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

GNU LibreJS

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: GNU LibreJS

#51

Post by mattl »

maga wrote: post #40
yebyen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what they did now. They're not blocking any nontrivial JavaScript altogether. They're blocking nontrivial JavaScript insofar as it's unlicensed, or not licensed with a free license. So your trivial, unlicensed javascript can be allowed to run, but once you cross the heuristic threshold of non-triviality they've applied, you need to have a license so the user is sure they're not using some complex, non-free thin…

Ok, let's assume for a moment that we want to stick to the idea that programs ought to be readable/comprehensible by the user, thus "trivial" in a sense. But who decides on "nontriviality"? How did they come up with those heuristics? I can hardly find any nontrivial js code with my years of experience in it (except some jsfuck perhaps), yet at the same time I see every other day someone coming from .NET/Java land cry…

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

Our tentative policy is to consider a JavaScript program nontrivial if:

* it makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request,

* it loads external scripts dynamically or is loaded along with scripts that do,

* it defines functions or methods and either loads an external script (from html) or is loaded as one,

* it uses dynamic JavaScript constructs that are difficult to analyze without interpreting the program, or is loaded along with scripts that use such constructs. These constructs are:

- using the eval function,

- calling methods with the square bracket notation,

- using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, ...).

How do we tell whether the JavaScript code is free? At the end of this article we propose a convention by which a nontrivial JavaScript program in a web page can state the URL where its source code is located, and can state its license too, using stylized comments.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#52

Post by mattl »

daveloyall wrote: post #35

NB: I saw LibreJS in use months ago, in person at the FSF offices. I also got in an argument about it in which I brought up points that are echoed in comments on this page. But, I was missing the point then. (Maybe I still am.) I think the point of this thing is show web users a truth that they might not have thought about: that most javascript in the wild isn't licensed at all && they depend heavily on it. To see th…

If you don't want to run nonfree software on your computer, you can install this and it'll only allow JavaScript to run if its freely licensed or if its very basic and passes the rules of trivial code.

That's the point of it.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#54

Post by mattl »

masswerk wrote: post #50

I think this involves a big misunderstanding of the web as a medium. You may produce non-free content using Open Software as a tool. E.g., I may write a book using LibreOffice and sell it (with copyrights). I may also embed this book into HTML code and provide it for free to my readers, even when not granting rights to copy or change the text. But, if I would use JS for the means of embedding the same text, I'm off.…

If your JavaScript were just a bunch of document.write lines, then it'd run just fine, but if you require my browser to run something more complex, it should be a free software licensed program as it's running on my computer and I installed LibreJS to ensure only freely licensed code runs on my computer.

Similarly, you can use Emacs and GCC to write nonfree software, but if you ask me to run it on my own computer, I can refuse.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#55

Post by Aldo_MX »

I don't want to be negative about this, but TBH I can't think of a webpage -besides Wikipedia- that will work fine restricting non-free JS.

At this point I can't put my faith in web authors, since they could not even take care of prefixing the CSS for non-webkit browsers (not trying to fault the web authors, but trying to point out that prefixes were a less-from-ideal solution that ended up in the -webkit-disaster)... How can I expect from them to license their code with a free license?

On the other side, the awful practices (like using JS for animation, or tightly coupling the site code with the Tracking code) exists in most websites (including mainstream ones).

Re: GNU LibreJS

#56

Post by dragonwriter »

_ak wrote: post #36
raverbashing wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who care more about the delusional ranting of Stallman than actually using any web service today? Oh yeah, using jquery is "non-trivial". What a load of crap.

Stallman talking about the web is like a Catholic priest talking about sexual intercourse: he has no practical experience with it and has no idea what he's talking about.

> Stallman talking about the web is like a Catholic priest talking about sexual intercourse: he has no practical experience with it

Completely tangentially, its quite possible to be a Catholic priest [1], have never violated any Catholic teaching or discipline, and have practical experience with sexual intercourse. Catholic priests can't get married, and men usually can't become priests in the Latin Rite if they are currently married [2], but widowers can be ordained priests in the Latin Rite, and married men can become priests in the Eastern Rites.

And, in any case, even in theory, becoming a priest doesn't require one to never have violated teaching on this (or any other) point before so doing.

[1] in the usual sense of a "priest in a church in union with Rome", not extending that to breakaway or never-in-union churches that might have "Catholic" in their name.

[2] But there are exceptions to this rule.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#58

Post by mattl »

Aldo_MX wrote: post #55

I don't want to be negative about this, but TBH I can't think of a webpage -besides Wikipedia- that will work fine restricting non-free JS. At this point I can't put my faith in web authors, since they could not even take care of prefixing the CSS for non-webkit browsers (not trying to fault the web authors, but trying to point out that prefixes were a less-from-ideal solution that ended up in the -webkit-disaster)..…

> How can I expect from them to license their code with a free license?

Some examples of JavaScript code under a free software license:

* jQuery

* extJS

* Handlebars

* Backbone

* Angular

* Ember

In fact, pretty much any JavaScript library that people are using. Then you have stuff like node, which is being used extensively on the server -- also free software.

Re: GNU LibreJS

#59

Post by masswerk »

mattl wrote: post #54
masswerk wrote: post #50

I think this involves a big misunderstanding of the web as a medium. You may produce non-free content using Open Software as a tool. E.g., I may write a book using LibreOffice and sell it (with copyrights). I may also embed this book into HTML code and provide it for free to my readers, even when not granting rights to copy or change the text. But, if I would use JS for the means of embedding the same text, I'm off.…

If your JavaScript were just a bunch of document.write lines, then it'd run just fine, but if you require my browser to run something more complex, it should be a free software licensed program as it's running on my computer and I installed LibreJS to ensure only freely licensed code runs on my computer. Similarly, you can use Emacs and GCC to write nonfree software, but if you ask me to run it on my own computer, I…

So you will block all algorithmically produced content (think of web art)? This is, what I would consider an inconsistency.

Even the greatest original text services, think of "In the Beginning was the Command Line", which is served for free, are still copyrighted texts, and this is ok. If you think of a medial form that is genuine to the web, you probably wouldn't go without any algorithmic aspects, and JS is of all solutions for this still the most open one. (The source code is open and free for any one to inspect, even if it is not open sourced.) But JS, especially on the client-side, is more than just a tool, it's also a mean for expressing creativity, with all the potential of being/producing a text in its own rights.

This boils essentially down to, if you need algorithms, let go of any content.

Edit: I may note that I've done some (even awarded) web art myself, and I'm not making a cent from it. But I would be disgusted to see this copied from the very first minute something goes viral and see it served with ads plastered all over in some crude, barely functional fashion (since the copyist would be only interested in making some quick cents and not in the quality and preserving its aspects as a work. And I'm speaking of real cases here.)

Re: GNU LibreJS

#60

Post by daveloyall »

mattl wrote: post #52
daveloyall wrote: post #35

NB: I saw LibreJS in use months ago, in person at the FSF offices. I also got in an argument about it in which I brought up points that are echoed in comments on this page. But, I was missing the point then. (Maybe I still am.) I think the point of this thing is show web users a truth that they might not have thought about: that most javascript in the wild isn't licensed at all && they depend heavily on it. To see th…

If you don't want to run nonfree software on your computer, you can install this and it'll only allow JavaScript to run if its freely licensed or if its very basic and passes the rules of trivial code. That's the point of it.

What's the point of that? You can hardly use the web with LibreJS active.

Today, users have a choice: accept non-free javascript, or don't use the web.

Which brings us to a goal: we must change the web so that the majority of javascript is Free Software.

Right?

Post reply on HN