Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Talk at Microsoft

stallman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–248 of 248 posts

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#241

Post by lordlimecat »

pavon wrote: post #209
warkdarrior wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a privacy-preserving payment system (like GNU Taler) obviate the need for Javascript?

RMS and the FSF oppose any proprietary software, and refuse to use it. From a practical point of view, this means having to block javascript by default and at best whitelist it just on sites that are known to use only Free Software on their website. Furthermore, since that browsers and web standards don't provide an automated way to check javascript license before execution, and a site can change what javascript they…

I'm not clear why javascript is the Boogeyman but html and css get a pass here. With javascript you can always see the source, and their license cannot obligate you as it's not-even-a-shrinkwrap license.

Html and css can also have licenses, and they are frequently generated by server-side code running what is almost certainly a proprietary license, one that is opaque to the user.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#242

Post by teh_klev »

lordlimecat wrote: post #241
pavon wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS and the FSF oppose any proprietary software, and refuse to use it. From a practical point of view, this means having to block javascript by default and at best whitelist it just on sites that are known to use only Free Software on their website. Furthermore, since that browsers and web standards don't provide an automated way to check javascript license before execution, and a site can change what javascript they…

I'm not clear why javascript is the Boogeyman but html and css get a pass here. With javascript you can always see the source, and their license cannot obligate you as it's not-even-a-shrinkwrap license. Html and css can also have licenses, and they are frequently generated by server-side code running what is almost certainly a proprietary license, one that is opaque to the user.

See:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#243

Post by lunchables »

Zhyl wrote: post #5

>Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer". Allchin called it "un-American". (from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section) This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endo…

That's my problem with "Microsoft [heart] Linux" - there was never any apology. They attacked linux and open source for years and now suddenly they want to be best friends.

I need to see some real contrition and proof that they understand all the things they did were wrong so I can be convinced they won't repeat the same behavior. Otherwise it just sounds like an abusive partner begging you to take them back.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#244

Post by lordlimecat »

teh_klev wrote: post #242
lordlimecat wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear why javascript is the Boogeyman but html and css get a pass here. With javascript you can always see the source, and their license cannot obligate you as it's not-even-a-shrinkwrap license. Html and css can also have licenses, and they are frequently generated by server-side code running what is almost certainly a proprietary license, one that is opaque to the user.

See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html

That article addresses essentially none of my points.

He remarks on the obfuscated nature of much JS as violating the principle of user interaction with the code; but HTML5 is very frequently generated in highly-convoluted form from server-side scripts that the user has no access to.

He remarks on the uncertain license of JS, but that applies just as much to HTML5 code.

He's concerned with tracking, but there are a number of ways to track a user using HTML5 alone. Cookies, canvas, webrtc, user agent, tracking images...

And he refers to HTML as mere markup, but the reality is that with no JS you can create a web application using HTML5 and server-side software as complex as any you can do in JS.

If i make a storefront based on Tomcat that relies on no JS, does the user have the freedom to inspect the software? Do they know the license, if I don't explicitly post it?

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#245

Post by JetSpiegel »

NotATroll wrote: post #199
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Javascript in the browser is practically compiled binary software at this point. You can't realistically inspect or edit 99% of what you're running since it's fully minified and obfuscated. And that's even more the case with WASM.

Yeah, but what on earth is the alternative? Mobile gui's without javascript would be horrendous. On top of that, that's the platform you're minifying for . I don't minify javascript to hide what's running, I minify it because a 3KB file is a lot less to download than a 12KB file. So what? You design an entirely new language that: A) Can't be minified (How?) B) Has to be open source C) Can't be obfuscated (virtually i…

You can serve minified JS, but you should also provide the source code. Doesn't need to be loaded directly, it can be a link on the website.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_LibreJS

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#246

Post by Jedd »

jraph wrote: post #175
Jedd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. This may or may not be the case, insofar as an organisation can be said to have a position on a vague notion. As per the article, rms is seeking that: "Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer"." I suspect rms doesn't care terribly much if MS were 'against all things open source' since no one real…

This is all about sending a message and clarify a position. When someone in a marketing team of a company sends a message, they usually speak for the company, not for themself, except otherwise explicitly stated. So indeed, we can't expect a huge company like Microsoft have a uniform opinion on all things, but Microsoft as an entity stills sends a more or less coherent message if they take care of their communication…

I think we agree in principle, however the point I made originally was that it's not hurtful, false, and/or spurious claims about 'open source' that rms seeks remedy for, it's 'free software'.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#247

Post by Jedd »

samatman wrote: post #206
Jedd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But MS were, at the time, against all things open source. This may or may not be the case, insofar as an organisation can be said to have a position on a vague notion. As per the article, rms is seeking that: "Publicly take back Microsoft's attacks on copyleft made in the 2000s. Ballmer called the GPL a "cancer"." I suspect rms doesn't care terribly much if MS were 'against all things open source' since no one real…

Just as Free Software is, effectively, whatever the Free Software Foundations says it is, open source software is whatever the Open Source Initiative says it is.

Perhaps it's that easy, but rms is referring to comments made about the GPL (which is definitely aligned with free software, not open-source) and which were made a year or two after the OSI pinched/borrowed Debian's Free Software guidelines and came up with their initial definition.

So, at the time Ballmer was a) definitely talking about free software by mentioning GPL, and b) probably not particularly interested in, or aware of, the split by the 'open source' proponents.

Re: My Talk at Microsoft

#248

Post by quadrangle »

steveklabnik wrote: post #99
nirui wrote: post #15

I somehow want to quote this too: > Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later). I remember when I was very green, that list of licenses on the GitHub repository creation page is very very confusing to me. I don't know which is which and which one I should use, and most importantly, what's the effect of my choice. It could be great if GitHub can imp…

GitHub did make https://choosealicense.com , which is intended to help like this.

RMS knows that, and his suggestion was to have GitHub stop encouraging consideration of GPLv2 and instead promote GPLv3.
Post reply on HN