My name is Corky and I work for The Free Software Foundation



  • https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/take-action-for-free-javascript  @Full Retard said:

    But, as Richard Stallman pointed out in his article The JavaScript Trap,
    most of the Web's JavaScript programs are not freely licensed. This is
    harmful in the same ways as any other nonfree software: it prevents
    people from understanding, modifying and building on the programs they
    are running. It results in software that is designed to control users
    rather than serve the interests of them and their communities. Because
    of this, we're launching a campaign to demand that companies,
    governments, and organizations make their sites work without proprietary
    JavaScript
    , so that anyone can surf the Web without running nonfree
    software.



  • What the actual fuck?!

    Aren't most uses of JavaScript on the internet highly site-specific and non-reusable anyway?

    I still don't understand how having a different license makes something "better".





  • Make your own!





  • @Salamander said:

    I still don't understand how having a different license makes something "better".

    You have not yet achieved Stallman-levels of enlightenment, little wildebeest.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Make your own!

    FTFlazy people





  • @Salamander said:

    I still don't understand how having a different license makes something "better".
    I still don't understand . . what the fuck is "proprietary Javascript"?



  • Here are the best GIS results for Richard Stallman:







    I love this one. I can only assume someone was like "Try to get a photo of the three of them, but don't show them eating."

    After a couple of hours it was just "Fuck it, take the photo now, at least one of them won't be stuffing his face."







  • @El_Heffe said:

    I still don't understand . . what the fuck is "proprietary Javascript"?

    I was assuming it was referring to all JavaScript code that doesn't start with a massive comment block stating it uses an "open" license.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Salamander said:

    I still don't understand how having a different license makes something "better".
    I still don't understand . . what the fuck is "proprietary Javascript"?

    Javascript that hasn't been licensed under the GPL. What, don't you release every Bash script you write under a free software license?



  • @Salamander said:

    @El_Heffe said:

    I still don't understand . . what the fuck is "proprietary Javascript"?

    I was assuming it was referring to all JavaScript code that doesn't start with a massive comment block stating it uses an "open" license.

    Yeah, and those huge license sections are great on bandwidth. "Do not remove this copyright notice." Great, now the comment at the top is larger than the minified JS.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @Salamander said:

    I still don't understand how having a different license makes something "better".
    I still don't understand . . what the fuck is "proprietary Javascript"?

    Any JavaScript that isn't licensed under the GPL.

    LGPL? proprietary.
    Apache license? proprietary.
    Public domain? proprietary.
    That one-liner that you wrote ten years ago to change the button image when it's hovered on that site you haven't thought about for nine and a half years? proprietary.
    JavaScript file returns a 404 because it doesn't actually exist and is never used on your website? proprietary.



  • Wait... are they ok with back-end servers being "non-free"? Like Outlook.com's C# back-end? But they're not ok with the JS? ... crazy.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Make your own!



    If you say so:



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Wait... are they ok with back-end servers being "non-free"? Like Outlook.com's C# back-end?

    Doubtful. They're just not OK with either.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Wait... are they ok with back-end servers being "non-free"? Like Outlook.com's C# back-end?

    Doubtful. They're just not OK with either.

    Do you think they would be okay with this proprietary javascript?



  • @Ben L. said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    Wait... are they ok with back-end servers being "non-free"? Like Outlook.com's C# back-end?

    Doubtful. They're just not OK with either.

    Do you think they would be okay with this proprietary javascript?

    You know it's Open Source Javascript when 10% of the file size is taken up with the license..



  • Proprietary Javasctipt

    It is JavaScript that is covered by a license that does not allow the user to edit and reuse it.

    In addition, most JavaScript in use is run through an obfusticator that replaces all variable and function names with anonymous 2 or 3 letter names, so it might as well be compiled object code for all the use it is.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If you say so:

    It's Bread Loaf Snoutman! He's here to teach us about sharing, the evils of proprietary licensing schemes, and how an all-you-can-eat restaurant can't legally force you to leave because they entered into a binding social contract with you when they took your money under a sign that reads "All U Can Eat".


    And also not to ever get into Detective Gigglepants' van, no matter how many ice cream sundaes he promises you.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    If you say so:

    It's Bread Loaf Snoutman! He's here to teach us about sharing, the evils of proprietary licensing schemes, and how an all-you-can-eat restaurant can't legally force you to leave because they entered into a binding social contract with you when they took your money under a sign that reads "All U Can Eat".


    And also not to ever get into Detective Gigglepants' van, no matter how many ice cream sundaes he promises you.

     

    You'd know, I'd get offended if I didn't get compared to a skinny RMS all the time.

     



  • @drurowin said:

    You'd know, I'd get offended if I didn't get compared to a skinny RMS all the time.

    So you're saying you've just become immune to insults?



  • @drurowin said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    If you say so:

    It's Bread Loaf Snoutman! He's here to teach us about sharing, the evils of proprietary licensing schemes, and how an all-you-can-eat restaurant can't legally force you to leave because they entered into a binding social contract with you when they took your money under a sign that reads "All U Can Eat".


    And also not to ever get into Detective Gigglepants' van, no matter how many ice cream sundaes he promises you.

     

    You'd know, I'd get offended if I didn't get compared to a noodle-y left arm RMS all the time.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @drurowin said:
    You'd know, I'd get offended if I didn't get compared to a skinny RMS all the time.

    So you're saying you've just become immune to insults?

     

    Six of one, half-dozen of the other.



  • @Ben L. said:

     

    You'd know, I'd get offended if I didn't get compared to a noodle-y left arm RMS all the time.

    The lion I drew has cerebral palsy or some shit, OK?  Jesus.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    what the fuck is "proprietary Javascript"?
    Javascript that hasn't been licensed under the GPL.
    I believe that the One True Free License for Javascript is the AGPL, which is the GPL with extra infectious obnoxiousness bolted on. Thankfully it hasn't caught on to anything like the same extent that the GPL has; small mercies, I suppose.



  • @drurowin said:

    @Ben L. said:

     

    You'd know, I'd get offended if I didn't get compared to a noodle-y left arm RMS all the time.

    The lion I drew has cerebral palsy or some shit, OK?  Jesus.

    Cerebral palsy and he's poorly-drawn? Unlucky little guy.. :(



  • @drurowin said:

    The lion I drew has cerebral palsy or some shit, OK? Jesus.

    Yeah! Ease off! Leave the man alone! Sheesh.

    ... and it's the right arm that's noodle-y.



  • @dkf said:

    GPL with extra infectious obnoxiousness bolted on.

    I was going to say "bullshit, nothing can be more obnoxious than GPL", but then I actually looked up what AGPL is.
    I never thought it would have been possible, but bloody hell that's one obnoxious license.



  • @Salamander said:

    @dkf said:

    GPL with extra infectious obnoxiousness bolted on.

    I was going to say "bullshit, nothing can be more obnoxious than GPL", but then I actually looked up what AGPL is.
    I never thought it would have been possible, but bloody hell that's one obnoxious license.

     

    Just don't adhere to the license terms if you see something worth using that's AGPL licensed.  Whoever's 'tarded enough to use the AGPL doesn't have enough to spend on a lawyer to come after you.

     



  • @drurowin said:

    Whoever's 'tarded enough to use the AGPL doesn't have enough to spend on a lawyer to come after you.

    Same thing with the GPL. Basically, it's like running over a hippie in the South--you're only going to jail if you don't have the $5 it takes to pay off the sheriff's deputies.



  •  Richard's Life is a constant struggle



  •  Every time I see the initials of Richard Matthew Stallman, I think of Royal Mail Ship, as in "RMS Titanic".



  • @BC_Programmer said:

     Richard's Life is a constant struggle

    Ugh.. I hadn't ever heard of that before, but that made me search for it and find the video. What the fuck was going on there?

    Jesus, Stallman is a fucking psycho creep.



  • I've always been skeptical to long-bearded IT-gurus, especially those who are past 50 and still have baby soft skin.

    For some reason I really don't want to know how he smells.



  • @arh said:

    I've always been skeptical to long-bearded IT-gurus, especially those who are past 50 and still have baby soft skin.
     

    molting.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @BC_Programmer said:

     Richard's Life is a constant struggle

    Ugh.. I hadn't ever heard of that before, but that made me search for it and find the video. What the fuck was going on there?

    Jesus, Stallman is a fucking psycho creep.

    What the fuck did I just watch?

    Also, he's not even attempting to be discreet about it. Completely casual, like it's the most normal thing in the world. Which, for him, it might be.



  • Proprietary Javascript? What the heck? I don't get asked to agree to any license before JS is executed in my browser, ergo I don't have to abide to any license either.
    You don't want me to "reverse engineer" the JS, like usual licenses for binaries state, or prevent me from using Grease Monkey? Tough luck, I don't care.

    The only thing that applies here is copyright. Same as with the rest of the site's contents. And GPL'ed JS would still be copyrighted. What is this even about!?

     

    @drurowin said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    You'd know, I'd get offended if I didn't get compared to a skinny RMS all the time.
     

    I've been gone for a few weeks and a newbie's transformed into a meme already?

     



  • Freedom of software or disrespect to Islam?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Wait... are they ok with back-end servers being
    "non-free"? Like Outlook.com's C# back-end? But they're not ok with the
    JS? ... crazy.

    Their reasoning is: It isn't running on your machine so it is okay (ignoring the fact hat least 50% of the logic is happening on the server and the JS wouldn't run on its own).



  •  He is not eating his skin, more like his Toe Jam



  • @topspin said:

    I don't get asked to agree to any license before JS is executed in my browser...

    I'm assuming he means a license to redistribute, not a EULA.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @lucas said:

     He is not eating his skin, more like his Toe Jam

    What about Earl?



  • @Ben L. said:

    @El_Heffe said:
    @Salamander said:
    I still don't understand how having a different license makes something "better".
    I still don't understand . . what the fuck is "proprietary Javascript"?

    Any JavaScript that isn't licensed under the GPL.

    LGPL? proprietary.
    Apache license? proprietary.
    Public domain? proprietary.
    That one-liner that you wrote ten years ago to change the button image when it's hovered on that site you haven't thought about for nine and a half years? proprietary.
    JavaScript file returns a 404 because it doesn't actually exist and is never used on your website? proprietary.

    The Stallman/GPL/FSF definition of "freedom" essentially boils down to "In order to be free, you must do exactly as I say, without exception".  Which I find to be quite Orwellian.

     



  • Stallman doesn't like or understand javascript packers / minifiers, despite it being the work of a moment to do a console.log after the main unpacking / deminifying loop has run, and see (almost) the original source anyway. It's not been deliberately obfuscated, it's a simple fact that a variable named "a" is going to take up less space than a variable named "thisIsVariableInNiceCamelCaseThatStoresAValueForLaterUse".

    He also seems to have some issue with code being run on the browser without the users knowledge - which is something I find quite strange since all browsers will request and accept if available GZipped HTML and CSS files, which are then decompressed by the browser WITHOUT THE USERS KNOWLEDGE. I wonder how he resolved this heresey in his own mind, considering it's a GNU product thats doing the unthinkable ?

    I have no problem with the likes of Google deliberately obfuscating their Maps API (if they even are doing it deliberately, whenever I've looked at the source it appears just like any other minified JS to me), it's their copyrighted work and time investment, it's still free for all intents and purposes, and it saves you that trivial little 5 minute job of writing your own fucking mapping client / server code.

    TL;DR; Stallman is a dick.



  • @daveime said:

    Stallman doesn't like or understand javascript packers / minifiers, despite it being the work of a moment to do a console.log after the main unpacking / deminifying loop has run, and see (almost) the original source anyway. It's not been deliberately obfuscated, it's a simple fact that a variable named "a" is going to take up less space than a variable named "thisIsVariableInNiceCamelCaseThatStoresAValueForLaterUse".

    He also seems to have some issue with code being run on the browser without the users knowledge - which is something I find quite strange since all browsers will request and accept if available GZipped HTML and CSS files, which are then decompressed by the browser WITHOUT THE USERS KNOWLEDGE. I wonder how he resolved this heresey in his own mind, considering it's a GNU product thats doing the unthinkable ?

    I have no problem with the likes of Google deliberately obfuscating their Maps API (if they even are doing it deliberately, whenever I've looked at the source it appears just like any other minified JS to me), it's their copyrighted work and time investment, it's still free for all intents and purposes, and it saves you that trivial little 5 minute job of writing your own fucking mapping client / server code.

    TL;DR; Stallman is a dick.

     

    He's more of a obese dumbass.

     



  • Oh yes, before I forget. When this story broke yesterday, I took a look at the JS on that page (just for academic interest). And there's a linked js from http://piwik.fsf.org/piwik.js that amazingly uses the exact same "obfuscation" that Stallman is complaining about.

    But hey, I guess it's alright, because they link to the real source ... I imagine that they minified the source so they'd be able to justify the 2 kilobytes of licence garbage at the top.



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @lucas said:

     He is not eating his skin, more like his Toe Jam

    What about Earl?

    Earl got the fuck away.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    The Stallman/GPL/FSF definition of "freedom" essentially boils down to "In order to be free, you must do exactly as I say, without exception".  Which I find to be quite Orwellian.

     

    Pretty much this. If you are the author of the software, you and only you get to decide what license it is put under. If someone doesn't like the license people are free not to use your software.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Yeah, and those huge license sections are great on bandwidth. "Do not remove this copyright notice." Great, now the comment at the top is larger than the minified JS.

    Yeah like 1kb matters in the world of youtube, netflix and bittorent... and it's in general cached in your browser, you know. And if you use a cdn it's shared between a lot of sites.

    minified JS is archaic BS

    But admittedly in the case of google docs it might be worth it. CDN is useless, rather larger and lots of traffic. But that does not apply to like 99.999999999999999999999999% of JS out there .



  • @beginner_ said:

    minified JS is archaic BS

    Not for mobile sites, where those extra kbs can be the difference between life and death, especially during rush hour when the net is crammed.

    Speaking of which, when will the "use JavaScript to make our mobile site 'tactile' and 'cool'"-trend going to end? When even SlashDot is bitten by the bug, who knows where this is going..


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.