Taking Action For Free JavaScript 318
Atticus Rex writes "Today the FSF kicked off a campaign to put pressure on webmasters to make their sites work without requiring nonfree JavaScript. The first target is Regulations.gov, a site the US government uses to take public comments on proposed regulations. Right now, the site requires nonfree JavaScript, requiring citizens to sacrifice their freedom as users to take part in their democracy."
Re:BIOS (Score:5, Informative)
The BIOS, you say? Stallman's way ahead of you there. [usesthis.com]
Re:BIOS (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that Stallman uses a Yeelong lemote right? It's a computer that runs on entirely free (as in freedom) software and firmware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemote#Netbook_computers
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I never realized visiting a website required me to "sacrifice my freedom"!
Look, I know it's a lot to ask that you actually pause to reflect before dashing off that Frist Psot and racking up all that precious karma. But why don't you wind down your supercilious, holier-than-thou tone and actually read what Stallmann says about the Javascript trap [gnu.org]?
If you did, you'd see that he has a perfectly valid point about how the effect of non-Free licenses, combined with minified (and therefore effectively unreadable) code, especially that which uses dynamically constructed elements, is hard to read, hard to share and hard for the community to improve. The tone of the article is pragmatic, reasoned and doesn't jump up and down crying 'Injustice!' or waving a placard. Much as you might hate this, it's a reasonable technical argument that follows logically from the concept of Free Software itself.
If you want to argue against Free Software on its merits, knock yourself out. I work with both proprietary and Free software all the time, and I see the benefits of both. But when you start pitching a fit and belittling someone else's calm, reasonably stated points without even attempting to address the logic, then you've lost any credibility. Honestly, you can ridicule Stallmann all you like, but you might want to consider what you look like to others as you indulge in this kind of adolescent, pop-collared frat-boy humour.
An Inaccuracy and A Conundrum (Score:5, Informative)
Accuracy aside, there is a different issue that is personally bothersome. I'm a good programmer and have been writing code for a long time, working with a variety of languages --I have actually enjoyed Assembly Language; many can't say that! But I haven't been able to find a "best fit" type of job that lasted more than a few years, and so my income-situation is not the best (nor even remotely near to "the best"). I'm sure it is quite easy for someone who has a decent steady income to write and give away software. But when you need to sell it to put food on the table, copyright is supposed to be an author's friend. As an example, suppose I put a few years of effort into creating a nice unique web site, free for users and paid for by advertisers. Do I want that unique-ness to be copied immediately, all across the Internet, and my ad-revenue proportionately diluted, by giving away the source code? What do I deserve to earn, financially speaking, for those years of effort? Remember the children's tale of the Little Red Hen? [wikipedia.org] The assumption behind Free Software is that what you offer will get improved and come back to you, thereby benefitting you. It ignores the fact that that process takes time that you might not be able to afford!
So, what is the Answer to that conundrum, besides "Obtain the nice-income job that lets you afford to give away software"?
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I think we can all agree that the FSF reached PETA "sea kittens" levels of batshit
Actually no.
I really like this idea. Basically all they're saying is that a website should tell you if you're entitled to use something like Greasemonkey to replace their javascript with your own clean version (eg if they use crappy, DRM ridden, or annoying javascript). It's a nice, simple way to give control back to the computer user, which is the FSF's raison d'etre.
Simple, clear and functional. I like it.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Minified JavaScript is for convenience of transport. It's no different from compiled code, which GNU software happily produces.
And, you'll notice that GNU software is licensed so as to ensure that you have access to the uncompiled stuff, specifically because compiled code is dubiously fit for anything except execution.
If there is an option to get at the un-minified stuff, I'd be astonished if you heard another word on the matter from the FSF about the use of the minified form for the sake of bandwidth use and efficiency.
Re:The end does not justify the means (Score:5, Informative)
Stallman wants users to do exactly that, wrt regulations.gov and others, in the case "when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the use of that very same nonfree software" [gnu.org]. That's how he developed GNU: until it was more mature (and Linux came along), he used non-free Unix to test.
Re:Gosh!!! (Score:5, Informative)
that they NEVER stay reasonable, they ALWAYS end up a parody of themselves
RMS and the FSF hve been pretty upfront about their goals since the beginning and these have not changed.
Given the propensity for people to make up crap about RMS, I'm going to call bullshit unless you can provide some kind of evidence backing up this claim.