkey. There's a slew of fantastic free software Greasemonkey scripts for Gmail. The existence of scripts like these shows both that Gmail's JavaScript is not trivial, an…
What the FSF doesn't get is that its actually much easier to change proprietary JavaScript than it is to modify a binary running on your system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Security concerns was not the only argument. "It's clear that JavaScript is a very powerful and useful technology in the right hands. Many free software developers have written add-ons and enhancements to popular websites thanks to tools like Greasemonkey. There's a slew of fantastic free software Greasemonkey scripts for Gmail. The existence of scripts like these shows both that Gmail's JavaScript is not trivial, an…
>They argue that we should be able to change GMail's javascript code just like we do other applications we use. What the FSF doesn't get is that its actually much easier to change proprietary JavaScript than it is to modify a binary running on your system.