Free Software Foundation: Dating Is a Free Software Issue (fsf.org) 135
"I've been making the argument that everything is a free software issue for a few months now," writes the campaigns manager for the Free Software Foundation, in a new essay sharing thoughts on "the issues proprietary technology poses in dating and maintaining romantic relationships":
Many dating Web sites run proprietary JavaScript... Proprietary JavaScript is a trap that impacts your ability to run a free system, and not only does it sneak proprietary software onto your machine, but it also poses a security risk. Any piece of software can be malicious, but proprietary JavaScript goes the extra mile. Much of the JavaScript you encounter runs automatically when you load a Web site, which enables it to attack you without you even noticing.
Proprietary JavaScript doesn't have to be the only way to use Web sites. LibreJS is an initiative which blocks "nonfree nontrivial" JavaScript while allowing JavaScript that is either free or trivial. Many dating apps are also proprietary, available only at the Apple App and Google Play stores, both of which currently require the use of proprietary software.
The essay also warns about the proprietry software used for restaurant reservations, ride-sharing apps, and chat applications. (Not to mention the non-free software behind gift shopping on Amazon.) And even if you decide on a romantic evening at home, "you might find yourself tempted by freedom-disrespecting, DRM-supporting streaming services like Hulu and Netflix...."
"These are all proprietary tools, and the act of using them restricts our freedoms. When the ways we connect with one another are proprietary, we're trusting our secrets, intimacies, and relationships to technology we cannot trust."
Proprietary JavaScript doesn't have to be the only way to use Web sites. LibreJS is an initiative which blocks "nonfree nontrivial" JavaScript while allowing JavaScript that is either free or trivial. Many dating apps are also proprietary, available only at the Apple App and Google Play stores, both of which currently require the use of proprietary software.
The essay also warns about the proprietry software used for restaurant reservations, ride-sharing apps, and chat applications. (Not to mention the non-free software behind gift shopping on Amazon.) And even if you decide on a romantic evening at home, "you might find yourself tempted by freedom-disrespecting, DRM-supporting streaming services like Hulu and Netflix...."
"These are all proprietary tools, and the act of using them restricts our freedoms. When the ways we connect with one another are proprietary, we're trusting our secrets, intimacies, and relationships to technology we cannot trust."
Is that you Stallman? (Score:3)
Oh, sorry, it was you... Well in this case not only it isn't funny but it's somewhere from pathetic to dangerous. We can make fun of RMS but it's the world that's sick.
Re: (Score:3)
The world isn't ideal, and many things (not only software) sometimes require compromises to work. One of these things are closed source proprietary programs which have many reasons (including economic, security, quality) to have place in our world and they won't disappear anytime soon. RMS is just too idealistic to be able to put up with the imperfection of the world. The world just can't magically become ideal. IMHO Eric Raymond is a much better FSF lea
Re: Is that you Stallman? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense, Eric Raymond is an open source proponent, not a freedom software guy.
aRTee
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why I chose Raymond, he is more practical and not as idealistic and militant as RMS.
Re: (Score:2)
since RMS is doing more harm than good to FOSS because of his idealism.
It is not called idealism but ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
The world isn't ideal, and many things (not only software) sometimes require compromises to work.
The question is if you need an idealistic or pragmatic torchbearer. Like if it was FLOSS is great... but we understand if you need nVidia's driver blob for your graphics. Oh and Steam for your games, because it's just entertainment. And MS Office, because compatibility. And Photoshop, because GIMP isn't the same. And so on, it would be like "okay use open source when it's convenient but if not that's fine". You always know what corner RMS will be in, even when the deck is obviously massively stacked against
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The world isn't ideal, and many things (not only software) sometimes require compromises to work.[...] RMS is just too idealistic to be able to put up with the imperfection of the world.
I love how people just make up random shit that they think must be true about RMS without ever actually bothering to look at what he has done.
the GNU project was initially built with proprietary tools on UNIX workstations. It only became fully self hosting in 1994 with the Linux kernel, a full 11 years after starting the pro
Re: (Score:1)
Being unable to permanently put up with imperfection doesn't necessarily mean inability to temporarily deal with proprietary "evil". He just doesn't accept that proprietary software has its place when there are no sane alternatives.
For exam
Re: (Score:2)
He just doesn't accept that proprietary software has its place when there are no sane alternatives.
[citation needed].
At most you could reasonably claim he says that free software could provide alternatives. I've never seen him claim it currently does.
For example, what software do you use [...]
Unless you back up your claims about what RMS says with actual not-out-of-context quotes/citations, I'm going to assume you're yet another person who's heard some stuff about RMS and so you assume you know what he says
Games differ from tools (Score:2)
Games differ from tools for one big reason: They're typically not used for profit. One common pattern to fund development of free software is "eating one's own dogfood," in which a company improves the software that it uses in its line of business through which it realizes a profit. This doesn't apply nearly as cleanly to games, which are made for use in recreation by individuals.
A car company may develop software "to design complex parts for a car". An electronics company may develop software "for complex
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Is that you Stallman? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I would like to say something: why do you think he deserves it ?
It's his principles who got this open source revolution we have now to work at all. If you are on Slashdot there is a high chance that Linux and open source are at least part of what you support. So why make fun of him ? Or say he deserves it ? I would give him some respect instead.
You do understand that the GPL of the Linux kernel made sure that the companies (even competitors) could/would want to work together on Linux ?
And it was Linux and the GNU tools and compiler that got this ball rolling in a big way.
You might not agree with him or some issues or all issues, but why make fun of someone ?
Re: (Score:1)
OK, I would like to say something: why do you think he deserves it ?
Because he's an idealistic, militant dork who eats toe-boogers. Isn't that enough reason?
Re: (Score:1)
Let me answer for GP:
Re:Is that you Stallman? (Score:5, Insightful)
" When you buy a car you don't rip the upholstery to see if there are any hidden microphones underneath"
But I am allowed to, and if i wanted to the manufacturer wouldn't try to stop me, and generally provides and so far to my knowledge the makers of cars have never been caught hiding mics in the upholstery.
"You also don't demand to examine the ECU software for any code designed to kill you on purpose while driving."
But you should be able to. 'Dieselgate' for the win right? software designed specifically to defeat pollution regulations so vehicles could get away with polluting more... maybe not designed to kill you personally, but leading to poorer air quality than there should have been which kills people daily.
"You trust there is regulation against this."
And even with the regulations actually being there, that trust was misplaced. I'm not sure you chose a very good example.
"To prove to you I am right, let me ask a question"
Wait, how on earth does that 'prove' you are right?
"I mean something that can be used in court against a vendor providing obfuscated (and unexaminable) GPL source code?"
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if's not the, you know "source" code the original developers actually work with then its not the source code. A simple litmus test of code inspection for X isn't necessary. The courts have the power to subpoena witnesses, and the necessary evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You are free to rip out the upholstery of a car just like you can put a firmware in a hex editor or disassembler."
No. While I AM free to rip out the upholstery of a car. I am NOT EVEN necessarily free to even put firmware into a hex editor or disassembler. Between licensing, DRM, and the DMCA I may be both legally and technically prevented from doing this.
There is a big difference between that and the company simply not going out of their way to make it easy for me.
" VW cheated and paid a hefty fine and pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You jumped straight into a strawman.
Nobody suggested a police state where everything _must_ be thoroughly inspected. I only argued that it should be inspect-able.
I also don't claim it would be perfect, nor that every defect would always be caught in advance.
Most software is shit. Like unbelievably bad shit. If it were the wiring in your home, it wouldn't pass an inspection. Junction boxes missing, connections held together with electrical tape inside the walls, overloaded circuits...
Nobody would accept "as
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps they should have to?
Re: (Score:1)
This doesn't fix the health issues of the individuals affected by VW's moral bankruptcy, does it?
Yet GNU uses recursion (Score:2)
Recursive code filled the memory and caused unintended acceleration.
Yet Emacs, GIMP, and numerous other GNU applications use Lisp languages for user scripting. Lisp languages are based on recursion as a core control structure. Emacs uses Elisp, and GIMP ships with Script-Fu, an implementation of Scheme. A bunch of applications are scriptable in Guile, an implementation of Scheme [gnu.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here isn't "recursive code", it's "filled the memory". There's nothing wrong with recursion, used properly. All programs that contain loops without fixed upper bounds are recursive to some extent. It doesn't necessarily mean allocating from the stack, especially in languages designed with explicit tail-recursion as a first-class control structure. (Moreover, a "structured" loop with an alloca() call, or even malloc(), could easily have the same effect.)
Re: (Score:1)
FTFY.
Also, I seem to recall that there were regulations to limit emissions of diesel engines. How did that work o [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What is the legal definition of obfuscated source code? I mean something that can be used in court against a vendor providing obfuscated (and unexaminable) GPL source code?
GPL versions 2 and 3 define a work's "source code" as the preferred form of a work of authorship for making modifications to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Provide the de-obfuscator and maps (Score:2)
Provide the source code to your "auto-de-obfuscator" and auto-minifier, including any "internal maps" it uses, along with the program in obfuscated form. Once you've done so, the obfuscated form is indeed source code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same way you prove anything else in a civil suit: preponderance of evidence. As a defendant in district court accused of copyright infringement and relying on rights granted under the GPL for your defense, the burden of proof would be on you for proving that what you distributed is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." This burden is greater if what you distribute resembles object code more than "the preferred form of" other well-known works in the industry. Had you provided t
Sheesh (Score:3)
"Many dating Web sites run proprietary JavaScript..."
No shit, Sherlock. Why not just say "Many web sites run proprietary JavaScript..."? Why call out dating sites?
Practically every goddamn site I visit runs JS and sometimes they run fucking gobs of it to the point where my browser pops up warnings about scripts slowing down the system. Why are dating sites any different? Why not say car sales sites or blogs or Amazon? What's so special about dating sites?
Re: Sheesh (Score:2)
That unlike cars, dating is somethig that almost people need, and in western civilization it has become more and more accepted, for adults to get to know each other for the purpose of dating ONLY on dating sites.
Re: (Score:2)
in western civilization it has become more and more accepted, for adults to get to know each other for the purpose of dating ONLY on dating sites.
Yeah I get that and I'm fine with it, but 99.99999% of all sites out there use javascript and a lot of it is proprietary and/or obfuscated.
So again, what's so special about dating sites? Why call them out specifically?
Re: (Score:2)
So you've seen "Demolition Man"...
Re: (Score:2)
Good movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Love is free, it's the dam kids that are bloody expensive! =P
Re:Sheesh (Score:5, Insightful)
No shit, Sherlock. Why not just say "Many web sites run proprietary JavaScript..."? Why call out dating sites?
Obviously, the article was trying to ride the wave of Valentine's Day-related news.
It actually has nothing to do with dating at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, the article was trying to ride the wave of Valentine's Day-related news.
It actually has nothing to do with dating at all.
That sounds about right.
Re: Trust is earned (Score:2)
However if you're suspicious of a piece of OSS you can ask or pay someone to check it. That option doesn't exist with proprietary software.
Re: (Score:1)
You do. Get off your ass.
Yes, but...... (Score:1)
The LibreJS site says, "The program GNU LibreJS detects nonfree JavaScript in pages you visit and blocks it, preventing it from running and thus saving you from giving up your freedom."
Yes, and it'll also prevent you from using the site in most cases. That's kind of the opposite of "freedom".
I don't see a practical solution to this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a better browser going to make a javascript-dependent site magically work when the necessary javascript is blocked?
Your "solution" is completely idiotic and does absolutely nothing to address the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and it'll also prevent you from using the site in most cases. That's kind of the opposite of "freedom".
That's about the most foolish definition of freedom I've seen today on the internet. Installing LibreJS is your choice. Claiming that choosing to not run non-free JS is 'the opposite of "freedom"' is several steps beyond facile.
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming that choosing to not run non-free JS is 'the opposite of "freedom"' is several steps beyond facile.
Sure, except for the fact that I never claimed any such thing.
Not running non-free JS is fine, but if it prevents you from doing what you want to do then what have you gained? Where's the "freedom" part in not being able to do what you need?
Your response is the same as saying that "disabling your car frees you from driving it." Right, but what if I want to drive it?
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, except for the fact that I never claimed any such thing.
Yes you literally did and you're about to do it again!
Not running non-free JS is fine, but if it prevents you from doing what you want to do then what have you gained?
Irrelevant, we're talking about freedom not utility.
Where's the "freedom" part in not being able to do what you need?
You said above you didn't say this. You're saying it again. You're 100% free because you're choosing that. Choosing to not do something doesn't mean you're not free
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing to not do something doesn't mean you're not free any more because you haven't done it.
Failure to run proprietary JavaScript leads to failure to complete a web-based application to prepare and file an individual income tax return. Failing to file your individual income tax return leads to loss of freedom when the feds incarcerate you.
Failure to run proprietary JavaScript leads to failure to complete "I'm not a robot" checks, which leads to failure to submit comments on proposed regulation, which leads to failure "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (U.S. Const., Amendment
Re: (Score:1)
This is one of the most bizarre threads I've ever been on.
Do you not understand that:
1. It's your choice whether or not to use LibreJS?
2. You don't have to take its reecommendations even if you do install it?
Failure to run proprietary JavaScript leads to failure to complete a web-based application to prepare and file an individual income tax return. Failing to file your individual income tax return leads to loss of freedom when the feds incarcerate you.
You're claiming that installing LibreJS will send you
Agencies that reject snail mail and email (Score:2)
You could always use LibreJS's whitelist feature on irs.gov (or whatever the site is).
Zealots would claim: "If you've whitelisted one site, you've failed."
And you are still allowed to petition your government for redress of grievances by snail mail, email and twitter which I believe still has a JS-free interface.
During some calls for public comment, the US government has outright stated that it will refuse to consider any comment submitted through snail mail or email. In one case [fsf.org], the US Copyright Office stated, and I quote, that it "cannot allow submission of comments outside the regulations.gov system on the basis of your objection to the use of proprietary software."
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing to not drive does not make you less free.
Yeah it actually does, and in a real-world way, not in some nebulous philosophical sense.
Basically what you're saying is equivalent to "refusing medical care doesn't make you less healthy."
Just tell that blockage in your artery to go away (you can always choose to come back to life later).
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah it actually does
Not by any normal definition of the word free. If you have the choice then you have your freedom. I, as a non car owner am every bit as free as a car owner, because it is my choice and I can choose precisely the opposite tomorrow if I so desire. Altering the relative levels of convenience is not the opposite of "freedom".
In the context of this thread it's even more completely inane because you can install LibreJS then use its whitelisting feature to whitelist any sites you feel you need
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR
Now you're just getting tiresome.
When you're an extremist. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
. . .it's hard to find a date.
I support free software and see the obvious benefits of its existence, but these guys who try to excise all proprietary software are living in a dreamland. My wife thinks I'm weird enough for abstaining from social media. When free software is convenient and useful, I use it.
The ironic part is that, as much as guys like Stallman rant and rave about freedom, the lifestyle they promote is extremely limiting. No wonder those nerds can't get dates. A free software dating app wouldn't change things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Social oppression works because most people are spineless weasels like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Prioritize SW freedom and set aside objectors (Score:4, Insightful)
Richard Stallman isn't listed as the author of the "Dating is a free software issues" essay, Molly de Blanc is.
People used to "rant and rave" about how one was "living in a dreamland" to think that they could run a computer with a completely free OS. Fortunately people who fought for software freedom didn't take those criticisms seriously and now we have multiple completely free OSes [gnu.org]. It seems that what was readily declared to be fantastic is becoming real thanks to those who push past the objectors and the namecallers. What matters is the substance of what we fight for—lazy convenience accepting whatever someone else wants to do to our computers, or demanding control over our computers and making it possible to do various jobs while retaining our software freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstand my post. I fully support free software and the reason I abstain from social media is because signing up for those services require concessions I'm not willing to make.
But for other things I'm willing to make concessions. For instance, it's ridiculous to have Javascript turned off by default. One of the odd things about the internet that makes it inherently insecure is that in order for websites to work seamlessly and dynamically you have to allow scripts or code to run. The interne
Re: (Score:2)
These completely free operating systems might not run on computer hardware sold in stores near you because they lack the "blobs" (proprietary drivers or firmware) required to get the hardware to run. It's possible to buy a PC that respects your freedom by establishing a bank account and shopping online, but online shopping carts and payment largely rely on proprietary software and service as a software substitute (SaaSS). So how does one break free from proprietary software without giving up computing?
The culture of fear-mongering (Score:2)
When all you have is a hammer... (Score:1)
"When all you have is a hammer"... Well, you know the drill.
Re: When all you have is a hammer... (Score:2, Funny)
What's this drill? I only have a hammer...
Re: (Score:1)
Why the down mod? It's a joke see? "when all you have is a hammer, you know the drill". Must be an SDS drill. Because an SDS drill is a hammer drill. See? see?
It's not off topic just a joke, and there's no -1 unfunny mod so there.
Parody of OSS activists (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to think "incel" was a made-up controversy of mainstream outlets picking up on some bizarre, niche forum of a very wide, global internet, but that this essay get made makes we reconsider that conclusion.
Free Software is important, and promoting its use in the fundamental components of software architecture and systems design is important, as is having its principles applied to critical aspects of modern communication -- arguably now including social network systems.
Dating sites are not a critical aspect of modern communications. This essay comes across as someone who thinks the reason they don't get hits on Tinder is because there's a binary blob somewhere, when chances are higher it's because the blob is you.
FSF has more important things to work on and much lower hanging fruit than this.
Re: Parody of OSS activists (Score:3, Insightful)
Dating sites are not a critical aspect of modern communications.
Considering that most people seek a relationship, and that face to face first communication is becoming more and more of a taboo, are you sure about that?
No it's not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dating is a social activity with the end goal being to get some.
Software is the thing running on a computer that makes it useful (more or less).
Whatever weed you were smoking when writing this meta-article, please don't offer any of that to me.
The act of dating itself restricts our freedoms. (Score:2)
All relationships are built on trust. The medium used to communicate is the least of your worries if you can't do that.
"Piratebay and chill" (Score:2)
Holy crap the writer needs to get back on meds. (Score:2)
and not only does it sneak proprietary software onto your machine
Is this like a vegan who found out that mayonnaise is made with eggs?
but it also poses a security risk
Why? I mean you said it yourself: "Any piece of software can be malicious". If they published the source code to your apparent demise will that have made you more secure? Are you under the impression there's a magical fairy out there auditing everything open source and that you are magically safe as a result?
Much of the JavaScript you encounter runs automatically when you load a Web site, which enables it to attack you without you even noticing.
Any code you run on your computer enables it to attack you without even noticing.
There's a lot to be said for open source, but really
Major Fail: Free SW and dating? (Score:2)
What can the web do now? (Score:2)
Allow a users to create an account, accepting an email and encrypted password. Keeping all that encrypted.
To ensure the CoC was displayed and some way having the CoC accepted.
To accept an image uploaded for the user computer. To size, rotate and crop.
To allow the user to see their account and enter data about their interests eg if they like Ada, Lisp, Assembler, C, Python, Forth, html, LabVIEW?
To then search for users with the same interests.
Chat rooms under a l
Re: (Score:2)
Allow a users to create an account, accepting an email and encrypted password. Keeping all that encrypted.
Doable with HTTPS and no client-side script. You usually want a hashed password, not an encrypted one, except when integrating with third-party web services that give out a user token.
To ensure the CoC was displayed and some way having the CoC accepted.
Doable without client-side script.
To accept an image uploaded for the user computer.
Doable without client-side script.
To size, rotate and crop.
Doable without client-side script, albeit clunky. Most users will prefer client-side script for this.
To allow the user to see their account and enter data about their interests eg if they like Ada, Lisp, Assembler, C, Python, Forth, html, LabVIEW?
Doable without client-side script, though navigating through large lists and real-time completion are more convenient with client-side script.
To then search for users with the same interests.
Doable without cl
Re: (Score:2)
That they don't need to always use proprietary code to accept new information, sort and present information back to the user.
That users can interact globally using a GUI without the need for complex, hidden and expensive proprietary code.
Code that can have version drift with every OS change.
A free encrypted version of what Yahoo had with messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] with new account crea
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't seem like the "real issue." That seems like a solution to the actual real issue of dating apps and sites being flooded with fake profiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Javascript runs in the browser and the browser prohibits certain activities.
The copyright license of the JavaScript code downloaded by the browser usually prohibits the user from certain activities.