FSF Suggests That Google Free Gmail Javascript

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FSF Suggests That Google Free Gmail Javascript

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 31, 2011 @07:08AM from the don't-yet-see-what-you-did-there dept.

Phoe6 writes "Apparently, FSF is calling it a 'JavaScript Trap' and wants 'useful websites' such as Gmail and others such as Twitter, Facebook to release their JavaScript code under Free Software License so that users can trust their service."

55 of 413 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In other news.. by LordStormes · 2011-03-31 07:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

FSF wants Windows, Office, Photoshop, and everything else to be free. That's their job. People need to be able to make money on software, or large corporations won't invest in it. That's why FOSS-friendly companies like Sun are going under and being snapped up by profit-hungry pricks like Larry Ellison. Film at 11.
1. Re:In other news.. by betterunixthanunix · 2011-03-31 07:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, except for Red Hat, which last I checked was neither being bought out nor in any financial trouble.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:In other news.. by characterZer0 · 2011-03-31 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Java was not a failure. Monetizing Java was a failure. The difference is significant.
  
  --
  Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
3. Re:In other news.. by hduff · 2011-03-31 07:21 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  FSF wants Windows, Office, Photoshop, and everything else to be free. That's their job. People need to be able to make money on software, or large corporations won't invest in it. That's why FOSS-friendly companies like Sun are going under and being snapped up by profit-hungry pricks like Larry Ellison. Film at 11.
  Yes, "free" as in the concept of freedom or liberty, not software at no charge or profit.
  You embarrass yourself by not understanding the distiction while speaking on the subject. Or you shame yourself by deliberatley mis-stating it.
  Oh, I see you're in marketing . . .
  
  --
  "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
4. Re:In other news.. by gstoddart · 2011-03-31 07:47 · Score: 2
  
  Comments like that really call into question whether anyone should ever believe anything you post. Redhat's latest financials reported $107 million in earnings for fiscal 2011.
  That's profits I believe. In terms of earnings, I think it is close to a billion.
  Depending on what context, it is valid to say that Red Hat "makes a billion a year". In terms of revenue, it's getting there.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:In other news.. by MozeeToby · 2011-03-31 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  It would go a long ways in these conversations if people would switch to 'Libre' and 'Gratis'. "free != Free" doesn't really explain how he is wrong, libre (freedom) != gratis (no charge) at least makes the difference between the terms more obvious.
6. Re:In other news.. by brit74 · 2011-03-31 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  FSF wants Windows, Office, Photoshop, and everything else to be free. That's their job. People need to be able to make money on software, or large corporations won't invest in it. That's why FOSS-friendly companies like Sun are going under and being snapped up by profit-hungry pricks like Larry Ellison. Film at 11.
  Yes, "free" as in the concept of freedom or liberty, not software at no charge or profit. You embarrass yourself by not understanding the distiction while speaking on the subject. Or you shame yourself by deliberatley mis-stating it. Oh, I see you're in marketing . . .
  Or maybe you're the one in marketing. It's completely obvious that the phrase "free as in freedom, not free as in beer" is a flat-out false statement. It be accurate, it should be restated as "free as in freedom, AND free as in beer". Here's what the FSF says:
  
  "When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”"
  
  Notice the phrase "to redistribute copies" - that's "free as in beer". The FSF wants to paint is as a "freedom" issue when they're also smuggling in "free" under that banner.
7. Re:In other news.. by dgatwood · 2011-03-31 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, "free" as in the concept of freedom or liberty, not software at no charge or profit.
  That's a nice theory, but it doesn't work in practice. There is no way to make software that can be easily bug fixed by the end user that cannot also be easily enhanced by the end user, and commercial software fundamentally relies on being able to get money from the consumer for new features.
  This basically leaves support contracts as the only practical revenue stream. That works fine if you are writing software for businesses (who want someone to sue). That also works fine if your software is so poorly written that you can make money on technical support, at least up until the point that somebody writes new software that doesn't suck or releases patches that fix your mess.
  In general, though, once you give up the source code, you've lost control. From that point on, if you don't make the improvements that the customers want, they can go to someone else for improvements, and you no longer have a revenue stream from upgrades.
  Thus, in practice, "Free" software is almost inherently "free" as in beer. The alternative is simply unsustainable, no matter how much the propagandists try to claim otherwise. RedHat and a handful of others are simply the exception that proves the rule.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
8. Re:In other news.. by dgatwood · 2011-03-31 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, free is a proper superset of Free. By definition, all Free software is free, but not all free software is Free. The freedom to redistribute freely ensures this. Even without that freedom, however, it would still be largely true in practice.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
9. Re:In other news.. by calzones · 2011-03-31 07:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So what?
  Really... so what? Red Hat is stable and exists as it does perfectly fine. This bizarre notion we have in this country that all companies must always be earning more and more every year than before and always growing and profits must be more than any other company is unsustainable. It does no good for society and is the wrong way to go about things.
  Red Hat and Apple can exist at the same time regardless of size or popularity. All that matters for Red Hat is that they make enough money to support keeping it's employees working and the business around to keep offering what makes its customers happy year in and year out. Suggesting that they are somehow less valid because they are not as big as Apple or Microsoft is a non-sequitor in the context of the preceding discussion.
  What is relevant to the preceding discussion is the question of whether making a living by being in the "OSS industry" can be a viable practice. The answer is clearly "yes."
  
  --
  Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
10. Re:In other news.. by nstlgc · 2011-03-31 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  Are you saying COBOL is not a failure?
  
  --
  I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
11. Re:In other news.. by h4rr4r · 2011-03-31 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  Because money is the only goal in life?
12. Re:In other news.. by ivucica · 2011-03-31 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sometimes it's hard to make a distinction.
  
  I'm always looking for ways to be supportive of FSF's stances, but they are a puritan organization. As such, they present views that they know won't gain mainstream acceptance but that's ok, since something more reasonable will gain it. And that's where I stand: I don't consider words of FSF to be holy, but I will support a more "secular" view.
  
  Same here. It's unreasonable to consider an offering "libre" to be truly possible without being fully "unpaid". Not because they are linguistically indistinct concepts, but because they are not to be expected. Licensing schemes, as they exist today for end users, typically allow software that costs thousands to develop (if not monetary, then in food) to be available for lower prices. "Splitting the cost."
  
  Software needs funding before it exists. It's unreasonable to offer people a "donation jar" to fund software that doesn't exist yet and is unproven. Rare examples of success are not always truly success. Most software is funded a-priori in good faith that somehow one can pay it back. How? By selling a-posteriori. Selling software that must be freely copyable by the recipient is possible, and explicitly supported by FSF, this is rarely feasible nowadays if developing software is your primary work in life. This is because you will rarely have the success of Blender in order to sell other merchandise. A lot of work done under free software platforms is done by volunteers, but a lot of highest quality work is done by companies that have other means of earning money. It's really hard to get quality software written fast when it's not your primary thing in life and with free software, it's hard to make it a primary thing. And if you can't think of writing free software as of a profession because you don't have the financial backing to write free software, FSF bluntly says you shouldn't think of it as your profession. I can't dig it out right now, but it's either somewhere on FSF's site, on GNU site, or on Stallman.org.
  
  It's easy to pretend "libre" isn't followed by "unpaid". It's also easy to see that it's just a pretense. Let's hope that FSF's list of high priority projects does prove me wrong, that you indeed can stick out a donation jar and expect the money to flow a-priori. Because then I will indeed dedicate myself to working on tons of free software projects that I've either started already, or just wanted to work on. I want to work on a good blogging tool for GNU/Linux and Mac. Can I get a-priori funding for that? Or is it easier to dismiss pride and ideals and just sell on the Mac App Store, not opening the source since something like this might happen?
13. Re:In other news.. by Nerdfest · 2011-03-31 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's it. Some people don't seem to believe in the concept of 'enough money'.
14. Re:In other news.. by Gaygirlie · 2011-03-31 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  I personally love F/OSS, both as a movement and as software, but even I acknowledge that F/OSS way is simply non-sustainable for most companies. You said it quite well, but allow me to say it differently: you need to be constantly pushing out features and upgrades in order to stay afloat, and the more popular your software gets the more there will be competing projects with eventually more developers than you can afford to hire for your own team, and that's when your income plummets.
  Red Hat for example is ages old and when they began their work it simply wasn't as easy as it is now for people from all parts of the world to download stuff and collaborate. But now if you get in the business and release your first, single product out in the open it'll most likely be picked up by atleast some people the same instant. Ie. Red Hat had the luxury of really good timing to get in the business and nowadays they are big enough to be able to sustain themselves; a small newcomer simply doesn't have the financial status or market weight to get themselves moving and sustain it nowadays if they plan to go F/OSS route.
15. Re:In other news.. by bjohnso5 · 2011-03-31 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure how you could consider COBOL a failure, as many of (at least Canada's) biggest financial institutions rely on it to keep their back-end mainframe systems running. Just because something is old and unwieldy doesn't consign it to the equivalent of the Walmart bargain DVD bin.
16. Re:In other news.. by alienzed · 2011-03-31 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Java is just so damn slow. Otherwise it's no better or worse than the languages it sought to replace. Software portability is the jack of all trades, master of none. What people really want is the master, that's why Microsoft is losing ground in every core business segment; they keep trying to be everything to everybody and so they are satisfying no one in the process.
  
  --
  Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
17. Re:In other news.. by dkleinsc · 2011-03-31 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  Software needs funding before it exists.
  Not necessarily.
  Unix, Linux, the GNU Project, Apache, and gazillions of other very useful bits of software were created without specifically funding them. In most cases, the software came first, the funding later. While the early developers of each of those packages used resources that had to come from somewhere, most of those resources were scrounged and repurposed stuff. All of them operated on a "write working code now, worry about logistics and organization later" system very early on.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
18. Re:In other news.. by rtfa-troll · 2011-03-31 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  This is an understatement. We continually hear that "Sun was OSS friendly"; "Sun contributed more than anyone else" etc. etc. The thing was, they did put stuff out, but they almost always did it in a way that meant they didn't join the community. Their choice to put out Solaris under the CCDL was deliberately done to make it incompatible with the Linux community and the FSF. They took ages to open up Java, and a truly GPL Java only came about because of the efforts of RedHat and others on IcedTea.
  The thing about RedHat is that they manage to be consistent (even boring). They make some money related to non open source, but they always try to move in the direction of FOSS. This means that gradually, steadily more and more people start to trust them and build solutions on their stuff. Red Hat even manages to get away with not opening up things for ages simply because everyone knows they will eventually (I'm talking about their own software; not license breaches). Sun could never manage more than two months without an about-face. Look at the difference between Ubuntu and RedHat and you can see that ever since they took on their idiot former COO, Ubuntu have been losing credibility. His hire was probably more a symptom than a cause, but you could see immediately that he started blogging for open-core Ubuntu started to lose devotees.
  Sun was actually worse than Oracle. With Oracle it's pretty clear where you stand. Make it financially worth their while (==Millions minimum) and they will negotiate what you want. Otherwise give only exactly what you agree to give and only in return for exactly what they promise. You are never going to end up in the situation of being screwed over by surprise.
  <\rant>
  Actually, as a person who remembers 6800 Suns, I just remembered what it was. The bastards who killed SunOS to inflict Solaris on us. Why couldn't you just free the source. Sun Management; AT' Never forgive. Never forget.
  <\rant>
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
19. Re:In other news.. by Grishnakh · 2011-03-31 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  This basically leaves support contracts as the only practical revenue stream. That works fine if you are writing software for businesses (who want someone to sue).
  This seems to be working just fine for Red Hat and others. Why waste time with individual consumers who are fickle, stupid, and above all, cheap, and are going to copy everything on BitTorrent anyway? Trying to sell something that can be copied trivially on the internet is a losing proposition, unless you also provide something else that can't be copied (like support), or make it much more convenient than trying to get it on BT. The MAFIAA still hasn't figured that out, but they've shown that the only way to sustain that business model is to use the court system to make money. This is not sustainable in the modern world. The RIAA is really hurting because it's so easy to copy their shit on BT; the MPAA is doing much better, but much of that is because movies take up FAR more space than music, especially at HD resolution, so it's really a PITA to copy them on BT and easier to just buy/rent the DVD/BD. Not so with CDs.
  In general, though, once you give up the source code, you've lost control. From that point on, if you don't make the improvements that the customers want, they can go to someone for improvements, and you no longer have a revenue stream from upgrades.
  Ok, and how many times has that happened? Again, this is something that sounds good in theory but doesn't work out in practice, as you pointed out yourself. Diving into someone else's codebase and trying to get a handle on it and start making nontrivial improvements on it is pretty hard, and time-consuming. It's a lot easier, faster, and probably cheaper to just hire the people who wrote it to make changes you want. If the people behind it are trying to make money on it, why on earth wouldn't they make the improvements you want, since you're offering to pay them for it? The only reason they wouldn't is because you're low-balling them, and if you're that cheap, you're not going to get anyone else to make those changes that cheaply either, for the reason I mentioned above. (It's even worse if the code is open-source but poorly or not documented/commented; I tried making some changes to Magento once for a hobby project and gave up for this reason: the code was completely inscrutable.)
  Basically, your statement here is a red herring. You don't need "control" of your source code. You have control of your own development tree, and if someone wants custom changes, it's generally cheaper and easier for them to just pay you for them than to find someone else or do it themselves. If they do do it themselves, they probably have no money to pay you (e.g., they're an individual with lots of time and no funds for a hobby project).
20. Re:In other news.. by metrix007 · 2011-03-31 08:57 · Score: 3
  
  American. Not USian, American. Retard
  I say this as a non-american.
  
  --
  If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
21. Re:In other news.. by ivucica · 2011-03-31 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  While developing the software, developers at least consumed food. Hence they needed to ensure funding for the food. Despite that I have, in effect, implied organization as necessary, I intended to say that nothing is unpaid for.
  
  I release stuff as free software. I label it as such (not as open source). At the same time, I don't expect to make a living off of that software.
  
  I don't have software-unrelated skills. I don't want to do unskilled labor. What can I do? I can write software for living.
  
  I want to make people happy. What kind of software I can write? End-user software. How do I make money off of that? By selling it. How do I tell people that I'd appreciate their money? Well, by asking for it. How does libre software fit into all this? It doesn't really -- it's a hobby of mine.
  
  People working on Unix were employed at Bell Labs. Which turned it into a big commercial thing. Linus Torvalds was a student when he began writing the kernel. Linux and GNU contributors were primarily hobbyists with obviously other source of income, paying for development instead of users. Alternatively, they were employees of enthusiastic companies (or those that needed to satisfy a market) and *gasp* they were making money off of it! Apache started off as a fork of NCSA httpd, did it not?
  
  Do you think Linux would kick off if it weren't zero-cost to redistribute, aside from being libre? Do you think Apache would, when NCSA's httpd was zero-cost?
22. Re:In other news.. by calzones · 2011-03-31 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  growth is what stockholders want to see. So public companies want to make their shareholders happy.
  We're getting off topic, but I want to engage this point anyway.
  First, I'm 100% in agreement with you.
  However, I see this as something of a cancerous relationship. On average, shareholders don't care an iota about what value or detriment the company brings to society, or whether the value or detriment comes now or in the future, or whether the value or detriment comes at the expense or benefit of a limited set of certain members of society. Shareholders only want to put their money in a company and get a fast return so they can dump it before it starts to flatten out or decline, as they move on to the next company. CEOs are beholden to shareholders and not their company's employees or customers. Decisions are made to maximize shareholder returns, not to maximize value. Or worse, decisions are made to avoid punishment from shareholders, not to sustain a healthy company. The modern practice of day trading has made this all even worse.
  I'm not saying making boatloads of money or giving your shareholders massive returns year after year is bad. I'm just saying that being fixated on this being the Raison d'être for most (non small business) companies in the US is ultimately detrimental to our society, our economy, and the very capitalists and entrepreneurs who play the game.
  The edict that a corporation's only purpose is to increase shareholder value is the problem.
  But entrepreneurs and inventors often have a different purpose. They aim to solve a problem or make life better for others and get compensated commensurately for doing so. The fact that public investment helps fuel innovation and this kind of positive growth is certainly a good thing. But the fact that it almost always ends up getting corrupted into behemoth conglomerates seeking to make a fast buck for their shareholders and vastly overpaid CEO sock puppets while the original mission and vision of the founders atrophies and dies shows that our method has a dark side that seems completely unavoidable unless we can find a way to change the method in some fundamental way.
  Growth for the sake of growth is a problem.
  
  --
  Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
23. Re:In other news.. by gnarfel · 2011-03-31 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In medicine, we call growth for the sake of growth 'cancer.'
  
  --
  Local music(to upstate NY). http://gnarfel.com/ radio.
24. Re:In other news.. by pclminion · 2011-03-31 09:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If something with a finite useful lifespan is a failure, then you're a failure. Gotta die someday, right?
25. Re:In other news.. by calzones · 2011-03-31 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  For the most part, marketshare is only a meaningful metric to shareholders and a competitive mindset.
  If your employees are well paid and the company is alive and well, it doesn't matter if you're first or last in market share. If your product is crap and you lose marketshare and go out of business, well the problem was the product, not the marketshare; perilously declining marketshare was only a symptom of a problem. But declining marketshare itself, like due to population growth or sprouting competition amidst the growth of an emerging market does not mean your business is dying. You could be doing better year over year and still lose marketshare.
  The mentality that "if you're not growing you're dying" is nothing more than simplistic and short-sighted sloganeering.
  For what it's worth, even if it were true, dying is not necessarily a bad thing if the alternative is unbridled growth for the sole benefit of shareholders and diminishing returns (or loss) to society.
  
  --
  Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
26. Re:In other news.. by Sam+Douglas · 2011-03-31 09:22 · Score: 2
  
  Look at the difference between Ubuntu and RedHat and you can see that ever since they took on their idiot former COO, Ubuntu have been losing credibility. His hire was probably more a symptom than a cause, but you could see immediately that he started blogging for open-core Ubuntu started to lose devotees.
  As a former Ubuntu 'devotee' I switched to Debian to escape from Ubuntu's retarded technical decisions.
27. Re:In other news.. by metrix007 · 2011-03-31 09:27 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  USian does not exist, and is not a fucking term.
  It doesn't even solve any problems, is inferior to the standard convention, so why use it?
  The US is the only country in North America with the word America in it's name. Thus, it becomes clear as to which people 'Americans' refers.
  Mexico is the United States of Mexico. Does USian refer to people from Mexico, or the USA?
  The only argument for USian is that using American would cause confusion if talking about people from the continent. Luckily, aside from this little thing called context, we also have the clear and easy to understand terms 'North American' and 'People from the Americas'.
  USian does not solve anything and creates additional problems. It's an idiotic term used by idiots. Give up, and be at peace with being an American (as stated on your passport).
  Good boy.
  
  --
  If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
28. Re:In other news.. by tsm_sf · 2011-03-31 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  It's a lot easier, faster, and probably cheaper to just hire the people who wrote it to make changes you want. If the people behind it are trying to make money on it, why on earth wouldn't they make the improvements you want, since you're offering to pay them for it?
  
  I'd like to mention that the option you bring up here is woefully overlooked in its various forms. I've had clients bemoan the fact that they can't use an otherwise perfect piece of software in their project because the license is too restrictive.
  
  The simple solution is to get ahold of the author and ask them to sell you a license that will work with what you are trying to do! They can do this! It's theirs to license!
  
  --
  Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
29. Re:In other news.. by dgatwood · 2011-03-31 10:00 · Score: 2
  
  Why waste time with individual consumers who are fickle, stupid, and above all, cheap, and are going to copy everything on BitTorrent anyway?
  Because if you depend on corporate use to sustain your business, you're going to be very disappointed unless your product is in the IT space or is something very generic like a word processor. For other products, you can't make enough money that way to cover your costs.
  
  Diving into someone else's codebase and trying to get a handle on it and start making nontrivial improvements on it is pretty hard, and time-consuming. It's a lot easier, faster, and probably cheaper to just hire the people who wrote it to make changes you want.
  And that's great for the employees of the open source software company. Not so great for the company itself.
  What you're also failing to understand is that many of those folks who want extra features are likely to want more than you as the original author can provide in the time allotted. Thus, they're going to end up bringing in people to do some of the work anyway. Once they cross that threshold, the incremental cost for them to do all of the work they need is noise.
  Finally, many of the companies who want new features would want exclusivity for those features, or would want specific tie-ins to their own internal systems, which is work that isn't inherently useful to the community as a whole. And that work is almost never easier to contract out than to do in-house. It's often not even feasible to do without being on-site. Over time, this results in hordes of in-house staff at dozens of companies who all understand your code base and can add other features as needed, making your support contract unnecessary overhead for those companies.
  Eventually, this leads to those employees realizing that they can make more money as consultants, and now you have hordes of consultants out there making money off your code instead of the original programmer.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
30. Re:In other news.. by hey! · 2011-03-31 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  Java is slow? Compared to what? For what kind of task? Even in the pre JIT compilation days, I thought Java wasn't so bad given what it is.
  The biggest problem with Java was a culture of over-engineering that grew up around it. Anybody can write a slow program if they make it complicated enough. The incredibly rich software ecosystem of Java makes it incredibly easy to over-engineer an application by glomming together huge chunks of pre-built functionality. That's why the Java world needs something like OSGI, which is essentially a Service Oriented Architecture framework for stuff running on a single virtual machine.
  The legitimate speed complaints about Java as a platform (as opposed to over-engineered apps) were largely addressed by JIT compilation, although there are some problem domains where there is never enough speed. What has bedeviled the Java world since is complexity. It didn't help that that shiny container managed persistence hammer in the J2EE toolbox was hopelessly borked. Sun also badly mismanaged J2ME, trying to make it a success by working with third party implementers, who in turn were offering J2ME to handset manufacturers, who in turn were beholden to mobile carriers, who had all kinds of perverse incentives. This could be seen as another reflection of the cultural acceptance of excessive complexity. It's hard to imagine how J2ME could thrive in such an environment, but apparently Sun thought it could make it work. It took Apple to break the carriers' death grip on mobile technology. Google, riding on Apple's coattails, wisely chose to give Sun's moribund, least-common-denominator J2ME initiative. If they hadn't, they'd never have been able to achieve rough parity with Apple's iOS.
  Android is a bright spot in the Java world, but not the only one. A consensus seems to be emerging on how to develop web apps and services in a simpler, less tedious way, without sacrificing some of the things that formerly drove complexity up (e.g. distributed transactions). The timing of Oracle's acquisition of Java is fortuitous (for Oracle), because a lot of good things are happening in the Java world ... except perhaps for Oracle's acquisition of Sun's Java IP.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
31. Re:In other news.. by hairyfeet · 2011-03-31 10:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'd actually argue that RH is a hell of a lot worse off than they should be, thanks to the "free as in beer!" brigade actively fucking them over. I mean here is a company that puts its money where its mouth is and donates more code than most other companies combined yet thanks to the "Free beer!" brigade nearly 30% of the web servers are running not RH but CentOS, which was originally created by a hardware company that wanted to use RH's tools but were too greedy to give RH a dime.
  So I'd argue that RH and the rest of the F/OSS companies will never be more than a blip on the radar because GPL lets the "free beer!" brigade screw over any company that dares go GPL. Look at how many GPL companies have died or gone on life support simply because the "free beer!" brigade can't stand the thought of paying a cent even if it ultimately hurts them and the community by leaving less vendors, developers, QA, etc.
  I'd say F/OSS is a classic example of the tragedy of the commons and the free rider problem, and while a few companies like RH managing to survive thanks to PHBs that don't like having ANY software without a license doesn't negate the fact that the reason F/OSS has less resources for...well pretty much everything, is because there are so many free riders compared to paying customers. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if MSFT or Apple makes more in a month than RH does in a two year period, there are simply too many leeching and not enough paying.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
32. Re:In other news.. by WeatherGod · 2011-03-31 10:28 · Score: 2
  
  I'll give you another: Enthought. They drive the development community around NumPy, SciPy, and Matplotlib. They do sell packaged versions (EPD), but primarily derive their revenue from selling targeted software development services to companies. Admittedly, it is a BSD style license, not GPL, but those companies were free to develop their software using the same tools themselves. Enthought makes money because they have the mineshaft and the experience to best utilize those packages. The business models surrounding free software are different from traditional business models. This does not make them any less valid, only different.
33. Re:In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-31 11:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your ignoring the fact that Red Hat and other GPL companies are just as much users of the free beer brigade as they are contributors. In fact, I remember when Red Hat was nothing more than pre packaged versions of other peoples code that they (got for free) and didn't contribute hardly anything at all back to the community other than making Linux a little bit easier to install.
  While you consider that having to re-share your modifications and contributions to code that you got for free in the first place as a tragedy, the truth is companies like Red Hat would not have existed in the first place if it wasn't for that horrible pool of software that can be taken from and used freely as long as you then share your modifications back to that pool.
  You can't really complain about others standing on the backs of companies like Red Hat as they build themselves up, when Red Hat and others originally built themselves up in the exact same way. I'd say that's the beauty of the GPL and the free beer brigade.
34. Re:In other news.. by WorBlux · 2011-03-31 11:50 · Score: 2
  
  Red-hat is a support and solutions company, that just happens to have it's own OS to offer as a platform in it's support and solutions.(It isn't a platform company) Those on CentOS either aren't at a level where they don't need support or at a level where they can self-support. Either way they weren't potential customers of Rh's in the first place. And in fact because the CentOS community didn't have an intimate hand developing the platform, they are at a disadvantage if they tried to compete with RH's support and solutions.
35. Re:In other news.. by martyros · 2011-03-31 21:42 · Score: 2
  
  ...yet thanks to the "Free beer!" brigade nearly 30% of the web servers are running not RH but CentOS...
  RH doesn't mind CentOS -- the people who run CentOS and stay there generally wouldn't have been paying for RH anyway; and it's an opportunity to start free, realize you actually need support (or that support is cheaper than hiring an army of IT people capable of doing it themselves), and upgrade to RedHat.
  
  --
  TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Re:Yeah right by H0p313ss · 2011-03-31 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

You do realize that you can already debug it and step through because it's client side?

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Just like all other software by MobyDisk · 2011-03-31 07:15 · Score: 2

The FSF wants all software released under a free software license. So it really isn't news that they want Javascript software released under a free software license.
Re:Yeah right by doishmere · 2011-03-31 07:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, the source is already technically available, since they ship you non-compiled javascript code. FSF's has several problems with this. 1) Gmail has not granted the user the right to modify the Javascript code. 2) Even if (1) is conceded, the FSF is arguing that the obfuscated code transmitted to the client browser does not truly constitute source code. They would like a link to be placed in a comment in the obfuscated code to the original, un-obfuscated code. There is a broader problem, however; even if a website transmits GPL'd code in the clear, the user does not have any easy way to replace the transmitted code with their modified code. They would like browsers to support hot-swapping websites' scripts with modified copies.
Re:Yeah right by adamchou · 2011-03-31 07:17 · Score: 2

Considering that Javascript runs on the client side, I don't see how someone couldn't already do that. On top of that, if someone can hack the server side by exploiting a flaw found in client side code, then that is EXACTLY the reason why the unobfuscated source code should be released. Server side could should not be susceptible to an exploit a client can induce by manipulating code or data packets.

What I don't understand is what the hell the FSF is asking for. JavaScript runs on the client side and the source code is already available.
JavaScript is client-side by Ironchew · 2011-03-31 07:18 · Score: 2

Releasing the client-side code isn't a big deal (it's right there in the page source!) I'd be more interested in the server-side code.
1. Re:JavaScript is client-side by h4rr4r · 2011-03-31 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  It is a huge deal. It is right there in the page source, and you do not have the right to do a thing with it according to the current license on that code. Giving you the four freedoms on software you are running is a huge deal and the goal of the FSF.
2. Re:JavaScript is client-side by Terwin · 2011-03-31 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  With the stated reason of: "so that users can trust their service", the important part is being able to examine the source-code.
  Admittedly the GWT generated JavaScript is not very reader-friendly, but it is all there for you to look at if you should choose.
3. Re:JavaScript is client-side by twebb72 · 2011-03-31 07:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I would agree that client side code is (relatively) accessible via the programmer (even if it is compressed); however trusting their server side execution of those includes is really where the trust factor comes into play. Most browsers will lock down cross domain requests. The real power is controlling what the server serves to the users that use that include.
  For example, www.xyz.com decides to include a couple lines libraries from google.com, say, jquery, and analytics. By virtue of making the include, that third party site has the ability of pass messages back and forth via code generation (to bypass the cross domain issues) and manipulate the DOM of www.xyz.com in however it sees fit. Now, a security minded person wouldn't include a resource that's off-site, for this very reason. Good examples of this are bank sites like usaa.com. No where on that site will you see a third party domain resource, once you've signed to your account. Putting the resource files on www.xyz.com makes a lot of sense for versioning, but also securing the site from potential hacks of the third party (hacking that google's analytics includes or akamai servers is a juicy opportunity, but only if you could execute code server side).
  When it comes to javascript, the best way to secure your site is to host your own resources, and DON'T use off site includes that are from untrusted sources. Even if the source is trusted, it doesn't mean your in the clear. Your best bet, is to always host your own site resources.
Re:over the top by betterunixthanunix · 2011-03-31 07:19 · Score: 2

What exactly makes the complaint over the top? The purpose of the free software foundation is to promote free software. A web app is software, and the AGPL has not exactly caught on yet. It seems entirely reasonable and in line with their goals for the FSF to push for Gmail to become free software.

We cannot go around talking about how modern and awesome web apps are, then turn around and claim that the FSF has no business discussing the implications of web apps on software freedom.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:If the rest of the world worked like the intern by h4rr4r · 2011-03-31 07:25 · Score: 2

You should be able too. You can always replace the code on your devices to be sure.
Most people might not care, but that does not mean anything. Most of those people would be ok without freedom of speech or freedom of thought either.
Re:Crap Idea by h4rr4r · 2011-03-31 07:35 · Score: 2

Wow, that is one really good troll.
They already give you a copy of this code numbnuts, the FSF just wants them to change the license on it. Confiscation is done against your will. the FSF does not have the force of law they just are asking.
The FSF is never demeaned when they try to have software come under a free software license, that is their goal at all times.
Javascript is evil! Use GnuWebScript! by mveloso · 2011-03-31 07:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

You may not know it, but the website you're reading RIGHT NOW is a festering hotbed of evil. EVIL. Evil code that will steal your information, kill your wife and children, and damage the transmission on your car.
The ONLY way around that is to use our new FSF GnuWebScript, which is Totally Open and Free. Not only is it a Force for Good, it whitens your teeth and makes your toes smell nicer. It will never do those evil and nasty things that the Javascript does, because it's not Javascript - it's GnuWebScript!
GnuWebScript is a free side-set* of ECMAscript, a tragically unfree industry standard. GnuWebScript implements everything in ECMAscript slightly differently using free, non-proprietary language extensions.
GnuWebScript - to be free you must chain yourself to it!
* side set is not a superset or a subset - it's a sideset.
Re:Yeah right by Ruke · 2011-03-31 07:44 · Score: 2

The problem with this logic is that cross-site-scripting, flash, hell, even your garden-variety "computer virus" all require you to run software "only on your own computer." Any hot-swapping technology has to be implemented with extreme care, and even then, you're still opening up a new attack vector. I seem to recall Greasemonkey, an open-source Firefox addon which allowed users to run external scripts within their browsers, having a history of vulnerabilities to this type of attack.
Re:i guess that was a sanctioned comment by digitalsushi · 2011-03-31 07:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

I feel like it's asking too much. The concern is, "hey gmail maybe your code triggers some js machine bugs, and we dont trust it." That's valid. But asking them to open source it for inspection, well that lets other folks pick the pieces up and start hawking their own version. Isn't there a middle ground [to ask for, and be denied]? I've just become jaded enough to start agreeing with that crappy business model "let the 10% that complain cancel their service". So long ago that seemed like a joke answer a fake company would use, but now we see it all the time. And I agree with it, alas. If you dont trust gmail, dont use it. Dont ask for their trade secrets either under the veil of security auditing and the intended benefit of legally copying it, or legitimately security auditing it and haphazardly allowing competing services to glean legal copies. Ask for some NDA access to have yourself or someone you trust inspect it. Just because something can be open sourced, doesn't mean it needs to be.

--
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Re:If the rest of the world worked like the intern by Pentium100 · 2011-03-31 07:47 · Score: 2

I at least want the circuit diagrams and all images of the (E)EPROMs so I can fix the device when it breaks. It was like this in the past (circuit diagrams were in the manuals or in some magazines, at least in the USSR). I can find service manuals for some devices, but I want them included with the device and also have images of the chips that need to be programmed before they can be used.
Re:Yeah right by GameboyRMH · 2011-03-31 07:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Nothing a glorified find-and-replace can't help with. This'll help you get started:
http://unwrongest.com/how-to-decompress-javascript/

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Yeah right by MozeeToby · 2011-03-31 07:55 · Score: 2

Wouldn't FSF's effort be better placed making a tool that intelligently adds whitespace and allows the user to quickly and easily change variable and function names? It would still be above the typical user's level but all it would take is one white hatter de-obfuscate the code and post it somewhere. Seriously, gmail's java script isn't that big, you could probably do it with notepad and find-replace by hand in a couple hours.
Re:i guess that was a sanctioned comment by AdmiralXyz · 2011-03-31 08:51 · Score: 2

The issue is that without the essential freedoms to study, modify and distribute copies of the software, users are at a disadvantage to the developer and that's unjust.
Before parroting boilerplate lines, could you please make an effort to understand the context of what people are talking about? Your quote is great for talking about Matlab or something; here, it makes no sense.

You can already "study" Google's Javascript code: like you said, you can look at it. You can already "modify" Google's Javascript code, just like you can modify any other Javascript code. Try it sometime: type "javascript:foo();" into your browser and watch the magic happen. Nothing is stopping you from disabling Google's Javascript altogether and setting your own scripts to run every time you open mail.google.com. You could even share your custom Javascript with other people if they want to use it: behold, you're distributing copies. What rights, exactly, are you arguing for? And what are you talking about, "disadvantage to the developer"? You can see exactly what the Javascript does, and you can disable or modify some or all of it at your whim.

--
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
I don't see the point by grumbel · 2011-03-31 08:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't quite see the point. Sure it would be nice to have the Javascript under a Free Software license, but that would be very far down my list of priorities, as with Javascript and the Web in general there is one very fundamental difference to regular software: You neither own that stuff nor control it, they do and that is the problem that needs attacking. It doesn't make a difference if they stick a GPL header on top of their code or not, I as I would still be forced to use whatever version they ship me, keeping around an older copy with features they might have changed/removed/whatever doesn't help me when the API to their servers has changes, that old GPL copy might either break or become unusable. The real solution would be to provide standard data driven APIs for webservices, so that I wouldn't depend on their Javascript and HTML code, but could roll my own.
The whole problem with the Web today is that I don't have direct access to my data, but instead can only access it via a whole swoop of HTML and Javascript stuff, that makes it frequently hard or even impossible to actually do certain operation. A very basic example would be backup. Yeah, I can download mail from GMail via POP or IMAP and that will give me some of my mails, but what about chat logs, mail I send, tags, contacts, etc. and a bunch of other meta data that isn't just the mail? Can I backup all that? And even more importantly: Can I actually restore it? If GMail decides to delete my account tomorrow, can I open a new one and restore my backup into the new account? Can I do that when I change mail providers? Will meta data survive the transfer? That is the problem that needs fixing, as almost all webpages suffer from it, even the glorious 100% Free Software ones generally don't give you full import and export capabilities of your data and even when they do the interfaces are often limited and cumbersome.