21–30 of 117 posts
RMS is complaining about Obfuscript. Speaking of obfuscation, I hope someone would deobfuscate LGPL for me.
I have always read LGPL as "Look for another piece of software which does this and save yourself some headaches."
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.
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.
If I had the front-end javascript source code to gmail or salesforce or basecamp, that would neither give me access to other user's data, nor give me free access. Proof: I do have access to their complete front-end source code, just minified. Having it more readable would just be convenient.
Minification / Obfuscation != Security. Don't put anything in your front end code that you would not want an adversary to read (true of the backend too, if perhaps less urgently).
what a whacko. I should allow you to access my servers and services for free? I should allow you to control how you use my resources in a way that guarantees I loose money? Stallman is a digital socialist. The idea of services (or anything other than direct labor) that people charge for offends him. That offends me.
ad hominem.
> I should allow you to access my servers and services for > free?
You can charge for Free software. If you're using any Free software in your web application stack, if you're using any Free documentation, and Free data sources, then isn't it a little hypocritical of you to lock-down what basically amounts to a component assembly of Free software?
> I should allow you to control how you use my resources in > a way that guarantees I loose money?
Make all the money you want, companies are making billions out of Free software. And nobody wants to use your server, bandwidth or material resources. However, the _software_ should be given to the people who USE it. Giving the public a freebie web service for now, until you figure out how to sell their information and useage stats to advertisers, does not make your service free.
People are typing their twitter logins to little apps that are poping up everywhere. Wouldn't you rather have these web apps open, somewhere in github, with a transparent database backend that you can see is not hoarding any personal infromation about you?
> Stallman is a digital socialist.
And that's a label many would self-attribute, with pride.
> The idea of services (or anything other than direct > labor) that people charge for offends him. That offends me.
Fine. Don't use Free software then :-)
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.
I think web developers are over estimating the sophistication of their work :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have always read LGPL as "Look for another piece of software which does this and save yourself some headaches."
Because you can link with it with absolutely no restrictions on the derived app? Yeah... that sucks...
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 "derived work", btw.
Edit: I'd like to know what motivated people to upmod parent, when it's factually incorrect and can cost developers dearly if they take the message at face value.
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…
In my opinion, all software should be free, when all groceries are free.
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…
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…