Taking Action For Free JavaScript

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."

Comments

Gosh!!!

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I never realized visiting a website required me to "sacrifice my freedom"!

Re:Gosh!!!

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Don't make fun of me. The whole notion of non-free Javascript has me clutching my pearls.

Re:Gosh!!!

[hairyfeet]

I think we can all agree that the FSF reached PETA "sea kittens" levels of batshit when they came up with that anvilicious "Windows 7 sins"..sins...really? Are you the fricking pope now Snt IGNUcious?

To me this is the sad part of all this, it doesn't matter how good or noble a group's intentions are they ALWAYS end up being completely batshit if they exist for too long, from FSF and their ever crazier "causes for freedumb!" to PETA and the sea kittens to the head of MADD saying the ultimate goal was to bring back prohibition (yeah, like that worked so well LAST time) it never seems to fail that the batshit end up snatching the mike and making the whole thing a pathetic parody of itself.

Remember when the FSF was all about having choice instead of pushing their agenda, when the whole goal was to make sure there was always an alternative so you didn't HAVE to use proprietary if you didn't want to? Wasn't that nice, didn't they seem a hell of a lot less circle loopy in those days? why oh why must every single cause end up ruled by the completely loony tune?

Re:Gosh!!!

[grcumb]

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?

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.

Re:Gosh!!!

[siride]

Minified JavaScript is for convenience of transport. It's no different from compiled code, which GNU software happily produces.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the FSF was all about having choice instead of pushing their agenda, when the whole goal was to make sure there was always an alternative so you didn't HAVE to use proprietary if you didn't want to? Wasn't that nice, didn't they seem a hell of a lot less circle loopy in those days? why oh why must every single cause end up ruled by the completely loony tune?

Firstly, Stallman founded the FSF and is still president of it.

Secondly, when was the FSF ever about choice? I think you may be confused with the Open Source Initiative (who have never actually accomplished anything of note interestingly enough); the FSF has been bluntly pushing the whole "proprietary software is immoral" ideology from the beginning, nothing has changed on that front. Why do you think they created the GPL instead of just using BSD 3-clause if they actually ever thought the way you seem to think they did?

Re:Gosh!!!

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I thought it was pretty obvious that my Frist Psot was about making fun of the ridiculuous levels of Category Five Hyperbole. I'm not arguing against free software, I'm arguing against batshit-crazy concepts and statements like, oh, I don't know, saying that visiting a website that doesn't subscribe to a particular (rather narrowly and authoritively defined by RMS, I might add) philosophy causes me to "sacrifice my freedom". How can you read that without rolling your eyes? I didn't start the "supercilliousness", HE did.

Re:Gosh!!!

[exomondo]

I think you may be confused with the Open Source Initiative (who have never actually accomplished anything of note interestingly enough); the FSF has been bluntly pushing the whole "proprietary software is immoral" ideology from the beginning, nothing has changed on that front.

I agree, I remember Bruce Perens pointing out that the only real point of difference between him and Richard Stallman in terms of ideology was that whilst he believed Free and non-Free Software should co-exist Stallman believes everything should only ever be Free Software.

Re:Gosh!!!

[ozmanjusri]

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!!!

[exomondo]

If I see 'minified' code I assume it's malware.

wow, i'm sure that's really accurate too.

Re:Gosh!!!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The FSF's position on javascript is perfectly consistent with their position on other software; because javascript is just software. It hardly seems surprising that they would be displeased that government-backed, your-tax-dollars-at-work sites would be relying on proprietary javascript.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck should a website tell you that? 99.9% of all people don't care.

Re:Gosh!!!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It's also worth remembering to evaluate 'fananticism', and decide whether or not 'pragmatic' or 'realistic' are actually good things, in the context of all the players:

If Stallman were, by some cosmic quirk, made omnipotent dictator for life, the question of whether he is 'too fanatical' would start to matter a bit more. As it is, though, Stallman has zero coercive power over just about anybody, and isn't likely to obtain any more(if anything, the SFLC is pretty chill about litigating against even people who voluntarily placed themselves under the terms of the GPL by using GPLed code for some purpose or other, they could turn the screws harder than they do, and I'd take them over the BSA any day...) Be he ever so fanatical, his power is so limited(and so counter-balanced by deep pocketed and well-lawyered proprietary vendors) that his influence on you cannot be greater than, and may be less, than attempts at persuasion and voluntary offers.

Then there's the fact that, given the more or less continual pressure from people who see copyright maximalism and DRM as good for their bottom lines, 'pragmatic' compromising is likely to result in outcomes that converge, more or less swiftly, with those they originally stood against. If one side stands firm, and the other agree's to split the difference, you Zeno your way toward agreement within just a few rounds.

Re:Gosh!!!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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:Gosh!!!

[exomondo]

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.

He has a perfectly valid point within the scope of his ideology but of course this ends up having the 'tivoization' problem anyway, and even if you get around that are you really going to maintain your own forks of javascript programs for individual websites?

Obviously a concern about using non-free software on the web is broadly non-existent, most people use webmail as well as 'cloud' storage and applications and they have no control there at all, so if you're ok with that (and the vast majority are) then when it comes to running javascript programs you're best off just sandboxing the javascript program when you run it, especially given many are going to call out to APIs running on other systems anyway.

I just don't see the practicality of this, you're not going to download and analyze every javascript program on every website you visit and if people want to release their javascript programs in a non-minified form and under a free license they are already free to do so.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So there's over 7 million of us who do?

That's a quorum, let's get this happening!

Re:Gosh!!!

[Kal Zekdor]

>

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.

You realize a bunch of tools already exist to un-minify javascript, yes?

Re:Gosh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple, clear and functional. I like it.

yeah you know i always thought the idea of maintaining my own forks of the javascript code on the websites i visited sounded like a simple and functional idea.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Cajun Hell]

a website should tell you if you're entitled to use something like Greasemonkey to replace their javascript with your own clean version

Why would I ever want some website's opinion about that? I wouldn't even trust a judge's website to correctly guess my decision in the matter of what code I allow my computer to run. Asking websites' opinions just implies they could possibly have a say (or even a vote) in the matter, which is of course completely preposterous.

Re:Gosh!!!

[b4dc0d3r]

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

No. Free Software wants JavaScript to be readable, and understandable. This is a valid point, regardless of the language and the availability of the source code.

We cannot make readable C from a decompilation, mostly because of different compilers and different optimization levels. We can decompile Java and C#/VB.NET because there is one and only one VM or IL definition.

JavaScript minification is only about renaming variables. I can tell you there is only one thing in the way of understanding JavaScript minification. Two, if you include a generic text editor's lack of "replace word only" functionality.

You have to read the de-minified version, just like any other code. You have to read, or if your language is not the same as the author's, translate, the variable names, just like the original source code.

JavaScript as it runs in your browser is exactly the same as it runs interpreted, compiled, or in any other fashion. You have the freedom to block it, you have the freedom to modify it (GreaseMonky is just one of many), you have the freedom to read it, save it, or do whatever else you want. If it executes on your machine, I think the FSF would support any measure of scrutiny you wish to apply before, during, or after executing.

I have read "free" software source code, and found it no more intelligible than minified JavaScript. Some no more readable than a disassembly.

If you are going to object to minified JS, you also have to object to any code which is difficult to comprehend, and then you place a subjective quality on what is truly free. Firefox, to me, is no longer free software. I debugged just the installer for a bug report on ReactOS, and found piles of code which was misleading, in the most complimentary term. I offered to make a change to Doom, which took me 3 times as long as I thought, and ultimately failed to achieve, because the seemingly readable code was slightly obfuscated by the build process.

Either source code is enough, or it has to be readable. If we say readable, we have to define the least common denominator who should be able to read it. If we do that, it becomes a subjective criterion, and probably a moving target.

So here we are, at a crossroads. If a project produces the source code needed to build a complete, binary-perfect copy of their executable(s), but it was run through the C pre-processor, or C++ pre-processor, is that enough? It compiles, it builds with the version of tools the provider used... if you discount the pre-processor, it is effectively the original source code provided to the compiler. Is that enough?

JavaScript is what is provided to the interpreter - minified or not. Is that enough?

I say it is, and I disagree 100% with the FSF on this point. Named variables are nice, but they can be interpreted by the usage, if you are going to read the code.

If you are going to take an ideological stance and say "I don't understand this, therefore it is not enough", you are going to have to establish an objective baseline. I can understand optimized assembly, and some pure hex - is that free enough?

This is the opinion of someone who believes that source is provided for everything that executes, or is interpreted. Surely to fuck if you wrote a compiler, you can understand this. If you wrote an interpreter it is easier to understand.

If you don't understand anything else, think of JavaScript like Spanish. Lots of people understand it, most people don't. In this case, you don't. You are provided all instructions in Spanish. Is it more difficult to understand the instructions if given in Spanish? Of course. But I don't see the objection. Especially if you allow C programs written with Spanish, or French, or any other foreign language to be classified as free.

Let us support the FSF in making all software English only. Or we could just say GFY.

Re:Gosh!!!

[__aaltlg1547]

The FSF's position on javascript is perfectly consistent with their position on other software; because javascript is just software. It hardly seems surprising that they would be displeased that government-backed, your-tax-dollars-at-work sites would be relying on proprietary javascript.

When it's my tax dollars at work, I want the developers using efficient and powerful tools.

Re: Gosh!!!

[pairo]

I seriously doubt anyone would object to your last point. Myself, I'd be proud if you picked my code (were I to actually stoop to writing JavaScript) to masturbate over.

Re:Gosh!!!

[pairo]

Because definitely the main purpose of minifying is to obfuscate code...

Re:Gosh!!!

[peppepz]

Your arguments makes the same level of sense as saying that every software is open source because disassemblers exist. Hint: they don't give you back source code.

Re:Gosh!!!

[citizenr]

Give control back? I never lost my control in the first place.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Kal Zekdor]

Your arguments makes the same level of sense as saying that every software is open source because disassemblers exist. Hint: they don't give you back source code.

Completely different beasts. Have you poked at an unminifier before? They provide easily readable code at the push of a button. Minified JS is not compiled source.

Re:Gosh!!!

[mwvdlee]

If I see 'minified' code I assume it's malware.

If I see minified code, I know the developer pays attention to performance.
It's really half-assed "security by obfuscation" at best, the only reason to minify JS code is because it actually makes quite a significant difference on performance.
Any person able to recognize when code is minified is able enough to quickly reformat it and search&replace names until it's human-readable again.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand all this "renaming the variables to something longer makes the code readable" crap. Does un-minifying give you back the original comments, whitespace grouping, function and variable names as the original? No? Well, then a LOT of information has been lost. Sure, basic flow can be maintained, along with default tabbing/indentation/newline standards, but that is far from being as informative as actual source code (provided the programmer was at half decent to begin with).

Re:Gosh!!!

[peppepz]

You get code without symbol names and types, and that's assuming the authors hadn't outright obfuscated the code, otherwise you also get an entangled code flow.

For comparison we can paste the minified jQuery code into the excellent deminifier that was suggested in your link and compare the outcome with jQuery's open code; I can't directly paste snippets here because slashdot's lameness filter doesn't want me to.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Hypotensive]

OK. Let's say that in order to vote you have to visit a website that uses a Flash plugin to gather your SSN, name, address etc for the purposes of voting. This same Flash plugin also requires that it use your webcam to take a picture of you at your keyboard, and take screenshots of whatever is on your desktop, and run a little scan of the pr0n on your hard drive.

So basically, if you want to vote, you have to give up some unrelated freedoms. This is exactly the same. It says that you can't vote if you exercise your freedom to block the JavaScript. Wait, you say. Why would you want to block the JavaScript? Surely it can't be doing anything that naughty? Well, who knows? These days you have to be an expert to make that kind of judgement. And look at it the other way round. What is there is the whole process of voting that actually *requires* JavaScript? Absolutely nothing. So it should be possible to vote without it, punkt.

Re:Gosh!!!

[chris.alex.thomas]

What an awful idea......

When I change the dom structure of my website and the according javascript, you'll be required to change your javascript too in order to work with that new structure, when I change the result of a webservice, or call a new webservice or split into two webservice that was previous one, you'll be required to record your customised version of that too.

so basically, no, your fantasy idea is just that, fantasy, nobody in their right mind would do it, it would constantly force you to work for nothing with practically zero payback and if you did this on multiple websites, you'd quite literally be committing yourself to hundreds of hours of unnecessary work just so you can masturbate over the fact that you have the source code.

you like that idea? then you sir are welcome to it, but I as a web site developer will provide you ZERO HOURS of customer support when it breaks and I will redirect every person who asks me about this topic to your inbox and you can deal with them.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Kal Zekdor]

That's true, but it's generally enough information to figure out what you need to. Comparing unminifiers to disassemblers is just facetious; they're on an entirely different scope.

I really don't understand the arguments against proprietary software. It's generally just people whining about things not being free (as in cost). That's not to say I don't get the benefits of open source software. Open source is awesome. It allows amortization of technical debt across an industry, rather than a company. Which is a great thing. However, a company choosing to keep their software internal is not a sin. Sometimes it's stupid, but sometimes it's not (e.g. maintaining competitive advantage in your industry). Sometimes it just doesn't make economic sense to release your software to the world, and people should understand and respect that. (Not to imply I know your thoughts on subject.)

Re:Gosh!!!

[magic maverick]

Well, except that all the useful variable and function names are gone. There are no comments. And, you know, I think it's not nearly as useful as it would be to just have the original code in the first place... Minified JS is closer to compiled source than you think. The preferred version to edit is not the deassembled version, but the original with all the nice variable and function names etc.

Re:Gosh!!!

[ozmanjusri]

You don't need to.

Try using Greasemonkey for a while - There are already plenty of scripts out there that'll change the way you see and use the web.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Paradigma11]

replying to undo moderation.

Re:Gosh!!!

[SerpentMage]

he's visiting too many porn sites ;) ;)

Re:Gosh!!!

[SerpentMage]

Wow, taking a simple example and extrapolation the crap out of it! I hate this line of reasoning that if you do X, then automatically we do Y, and since we know Y is bad, so must X. The problem in your reasoning, is that Y does not necessarily follow X!

I also find it quite crazy that people like yourself are saying that JavaScript is evil because it could do naughty things. Wow, have script kiddies come this far? Javascript can't do squat outside of the browser, unless there is 1) a bug in the browser (gets fixed), 2) you click an effen button that says, "hey trample all over my machine because I am so stupid to put 1 and 1 together" Real hackers use the browser to install crapware that is responsible for the damage that we hear about.

Re:Gosh!!!

[LourensV]

So here we are, at a crossroads. If a project produces the source code needed to build a complete, binary-perfect copy of their executable(s), but it was run through the C pre-processor, or C++ pre-processor, is that enough? It compiles, it builds with the version of tools the provider used... if you discount the pre-processor, it is effectively the original source code provided to the compiler. Is that enough?

I believe Stallman answered that question already, and as you would expect from him, it's a smart answer too. In the GPL (v3, but it goes back all the way to v1) it says "The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." So, if the creator of the source code actually works on the preprocessed source all the time, then it's okay to redistribute only that. If, in fact, any work done on the program is typically done on the original, non-preprocessed source, then that is the source code and that has to be distributed. This neatly avoids having to define a minimum level of readability by simply requiring that all users/developers be equal.

So, for JavaScript, if the authors actually do their programming directly on the minified version, then distributing only that would be okay. If they don't, and use a non-minified version for development (which everyone does), then I'd want to have that original version as well before I'd call it Free software.

Re:Gosh!!!

[KGIII]

That is like .1% of the population.

Re:Gosh!!!

[KGIII]

I love Greasemonkey. It is amazing what people manage to accomplish with it. I have an online game, Kingdom of Loathing, that I play and it is fine without it until after you have installed Greasemonkey and a bunch of scripts. After you've installed those you'll never want to play the game without them again. The neat thing is that some of the functionality offered by the various scripts finds its way into the game itself. That's kind of awesome.

Another site is Fark. There aren't as many scripts for it now but there used to be quite a few. It turns out that the functionality added by the GM scripts was so good that they've pretty much negated the need for the scripts by simply adding those features to the site either as options or default configurations/use. It is really impressive what people manage to accomplish with JavaScript. I realize that it isn't "free" but if it isn't abused and is well authored it really does a lot to improve the web.

I do, of course, surf with NoScript enabled though. Some people don't get the "well authored" and, similarly, abuse the functionality. For those not running JavaScript I can see the issues. Some sites are non-functioning without it.

Re:Gosh!!!

[KGIII]

Maybe they don't want you to read, improve, or share it? I don't really know their motivation but, well, perhaps they don't. I don't suppose everyone is as sharing as some of us are. I've released pretty much everything I've written for personal use or to guide others. I see no reason to not do so. I am pretty sure not everyone is as sharing of their bad code as I am nor do they want to be hassled with having to deal with people trying to improve it, respond to it, or share it. They may also not want to deal with any potential legal liability for sharing the code as some may assume that shared code comes with some sort of warranty of merchantability. I know that last one sounds absurd but I wouldn't put it past someone.

Re:Gosh!!!

[krups gusto]

Your statement that minied code is only about variable naming is incorrect. While that's involved - minification also strips out any comments. Removes white space. And merges multiple files/libraries into a single file.

Also - it's becoming more common to have dynamically generated javascript. Which saves initial page load time, but increases the difficulty of understanding what the web application is doing.

Ie, your premise is wrong and would seem to indicate that you've never tried to work with modern minified (much less obfuscated) code.

Where the topic is up for discussion though is whether this matters or not. I suspect I at least don't care too much about this in practice. Other than javascript libraries, I have difficulty thinking of a javascript application that would make sense to contribute to or fork. Though I do agree with the general FSF argument that there's an increasing risk of users not having control of their machines any more as the market moves towards using only webapps.

Re:Gosh!!!

[KGIII]

You have some strange understanding of reality that I'm not privy to. Literally none of that is happening.

"But if you give him a screwdriver he could make a car and use that car to drive somewhere where he could build a gun. He could then use that gun to rob a store! He could then use that money to buy more screwdrivers so that he could build a bomb and blow up our children!!!"

The line between passionate and zealot is pretty clear and it was clearly crossed long ago. Zealots have no place in our future. Hopefully...

Re:Gosh!!!

[MrMickS]

Whoosh .... that was the sound of the point of the GP going over your head.

What is the difference between minified Javascript or badly named variables? I've had to maintain code before that was written by others where the variable names were apparently chosen at random. Each company I've worked at has had different naming conventions. You develop the ability to ignore the names and look at what is going on.

If you can't understand what is going on when you un-minify the code then the problem is yours, not the author of the code. At least that's been my understanding. Changes I made to wu-ftpd, UW imapd, and innfeed required me to improve my understanding of the methodology used by each of the teams developing them. As far as I know there is no requirement in the GPL for source code to be readable and well commented, who would judge that anyway. Why should Javascript be held to a higher, arbitrary, standard?

Re:Gosh!!!

[rjstanford]

As it is, though, Stallman has zero coercive power over just about anybody, and isn't likely to obtain any more

Yup. Especially with people who've actually met him. Sadly apt username for that comment, btw.

Re:Gosh!!!

[greg1104]

Your case then is that because some code is unreadable, obfuscated code might be just as useful as the original. That's possible, but you're arguing about an edge case. When someone is providing source code for a program in order to make it free, they should provide the same version of that code that development is done against, period. In some cases that code will be unreadable, and the maintainer has to spend a lot of time to change it too. But in many much more common situations, the code is much easier to read and work with in its original form, and these minimization/obfuscation steps make it harder to read or use.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Lennie]

He didn't even mind minified. A javascript beautifier can fix that just fine. Some browsers even have a built-in beautifier.

And a lot of minified Javascript files actually contain information like the projectname, company, author and license as the first line.

He doesn't like the ones which for example Google Docs uses: 'in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long'.

Re:Gosh!!!

[rjstanford]

So, for JavaScript, if the authors actually do their programming directly on the minified version, then distributing only that would be okay. If they don't, and use a non-minified version for development (which everyone does), then I'd want to have that original version as well before I'd call it Free software.

In fairness, nobody is actually calling it Free software. The FSF is just saying that you should stop using software that isn't Free.

This also means, btw, that you should stop obeying traffic signals, driving any car built in the last few decades, flying, or using telephones - its not as if telcom infrastructure is Free software, after all.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Lennie]

You don't need to do it by hand, look up 'Javascript beautifier'.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Lennie]

If you read the articles, you can see he clearly doesn't like obfuscated scripts (the ones where method names are replaced with single letters), he doesn't have a problem with minified where only spaces and comments are removed.

Most minified scripts even include license information and a project name and a version number, so you can get the original there. If it's an open source project.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Lennie]

Maybe because when you visit a website, some require you to run the scripts to make it functional.

He specifcally mentioned government websites, he wants government websites to be held to a higher standard.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Nerdfest]

I probably should have said 'obsfucated'. When you see code that's mainly in hex and decrypts itself, malware is a decent assumption I'd say.

Re:Gosh!!!

[lxs]

Of course not.

if(d){
          myfunction();
          }

Is much less readable than

if(everythingisinplace){
          releasearmyoftrainedattackmonkeys();
          }

And by extension evil.

Re: Gosh!!!

[Mabhatter]

I can't help but think this is like going to a dinner party at somebody's house then complaining about their choice of table settings.

"I know you set the table with all the proper implements to make Emily Post proud, but I'd rather eat at YOUR table with my hunting knife and bare fingers.."

In cases like websites the owner generally provides everything you need to use the page. This might mean renting fancy third party JavaScript tools to make the site easier to develop or comply with guidelines needed... Ultimately KavaScriptvis just a SCRIPT that browsers understand, and doesn't require extra USER side licenses like ActiveX or Java or .Net would.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Hypotensive]

Javascript can't do squat outside of the browser

Increasingly, there is little outside of the browser that is in any way important. But that's only tangentially relevant and nowhere did I say that JavaScript is evil. The whole issue of whether it's a good thing to require JavaScript on a website whose supposed purpose is to register votes is exactly the same as whether it's a good thing to require always-on Internet connectedness on an Xbox whose supposed purpose is to play single-player games.

Re:Gosh!!!

[geminidomino]

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

Why should I need the website to tell me that? Of course I'm permitted to do that. They might not WANT me to, and might think they can TRY to tell me I'm not, but that's hardly the same thing.

Re:Gosh!!!

[CapOblivious2010]

It's far worse than that - I heard that many schools require students to read copyrighted books, thereby forcing them to be exposed to text which they cannot re-use in mashups or whatever. Oh the humanity!

Re:Gosh!!!

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:Gosh!!!

[ceoyoyo]

No, you're ALWAYS entitled to replace their javascript with something of your own. It doesn't matter whether it's free or not.

There are disadvantages to using software that you don't have the source for. Personally, I think those disadvantages are balanced with advantages for most people, most of the time. But for javascript the only disadvantage to proprietary code is that the owner of the website has to pay to use it. It doesn't affect the user's freedom in any way. This is just the FSF trying to push people around because "stuff you pay for bad."

Re:Gosh!!!

[TheCRAIGGERS]

It seems you don't live in the USA. A place where, by modifying the source in your browser, you can be brought up on hacking charges, wire fraud, violating the DMCA, etc.

You ever actually read any of those TOS that you supposedly agree to the moment you navigate to a webpage?

Re:Gosh!!!

[gstoddart]

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

Well, from a certain perspective, I don't actually care what a website believes I'm entitled to do.

Since I'm running no-script, I'm probably not running their scripts anyway except for a very small set of sites. I'm under no obligation to run their scripts, see their ads, or pretty much anything. I will decide what my machine does and doesn't run.

All those sites who think I shouldn't have a back button or a context menu? Tough, not my problem you wrote a shitty web site.

which is the FSF's raison d'etre

No, the FSF exists to assert users should be given the source code to any piece of software they encounter -- and not everyone agrees with the FSF on everything. I think likening them to PETA is a fair comparison in that it's a rabid, ideological position.

Re:Gosh!!!

[geminidomino]

I do, in fact, and while things are more than a little clusterfucked here, I've yet to see anyone brought up on anything for using NoScript or Adblock.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Art Challenor]

I think we can all agree that the FSF reached PETA "sea kittens" levels of batshit[...][

Unlike the MPAA, RIAA, etc. who have clearly waaay passed the batshit level, but have bought enough politicians that they get their agenda embeded in legislation.

Re:Gosh!!!

[amicusNYCL]

A place where, by modifying the source in your browser, you can be brought up on hacking charges, wire fraud, violating the DMCA, etc.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while, well done. Find a single case where someone has been brought up on any charge because they asked for code that is publicly available for distribution, they received the code, they changed some of the code, and ran it on their own machine. When you're changing Javascript code you aren't "hacking" shit except for your own computer. You're not even interacting with the server in any way. The DMCA doesn't have shit to say about the issue either.

You ever actually read any of those TOS that you supposedly agree to the moment you navigate to a webpage?

What does that have to do with anything? Case law is what matters, not whatever language someone writes which they pretend that everyone agrees with.

Re:Gosh!!!

[cinky]

Or, you know, you can NOT use my site if you don't like my javascript... that's the only thing you're entitled to...

Re:Gosh!!!

[cinky]

If software (and generally computer) business worked like Richard Stallmann envisions it we wouldn't be even half way where we are now. Still waiting for GNU Hurd...

Re:Gosh!!!

[yusing]

Actually, no, we can't all agree to that. Many worthwhile org's (including many funded by your tax dollars) sometimes go overboard in the vigorous pursuit of their goals, just as many races are won by the not-so-swift.

Re:Gosh!!!

[cas2000]

who the fuck are you that i should let you run whatever you want on my machine just because i stumbled across your site on a google search or a link from some other site?

i have no reason to trust you - or your ad network - or anyone else by default. i sure as hell won't let you run code on my machine just because you want or expect me to.

the reason i run NoScript is because the web is full of untrustworthy sites that attempt to run spyware or worse.

i don't want random strangers running code on my machine, any more than i want to share my toothbrush with them. it's unclean, and unhygienic, and guaranteed to fuck up your day (or your life)

running a browser without script and ad blocking is the internet equivalent of visiting a junkie squat and jabbing yourself with every dirty syringe you find on the floor.

i've run across a few sites that try to make their site unreadable without javascript - that just guarantees i won't even bother sticking around long enough to bother figuring out if i ever want to come back (and if i *really* want to read the page/article that i stumbled upon, i'll just view it in lynx or use wget or write a scraper....but it's generally not worth the bother, there's millions of other sites on the net that aren't so obnoxious)

Re:Gosh!!!

[exomondo]

RMS and the FSF hve been pretty upfront about their goals since the beginning and these have not changed.

That's the problem, computing has changed though. They only care about the code running on the computer you own, which is why this is only about client-side Java, so I wondered if you moved all of that to the server and just had a FOSS thin client that basically just had to display pixels and send input (kind of OnLive style) that would be ok? Or if you used a free client to remote into a server you don't own and run the non-free software there?

Re:Gosh!!!

[exomondo]

But for javascript the only disadvantage to proprietary code is that the owner of the website has to pay to use it.

Why? The difference between Free and Proprietary software has nothing to do with cost.

Re:Gosh!!!

[ceoyoyo]

It's a website and code written in a scripting language. If you don't like the way it's working, go ahead and change it, or just swap out the whole thing for your own. The user is in complete control. There isn't any loss, or gain, of "freedom."

By the way, "free" and "proprietary" aren't proper nouns.

Re:Gosh!!!

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...correct me if I'm in the wrong, you are a lawyer and I'm just a fixit guy and bass player, but hasn't the SCOTUS pretty consistently ruled in favor of licenses like EULA and shrink wrap licenses? Again I may be wrong but the only thing I can remember even being close to ruling for the consumer was the courts saying if they change the terms they have to notify you and give you the ability to leave without penalty which is why we get so many "terms of service change" notices from pretty much all of the major players.

I mean if you can name the case where the SCOTUS ruled that TOS, EULAs, and shrink wraps don't count? Good, great, love to read it, but while I can't think of anybody that has been busted yet for changing websites AFAIK the court has been pretty consistent in siding with the license, no matter how unfair or lop sided it is.

Re:Gosh!!!

[Kal Zekdor]

Right. Except that Google Docs is already free as in cost.

If you think Google Docs is free (as in cost) you are deluding yourself. Google didn't create and release this webapp just because they're nice people. It's a platform play, drawing in users to sell their true product, advertising. Do you really think they take on the costs of servers, bandwidth, and storage, without any intention of recouping these costs? Besides hardware costs, there's also the cost of developing and maintaining the software. While, true, they could amortize these costs by making Google Docs Open Source, if they do so it becomes trivial for someone else to set up a competing service using the software Google developed, meaning Google loses the point of developing the app in the first place, that Platform play. If Google were forced to release all of their web apps as open source, Google Docs wouldn't have been made in the first place. I love open source software as much as the next guy, and I would absolutely love it if everyone decided to release everything as open source, but the real world isn't so simple. So, before you start on the "Proprietary software is evil" bandwagon, stop for two seconds and consider the economics of the system you're trying to derail.

Re:Gosh!!!

[exomondo]

Huh? Did you read what I wrote and the quoted passage I was responding to? Your reply suggests you didn't. Perhaps you should try and explain the point you think I was trying to make.

Re:Gosh!!!

[ceoyoyo]

The passage you quoted was mine. I wrote it. Yes, I read it too. Your response didn't really make any sense, so I had to try and assume what you meant. Perhaps you'd like to make yourself clearer than a one word question ("why?") and a throwaway rhetorical sentence?

Re:Gosh!!!

[exomondo]

Your response didn't really make any sense, so I had to try and assume what you meant.

And what was it that you assumed I meant?

Perhaps you'd like to make yourself clearer

Ok, what you wrote was:

But for javascript the only disadvantage to proprietary code is that the owner of the website has to pay to use it.

However that statement doesn't make sense because proprietary (and free) software isn't about cost, for example I don't have to pay to use proprietary freeware.

Re:Gosh!!!

[ceoyoyo]

You did notice I said the only disadvantage right? I'm willing to stipulate even that might not be a problem in many cases, such as with proprietary freeware. So, with that stipulation you have no objections to what I said?

Re:Gosh!!!

[exomondo]

You did notice I said the only disadvantage right? I'm willing to stipulate even that might not be a problem in many cases, such as with proprietary freeware. So, with that stipulation you have no objections to what I said?

In that case I think you mean it's a potential disadvantage with proprietary software, although it's also a potential disadvantage with free software (not freeware) too as you can charge for free software. If that is indeed what you meant then yes you're right.

Re:Gosh!!!

[cinky]

and you completely free to use noscript. but don't expect my source code. no, you're not entitled to it, period...

Re:Gosh!!!

[amicusNYCL]

I'm not a lawyer, I just admire NYCL's work. I'm not sure how binding the various EULAs are considered to be, but I've never heard of anyone brought up on charges for running their own Javascript code in their own browser. With Opera, for example, you can configure it to run your own Javascript (or CSS) files on any or all sites. That's not even a plugin or third-party add-on, it's been an option for as long as I can remember. A EULA might generally be considered a binding agreement, but I don't think they are allowed to remove rights that you have. A EULA that basically says that you waive your first amendment rights I don't think would hold up. I have the right (or privilege) to run whatever code I want to run on my browser, a website EULA should not be able to say that I am not allowed to run whatever arbitrary Javascript code I want to in my browser while I'm looking at their site, even if that code is a modified version of their code.

Re:Gosh!!!

[hairyfeet]

Well I'm afraid you haven't kept up with the SCOTUS because so far they have ruled in favor of EULA, shrink wrap, and TOS as long as they give you a notice of change and give you the option to opt out without penalty, such as a carrier changing their TOS has to give you the option of saying "That is not what I agreed to" and walking away without getting dinged by a fee for doing so.

So while there is no current case that I know of involving website TOS and browsers so far the courts have ruled pretty consistently in favor of the courts, no matter that in the case of shrink wraps its completely lop sided and thanks to the fact nobody will take back software once its been opened unlike TOS and EULAs you can't escape without penalty. Considering how heavily they have ruled in favor of licenses it really wouldn't surprise me one bit if a website could scream DMCA violation and win, in fact I can't even think of a case where the court ruled against the corp when it comes to DMCA with the exception of fair use such as parodies or background music such as "dancing Prince baby".

And whether you admire him or not if you aren't karma trolling you really need to put something in your sig to let people know you aren't him nor a lawyer, because I bet most will do just as I did and see NYCL and automatically think its him. Kinda ironic when there is some guy running around here calling himself "hairytoes" trying to copy me, but when I see NYCL I automatically think its NYC Lawyer.

Re:Gosh!!!

[amicusNYCL]

So while there is no current case that I know of involving website TOS and browsers so far the courts have ruled pretty consistently in favor of the courts, no matter that in the case of shrink wraps its completely lop sided and thanks to the fact nobody will take back software once its been opened unlike TOS and EULAs you can't escape without penalty. Considering how heavily they have ruled in favor of licenses it really wouldn't surprise me one bit if a website could scream DMCA violation and win, in fact I can't even think of a case where the court ruled against the corp when it comes to DMCA with the exception of fair use such as parodies or background music such as "dancing Prince baby".

I don't see how it's possible for the situation described by the person I was replying to to happen. A website TOS saying that I am not allowed to run my own Javascript code or a modified version of their Javascript code is about the same as saying that I'm not allowed to play Solitaire or drink a beer while I'm using their site. It doesn't affect them at all, and they are in no position to try and enforce something like that. If I want to write some Javascript, and execute it on my browser while it has their site loaded, then there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to do that.

And speaking of NYCL, I haven't seen that guy around here in years. We used to get occasional stories from him. It looks like he still updates his blog though.

Re:Gosh!!!

[tzot]

AC: So there's over 7 million of us who do? That's a quorum, let's get this happening!

KGIII: That is like .1% of the population.

Does it really matter what percentage of the population it is? 100% of those who care is a quorum. Whatever the percentage of the remaining population, they don't care; ergo they don't get a vote since they never asked for one.

(A different take: a country might have 100 million population but you don't need more than 50 million votes to win an election with more than 50%.)

Re:Gosh!!!

[KGIII]

If it is only .1% then that's not enough to carry the vote. I don't know where you come from but in my country everyone is allowed to vote except under a few circumstances.

Re:Gosh!!!

[tzot]

I used the word “country” in a parenthesized paragraph, because it wasn't essential to my message. (In my country, btw, voting isn't just allowed; it's obligatory for almost everyone of age; so now I know something about your country and you know something about mine. Let me get back to the issue at hand.)

My reply to your post was that the percentage of the total population is irrelevant to a quorum; it matters only what the percentage is amongst those who care: they care to vote, they care to run a company, they care to run and get elected for congressmen or senators or whatever they are called in each democracy. A fraction of votes over total population is useless (the .1% you mentioned), it's always votes over total voters (the 100% I mentioned).

Loons running the asylum

[Anonymous Coward]

So the FSF still seems to be able to find ways to make themselves more loony and fringe. Nice job guys!

Re:Loons running the asylum

[ShanghaiBill]

So the FSF still seems to be able to find ways to make themselves more loony and fringe. Nice job guys!

Yes, this is pretty pathetic. There are plenty of areas where free software is very important, such as basic computing infrastructure like compilers, operating systems, networking, web standards, and audio/video decoders. But instead they are focusing on the script that makes text blink on some random website.

Re: Loons running the asylum

[Anonymous Coward]

Look this isn't quite so pathetic as you think. The accessibility tools on Linux often depend on running really old browsers on the console. First hand experience. We have upgraded them for ipv6 etc but working js is another matter.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that messed up. There are some really crazy javascript 'programs'. The code IS executing on your machine. If you say some stuff is "ok" if it is non-free and other stuff is not don't expect me to take you seriously. Just because you don't get the problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are there bigger problems? Sure. But that isn't the job of the FSF. The job of the FSF is to promote freedom everywhere.

Not doing so would be hypocritical.

Re: Loons running the asylum

[Score Whore]

free != accessible.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[ChunderDownunder]

Nevertheless the side effect of "loony and fringe" may well be security.

Browser exploits are a community concern. By publishing a stallman-endorsed whitelist of non-harmful JS, turning off JS for all but approved sites could become easier for laypeople.

Is this the sanest way of approaching this? Well I'll let you be the judge.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[ChunderDownunder]

Poignant username! :-)

Re:Loons running the asylum

[flimflammer]

It was honestly embarrassing reading this article.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[exomondo]

So how about a free software license at the top of free software javascript programs that you could check for, if it has that then it is free software and you can inspect the code or do whatever and allow it to run if you are satisfied. That leaves it up to the code author to make the decision.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[exomondo]

Is this the sanest way of approaching this?

No, having to submit the code of your website for review to stallman (or some affiliated group) just to get on this whitelist is a stupid idea and then what happens if you modify it? Submit it again?

Re: Loons running the asylum

[Cenan]

1. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
2. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
3. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
4. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up
5. You're free to do whatever the fuck you want, just don't call us when shit blows up

Re:Loons running the asylum

[peppepz]

They aren't focusing on "the script that makes text blink on some random website". They're worrying about the rising importance of Javascript in everyday computing, which should matter a lot for the FSF given that free software enthusiasts generally start coding on the software / hardware platforms that they use at home or at the school.

We're quickly heading into a future where personal computers are merely a frame running applications which actually are web sites residing on a remote host. So pushing for the adoption of free Javascript frameworks is getting just as important as promoting free C libraries and binaries has been until now.

The FSF had long seen this happening and they've been advocating for freedom in Javascript for years; while a lot of people laughed at them with straw men such as "meh, Stallman wants free blinking text", once again their position - which once appeared to many as a paranoid's stance - is reavealing itself to be quite insightful.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[rjstanford]

We're quickly heading into a future where personal computers are merely a frame running applications which actually are web sites residing on a remote host. So pushing for the adoption of free Javascript frameworks is getting just as important as promoting free C libraries and binaries has been until now.

And yet "Web 2.0" has to be one of the most widely spread open source revolutions ever. All the popular frameworks are already free - by choice and by cultural convention. When an ecosystem comes together with a great ethos of sharing, and in fact the very transport/execution model almost requires it, but the FSF starts picking away at it anyway, you're inevitably going to get some folk who realize that whatever they do they'll get criticized and either stop trying (bad) or start actively closing stuff away to piss them off. That's the danger of an organization like the FSF transitioning deeper into the crazy zone.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[socode]

There is no monopoly on vision, and frankly, the question of the ownership of media and culture, interoperation, access to historical documents etc. has been evident to a large number of people for much longer than you give credit for.

When a paper book went out of copyright, you had the book, and that's all you needed. "The source" might have included a bunch of notes and earlier drafts, but broadly the value was in the finished article.

Software itself is much easier to reason about. The GPL really embodies an equivalence relationship between the "source code" and "object code" of software products. Practically speaking, software was the only area in which this could possibly have made any sense before commodity computer hardware, and digitisation of content production workflow.

So although a recording engineer's "patch sheet" might have shown which way the compressor was set for a specific hit single, or their studio notes might have recorded which note a guitar actually hit and via which microphone, it wasn't digital, it wasn't recorded, it was never considered part of the "product" that was the song, and it isn't so obviously part of "the source" to anything.

Now however there is increasingly little difference between media and software. The DAW files or stems used to construct a hit single, the LaTex used to produce a book, the Java used to write a DVD menu, C file used to compile a library.

For example, to qualify for copyright protection at all, should an organization or individual be required to make available in escrow, the inputs "as customarily used" [e.g. script + equipment list + shooting instructions + concept art for a movie but not costumes, unencrypted searchable rich text and vector graphics files for a book, complete source for a website]? Should a patent grant be allowed to proceed if and only if there are reasonable means by which the patent would be usable by the public after its expiration?

To me, the "real problem" is a determination on where on the line from closed-to-open we as a society should be, and it can't be solved via licenses.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[Warbothong]

There are plenty of areas where free software is very important, such as basic computing infrastructure like compilers, operating systems, networking, web standards, and audio/video decoders. But instead they are focusing on the script that makes text blink on some random website.

Hundreds of millions of users are sacrificing their Freedom to, for example, Facebook and Google's Javascript, which is running on their machines for hour after hour, every single day. Are there hundreds of millions of users running compilers for hour after hour every day? Last I checked, Gentoo wasn't that popular. Free Software is about Freedom for computer users. "Computer users" is not restricted to developers who want to throw together some existing royalty-free libraries to make YetAnotherWalledGardenDataSilo.com. In fact, they're the minority, and they're actively working to undermine the Freedom of everyone else.

The examples you cite as "basic computing infrastructure" are very important, but they also have many mature Free implementations. I spend most of my time on my laptop which uses OpenFirmware, Debian (without non-free), MPlayer, NetSurf and Emacs. That's most bases covered. If I visited a Javascript-powered Web site in a Javascript-enabled browser, I would probably lose some of that Freedom. Hence this campaign.

Re:Loons running the asylum

[327]

So the FSF still seems to be able to find ways to make themselves more loony and fringe. Nice job guys!

Yes, this is pretty pathetic. There are plenty of areas where free software is very important, such as basic computing infrastructure like compilers, operating systems, networking, web standards, and audio/video decoders. But instead they are focusing on the script that makes text blink on some random website.

Javascript is widely used for form validation. It is also more general-public facing than a compiler or any other infrastructure will ever be.

Blinking text? That was mildly funny nearly 20 years ago and didn't require javascript.

BIOS

[MrEricSir]

Wait until Stallman realizes he's "sacrificed his freedom" just by turning on a computer.

Re:BIOS

[game kid]

The BIOS, you say? Stallman's way ahead of you there.

Re:BIOS

[armanox]

I think the specs on the MIPS platform are open, IIRC.

Re:BIOS

[MrEricSir]

Ah yes, nothing says "freedom" like buying a product from the Chinese government.

Re:BIOS

[Anonymous Coward]

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:BIOS

[wmbetts]

It's probably not which is why I'd never use it. It's proven that's where the government hides it's backdoors.

Re:BIOS

[armanox]

In that case you better just make your own chips.

Re:BIOS

[viperidaenz]

Doesn't mean the chip manufacture has open microcode.

Re:BIOS

[agm]

Indeed. Since when was software freedom more important than people freedom?

Re:BIOS

[lister king of smeg]

opensparc & openrisc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSPARC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenRISC

Re:BIOS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Ah yes, nothing says "freedom" like buying a product from the Chinese government.

When your options are a Chinese-OEMed shitbox whose guts are guarded by American lawyers, or a Chinese-OEMed shitbox whose guts aren't guarded by American lawyers...

Re:BIOS

[KingMotley]

I use an abacus to access the internet, and even now and then I swear the government is moving some of the beads while I blink.

Re:BIOS

[SerpentMage]

There was a time when Stallman was needed. BUT like you when I read his bio I thought, WTF? You got to love the comment that by working in text mode you don't have to worry about accidentally moving the mouse. I thought, "really that is your biggest problem in life?" He really needs to grow up. For example why is he not harping on other things? For example SoC? Or what about cars that I can't repair worth a damm! I recently bought a new SUV and the dealer wanted to pop open the hood. I replied, "why bother, after all, all I can do is maybe check the oil!" Going after those things would actually be useful.

Re:BIOS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Or, you know, you can go OpenSPARC or OpenRISC. Or is freedom #1 until it costs cash?

Are you proposing that the FSF come up with the funds to become a fabless semiconductor company, or would they be joining the notoriously inexpensive and OSS-friendly world of reasonably high performance FPGAs?

Re:BIOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Stallman started the GNU project.

This is debatable

[houbou]

The most important aspect of this issue is transparency.

Users should be aware of what's going on.

In theory, it means one should not be able to enter a website without a disclaimer about the site and what it does.

The website authors/owner should be providing the info on automation and/or any info taken from the user and how it is used.it is the user's responsibility to decide if they wish to enter and as such, this means they must agree with the terms of the site.

Now, in the case of federal sites and/or governmental sites, this must be enforced. Basically they should be able to police themselves on this.

More than likely add this to Section 508 when it comes to the US Government.

This issue has been around for a long time when it comes to privacy, cookies use, etc.

To me, it's not about "non-free" JavaScript, but rather, it should be about awareness of the site and it's purpose and whether or not they collect data and what they do with it.

Re:This is debatable

[Dahamma]

*Maybe* I could see trying to convince the government to use free JavaScript libraries, but it's pretty pointless to expect this from most companies. If they aren't going to make the (HTML/XML/whatever) content of their website free, why would they care if the JavaScript included is?

And I do highly disagree with any required "transparency" requirements (ethical or legal) on *entering* a website in general. A user chooses to load the website off of a company's servers, just as a user walks into a retail store. For all you know (and you should probably assume) they record video of you walking in and can create an anonymous profile your gender, approx age, race, etc. How about consumer education rather than ridiculous amounts of extra legislation? (note this is different from sites on which you create accounts and enter personal information, for which there are already legal requirements, and if they are not currently sufficient to protect users should be re-evaluated)

And to cover the obvious counterargument - if they didn't choose to navigate to a site intentionally (eg. it was loaded from another site without their knowledge) that's really the problem of the *linking* site, not the destination (as can happen often with misleading advertisements/sponsored links).

Re:This is debatable

[houbou]

I don't know. I can enter a store and not shop and all they can do is have a look at who I am. But entering a site, means there is actual usable information which can be stored. I do not believe these 2 actions are either related and/or comparable. Transparency should be offered if only because then, when information is taken and/or used, the user who did not read the disclaimer has no basis to complain. So, in a way, transparency is good for the website operators.

Re:This is debatable

[VortexCortex]

The most important aspect of this issue is transparency.
Users should be aware of what's going on.

They do know what's going on. They're the ones doing the "going on".

In theory, it means one should not be able to enter a website without a disclaimer about the site and what it does.

The website authors/owner should be providing the info on automation and/or any info taken from the user and how it is used.it is the user's responsibility to decide if they wish to enter and as such, this means they must agree with the terms of the site.

That's a shit theory. You have the power to disable Images, disable Cookies, disable JavaScript, or even not render the HTML without first looking it over with a text editor. No one can make you enable those. I can't make you give me back a digital token. Do you control your own damn hardware or don't you? I can't be held responsible for users not knowing how to use a damn computer. Any information YOU SEND MY SERVER is sent by you, across the unencrypted internet and is being logged and tracked by the US government and some is being stored by your ISP, my ISP, and the parts I need to make stuff work are being stored on my end. 3rd party advertisements may appear in IFRAMES -- You don't have to render those. That's your fault if you do. Those sites may do who knows what with the DATA YOU SEND them. That sound like a good enough explanation? You want to read a thousand variations of this same generic bullishit on every damn website? I don't. I'd rather users learn how a damn computer works, and learn how to use your own damn PC. Even if you argue we should make folks read a manual and test them before they drive their cars, you can't blame the road or the manufacturer if some fools hops in and wrecks themselves.

Now, in the case of federal sites and/or governmental sites, this must be enforced. Basically they should be able to police themselves on this.

GREAT! You'll be able to check the transparency policy at the public hall of records. The Vogons would be Proud.

More than likely add this to Section 508 when it comes to the US Government.

Go to https://www.section508.gov/ --- If you didn't know what Section 508 was, YOU COULDN'T TELL from the home page of their own damn site. Try it and see. WTF? These are the folks you want in charge of Accessibility?! Whatever. Disabilities are sad. That's not my fault. If it's some service the government requires you to use, then yes, that's fine. However, not every site can be made accessible, not every site can ever afford to try. I do what I can within reason, but the whole world shouldn't have to suffer because something sad happened to some folks. For instance: I make games. Should I not make certain games because some people are blind or deaf or have no arms? Should musicians and sculptors and painters be restricted to only forms of art everyone can appreciate? I don't think so. "Where do we draw the line" -- Protip: you ever ask that damn question the answer is: Step Away From The Pen, you're not qualified.

This issue has been around for a long time when it comes to privacy, cookies use, etc.

Yep, and it's an education issue. Folks have all the power they need to control their computers, and thus control their cookies. ANYONE who actually gives a damn can block all cookies, or any web hosts, they can install a browser plugin to get fine grained control over what cookies are stored. Privacy? Anything you do in public is public, not private -- There's no privacy issue from walking around in a park. There are security cameras and camera phones everywhere. If folks want to use traffic cams to determine what to put on a digital bill board they should be able to. If you don't want to be recorded in public DON'T GO TO THE PARK. Most websites are on th

Re:This is debatable

[Dahamma]

But in the end how much "actual usable information" is stored by an arbitrary web server? Maybe your IP and user agent. Anything more requires the cooperation of some other site that has more specific information about you, which as I said really puts it on *them* and not a random website recording your access of their pages. If you have agreed to give a store your facial profile and your home address and agreed to a TOS letting them share it with other stores, then they theoretically could know who you are and everything you browsed in the store. Same with Facebook Connect.

Really in the end privacy is up to your client and any sites *you* have given personal information to, not the other random websites you access...

Re:This is debatable

[Lennie]

How about a sign next to the door of the shop that they have CCTV ?

That would allow people to choose not to go into the shop.

Sometimes it really is that simple.

Re:This is debatable

[dkf]

Users should be aware of what's going on.

They should be able to become aware if they choose to. Forcing everyone to be aware of everything is just not going to fly. Not everyone wants to read and write code. Not everyone wants to do heart surgery. Not everyone wants to recycle old batteries. Specialization means that there's time to actually become good at doing something.

Re:This is debatable

[Dahamma]

Except that pretty much every store in the US has security cameras these days, so it would be kind of a pointless sign (and most people here know that).

I'm assuming you are in the UK? I mean, you should just have "monitored by CCTV" stamped on your forehead at birth there ;)

Re:This is debatable

[Lennie]

You are wrong.

English isn't even my first language.

Re:This is debatable

[Dahamma]

Was just guessing because "shop" and "CCTV" tend to be British English terminology, vs. "store" and "camera" :)

Who cares about Javascript

[viperidaenz]

That's not even the tip of the iceberg.
The HTML code you download for the vast majority of the web is protected by copyright. The exact same copyright that protects the Javascript. The exact same copyright that gives the GPL license its power to force GPL upon derivatives.

Re:Who cares about Javascript

[bill_mcgonigle]

FSF doesn't care about that freedom, just their favorite freedoms.

Maybe they're fighting fire with fire. But they've never said so, as far as I can recall. If they did believe that they could say it and not lose their legal standing.

It's not just the Javascript either...

[freezin fat guy]

What about all the non-free images and text taking away your rights?

Wake up people!111

Re:It's not just the Javascript either...

[Andhesaidtome]

What about all the non-free images and text taking away your rights?

Wake up people!111

What about all the non-free avenues they suggest you promote this through....how many youtwitfaces are non-free.

To amplify the effect of your action, post about it on your microblogging system or social network. Use the hashtag #freejs and link to this blog post.

Re:It's not just the Javascript either...

[Zontar The Mindless]

... and teh left-handers??? These are all taking away your Ay-Murkin FREEDOMS!!11!1111!!111

Actually, we southpaws got bored with taking candy from babies and moved abroad.

Re:It's not just the Javascript either...

[paulpach]

What about all the non-free images and text taking away your rights?

They do not take away any right whatsoever.
If you go to a site with proprietary javascript/html/css/whatever, there is not a single thing that you can no longer do that you could before visiting the site.

You never had the right to distribute the content without the author's permission, so how can visiting a site take away a right you never had?

WHAT popular perception?

[Dahamma]

Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.

This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.

This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.

This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what a web browser is, you probably know it runs on users' computers. If you don't know what a web browser is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[BitterOak]

Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.

This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.

Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[Tridus]

I've never heard anybody express the perception that Javascript is running on the server until now. People either know what it is (and thus where it runs) or they don't know what it is and thus don't know that it runs at all (and of those, 99% don't care so long as the site works).

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[ChunderDownunder]

node.js? :)

*ducks*

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[seeker_1us]

Right... because web browsers run on rocks, not computers. Seriously..... why did this get modded insightful?

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[Dahamma]

What the heck are you talking about? To *paraphrase*: he basically said the common perception was that JavaScript runs on a server, not the users's computer, and I said most people have no clue what it means to run a scripting language on a server vs. a local computer, and if they DO know what all this means they by definition know what all this means. Know what I mean? Apparently not...

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[Arrepiadd]

Because what the guy meant was that if you know what JavaScript is you know it runs locally (he used the word web browser, just to say it differently). And if you don't know JavaScript you won't have any expectations about it (or knowledge, for that matter). So, the "contrary to popular belief" comment makes no sense because any person with the knowledge has no such belief.

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[Dahamma]

Ummm, I think that's exactly what they mean. Yes, Javascript runs in the web browser, but the web browser runs on the user's computer, like the article says. When they talk about "user's computer" versus "on the Web site" they mean client side versus server side: i.e. Javascript generally runs client-side while PHP runs server-side.

No, it's really not. You have really just made the same point at another layer - proof by induction? Put it this way - the vast majority of users would have no idea about *any* of the statements made on this thread about "web sites", servers, clients, browsers, local computers, JavaScript, PHP/CGI/whatever.

If you followed this thread, you know exactly what we are all talking about and so this is not your perception. If you didn't, you have NO PERCEPTION of any of it (and probably don't care in the first place as long as it works).

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[Dahamma]

But Javascript runs on the instance of the web site that lives in my browser. So it runs on the web site, in my browser, on my computer. No contradiction here. A serverside resource only becomes a web site when it is accessed and interpreted by web clients.

"JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers"

You claim it runs on the web site and on your computer. The statement claims it does not run on the web site but on your computer. You claim these are not contradictory. These statements are logically false on the surface without even getting into your silly definitions of "web site".

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[rjstanford]

"web server" is a thing that most people could agree on a definition of. "web site" is not - to some people it means the URL, to others the functionality, to others the code, and to others just the look and feel. Especially since you can say, "I was running the web site locally then installed it onto a new server. Its a project term, not a physical place.

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[fredrated]

I sure don't.

Re:WHAT popular perception?

[hondo77]

Contrary to popular perception, JavaScript does not run "on the Web site" -- it runs locally on users' computers when they visit a site.

This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what JavaScript is, you probably know it runs in the web browser. If you don't know what JavaScript is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.

This statement makes no sense. If you actually know what a web browser is, you probably know it runs on users' computers. If you don't know what a web browser is, you don't have any perceptions about it whatsoever.

Questa affermazione non ha senso.

It's about the license

[tepples]

Does this downloaded copy of the JS code come with a license that secures the four essential freedoms to users? Usually it doesn't unless you're on GNU.org or a MediaWiki site.

Re:It's about the license

[antifoidulus]

Because somehow a bunch of domain-specific javascript code is really going to be useful? Also, you cannot change the code on the server(sort of, if you intercept calls at the browser level you could), changing the code is incredibly pointless. The FSF basically just wants to put an additional burden on these sites for 0 benefit. IE they are being annoying asshats. Par for the course really, there are much more important things to worry about than whether or not I have the freedom to change the style of a jquery dialog box on a government site.

Re:It's about the license

[exomondo]

Does this downloaded copy of the JS code come with a license that secures the four essential freedoms to users? Usually it doesn't unless you're on GNU.org or a MediaWiki site.

If the author licensed it that way then yes, if not then obviously it wouldn't and absolutely shouldn't.

Re:It's about the license

[S.O.B.]

Does this downloaded copy of the JS code come with a license that secures the four essential freedoms to users?

Of course it does.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction...

Ahh, sorry. Wrong list.

Re:It's about the license

[tepples]

If I make some js widget-driven site and minify all my code, obscure it, and whatever else... that's my business, right? You can use it or don't use it

In the case of a .gov site using non-free software, the government requires everyone in a particular industry to use a particular web site, and it uses its police power to enforce this on citizens.

Re:It's about the license

[Jobe_br]

I agree with Kozz. I would also add that while a comment submission form or the like might not need or even benefit much from the use of JavaScript, there's plenty of other things that do. Putting out a request such as "we're launching a campaign to demand that companies, governments, and organizations make their sites work without proprietary JavaScript" seems so baseless and ill-conceived that when I first read it I checked the date on the post to see if it was April 1st. What's the proposal for the alternative? The web platform is built on open standards, the majority of which (more than in any other ecosystem), is driven by open source implementations. For those hackers among us, the web is our oyster and it has fostered a great deal of innovation in the exact way that the FSF has worked to foster it in other ecosystems (e.g. Linux). Assuming that there is a noble and sane goal behind this call to action (which I'm still having a hard time believing), the way this article is written does it no justice. I imagine that this article has become the laughing stock in offices across the country and the world this morning. Presumably not the effect the FSF was looking for ...

What freedom?

[valkenar]

What meaningful freedom? You can't easily take the source, modify it significantly and use it on the site no matter what license they give you. Yeah, you can hack your own library into the page, but who really cares at all about whatever insignificant javascript the government is using to validate their form. I can kind of see making some kind of fuss about obfuscated javascript (because then it's hard to know what your computer is about to do, if you're the paranoid type), but most javascript is only obfuscated by being poorly written. Either that, or it's condensed for very practical reasons of bandwidth conservation.

Re:What freedom?

[Lennie]

"You can't easily take the source, modify it significantly and use it on the site no matter what license they give you."

Greasemonkey does exactly this.

Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[Animats]

I can live with copyrighted Javascript. It's obfusicated Javascript that looks like hostile code that I object to.

Have you looked at Google's home page lately? For a page that appears to do almost nothing, there's a vast amount of obfusicated Javascript involved. Some of it:

(function(){ window.google={kEI:"a62mUcucJYHQiwKgx4DwDw",getEI:function(a){for(var b;a&&(!a.getAttribute||!(b=a.getAttribute("eid")));)a=a.parentNode;return b||google.kEI},https:function(){return"https:"==window.location.protocol},kEXPI:"17259,4000116,4001351,4001947,4003714,4003921,4004320,4004334,4004702,4004788,4004844,4004897,4004943,4004949,4004953,4004971,4005031,4005198,4005731,4005817,4005987,4006191,4006374,4006426,4006442,4006448,4006466,4006541,4006578,4006727,4006806,4006974,4007007,4007009,4007020,4007040,4007055,4007060,4007073,4007077,4007080,4007117,4007118,4007131,4007140,4007158,4007217,4007231", kCSI:{e:"17259,4000116,4001351,4001947,4003714,4003921,4004320,4004334,4004702,4004788,4004844,4004897,4004943,4004949,4004953,4004971,4005031,4005198,4005731,4005817,4005987,4006191,4006374,4006426,4006442,4006448,4006466,4006541,4006578,4006727,4006806,4006974,4007007,4007009,4007020,4007040,4007055,4007060,4007073,4007077,4007080,4007117,4007118,4007131,4007140,4007158,4007217,4007231", ei:"a62mUcucJYHQiwKgx4DwDw"},authuser:0,ml:function(){}, kHL:"en",time:function() {return(new Date).getTime()},log:function(a,b,c,h){var d=new Image,f=google.lc,e=google.li,g="";d.onerror=d.onload=d.onabort=function() {delete f[e]};f[e]=d;!c&&-1==b.search("&ei=")&&(g="&ei="+google.getEI(h));c=c||"/gen_204?atyp=i&ct="+a+"&cad="+b+g+"&zx="+google.time();a=/^http:/i; a.test(c)&&google.https()?(google.ml(Error("GLMM"),!1,{src:c}),delete f[e]):(d.src=c,google.li=e+1)},lc:[],li:0,j:{en:1,b:!!location.hash&&!!location.hash.match("[#&]((q|fp)=|tbs=simg|tbs=sbi)"),bv:21,cf:"",pm:"p",u:"c9c918f0"},Toolbelt:{},y:{},x:function(a,b){google.y[a.id]=[a,b];return!1},load:function(a,b){google.x({id:a+k++},function(){google.load(a,b)})}};var k=0;window.onpopstate=function(){google.j.psc=1}; window.chrome||(window.chrome={});window.chrome.sv=2.00;window.chrome.searchBox||(window.chrome.searchBox={});window.chrome.searchBox.onsubmit=function(){google.x({id:"psyapi"},function(){var a=encodeURIComponent(window.chrome.searchBox.value);google.nav.search({q:a,sourceid:"chrome-psyapi2"})})};})(); (function(){var d=!1;google.sn="webhp";google.timers={};google.startTick=function(a,b){google.timers[a]={t:{start:google.time()},bfr:!!b}};google.tick=function(a,b,h){google.timers[a]||google.startTick(a);google.timers[a].t[b]=h||google.time()};google.startTick("load",!0); try{google.pt=window.gtbExternal&&window.gtbExternal.pageT();}catch(e){}})();

Google's home page was once just HTML with a form. It did about what it does now.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[w_dragon]

That looks more minimized than obfuscated. That javascript is probably downloaded millions of times each day, I don't see any problem with Google trying to save a few bytes of bandwidth.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[antifoidulus]

You are aware of what minification is, right? Having nicely formatted javascript also means that you waste a lot of bandwidth sending all that format information that 99.99999999% of users will never look at. There are reverse-minification tools out there if you really want to look at the code.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use a gzip transport, which almost every browser supports, and you will get better compression from that than from "minification."

My gut tells me that minification actually increases size on the wire by decreasing compressibility, but my head tells me that I shouldn't make such claims without testing them. Guess which one's in charge tonight.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yes, but the Creatives who work for Google have to exercise their precious Creativity. Telling them to leave shit alone because it works fine is not how they perceive their role in the organization. They have to change things just because change is good. Simplicity is dumb because simple people can make simple things, only Creatives can make true complex works of art. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[flimflammer]

It's not being obfuscated to hide the code, it's being obfuscated to minimize the size. They don't need an extra 20 kilobytes of whitespace and long variable names with comments. It's surprising just how much bandwidth this sort of method reduces in heavy load websites.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[polyp2000]

please share your trickery with the fake webserver and how you went about submitting shit data to the analytics engines - i would also like to implement something like this. Cheers N.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[Lennie]

Many virus-scanners and proxy servers actually change the headers the browser sends and thus the server will still send non-compressed HTML, CSS, Javascript.

Last time I looked the share of users that didn't get gzip-compressed content sent to their browser was above 10%.

On a website like Google more than 10% actually does matters.

Re:Stop obfusicated Javascript.

[allo]

so now google should put a multiline license-header before the block, maybe being about 0.5 of the lenght of actual minified code?

Does RMS own a microwave?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wonder if RMS feels able to use a microwave oven. Hrm, maybe he found one from the 70's with a mechanical dial timer and no firmware?

Although I fail to understand why that would be more ethical than having a modern microwave that does have firmware. Why is it okay to not have firmware, but not okay to have firmware unless you have source code? Even if the firmware is so trivial that all it gives you is a power setting and a countdown timer?

Not trolling here; I think this really is a logical conclusion from RMS's public pronouncements. He has publicly denounced the use of any network interface that allows the user to download firmware as a binary blob, unless the full source code for that firmware is available under a license approved by him.

Hang on, he hasn't denounced network interfaces with non-updateable firmware... has he? Maybe he just hasn't got around to that yet.

But never mind; he has denounced Tivo for making an appliance that doesn't allow the user to install any code the user chooses. So I'm pretty sure a microwave would be a problem for him.

Likewise, modern cars have engine computers, so he probably has to drive a car from the 70's or so. Hrm, actually I think he doesn't own a car. I wonder if he is uncomfortable riding in modern cars.

Really I'm glad I'm not RMS.

Re:Does RMS own a microwave?

[Joe_Dragon]

at least he can play the old EM pinballs they have no micro chips in them.

Re:Does RMS own a microwave?

[uncqual]

Interesting questions.

If he doesn't drive a car, I wonder how he avoids using public/private transportation which are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards.

Does he walk everywhere? If so, I assume he ignores all traffic signals since they are controlled by software that doesn't meet his licensing standards. He must be a very lucky man crossing busy streets on a red light!

Re:Does RMS own a microwave?

[uncqual]

Surely modern steamboats must meet environmental emissions requirements which requires electronic control - i.e., software?

Re:Does RMS own a microwave?

[MrMickS]

I have a new microwave, bought less than a month ago, that has two dials on it. One for power, the other for time.

I think the FSF has lost it

[mfearby]

Who cares what license the javascript has underneath a page that I happen to visit? As long as it runs. It's not like I have to install some evil proprietary flash or java applet to run it. Get a life, FSF!

Pointless

[EmperorOfCanada]

I have built maybe 30 Javascript heavy websites and not once did I use anything but free Javascript. Not out of any philosophical bent but just that there is so much awesome free Javascript out there in so many forms. Occasionally I stumble on some library where they want money but 5 seconds later I find something free that makes me go oooooh. Or I build it myself.

So instead of going on and on about how much of a waste of time this is I'll suggest a few campaigns of more importance: Better freedom of information acts. Less stupid patent laws. Less stupid copywrite laws. Better privacy regulations severely limiting what data governments and corporations can gather. Better built in security into nearly everything I use so that people can't backdoor their way into my data (i.e. no backdoors into things like Skype). To name just a few of the 100 million more important causes out there.

Re:To all the whingers here

[Tridus]

No, because the problem you're describing is no way related to what TFA is talking about.

You're talking about requiring a certain environment for the page to work.

They're talking about the javascript on the page being licensed to you in a certain way, which has no bearing whatsoever on if it actually works or not.

Say what?

[Tridus]

I'm sacrificing my freedom by loading a webpage that is going to run some code which I can look at with any text editor and see exactly what it's doing (though I may need to de-minify it first)?

Honestly, if that is the biggest threat to my freedom these days, we're in much better shape than I thought!

TFA in this case is surprisingly difficult to understand. It reads like it's aimed at the converted, and the rest of us who are more concerned with "does the site work?" and "are there security concerns?" aren't invited. Either that or I'm really missing something, because I can't fathom why in a million years I would ever care in the slightest about this.

Re:Say what?

[Lennie]

No, you actually didn't understand the FSF.

The article points to an other article which talks about things like what Google docs does:

"in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long"

it is especially that last part they have a problem with.

Re:Say what?

[cdrudge]

"in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long"

it is especially that last part they have a problem with.

As oppose to every compiled program out that has no comments, whitespace, and method names that just consist of memory address offsets.

Oh, woe!

[msobkow]

I can't just rape and pillage every site I want for javascript snippets and samples. I have to read the license for the code first.

Just think how much easier it would be if everything were GPL'd. Then nobody would own anything. Or get paid.

(Yes, I release my code under GPLv3 and LGPL, but that's because I want to, not because I expect everyone else to!)

Re:Oh, woe!

[Lennie]

Why would people not get paid ?

Many people currently get paid to create new GPL-code.

Uh, OK...

[FuzzNugget]

How? Do they even know how the webpages work? We would basically have the web of 1995 in all its slow, clunky awfulness.

You want a web without JavaScript? Go right ahead and make a viable open source alternative that offers the same facility.

Re:Uh, OK...

[magic maverick]

Um, it's not a web without JS. It's a web with JS that is Free, just like my OS.
Think about Gmail (because it's been in the news recently, I still don't know why anyone continues to use it). It has loads of JS. And it's all non-Free. You can't legally take it and modify it and make it nicer and work better for you. Greesemonkey scripts that interact with the Gmail JS are probably illegal, because they are a derivative work, and you don't have permission. And you can't distribute your scripts either.

Think about it a little before running off your mouth.

Re:This article is absolute nonsense!

[Anonymous Coward]

Took me a bit to realize what they meant too but they meant the copyright towards the javascript code, not the interpreter itself. Yeah, it's stupid to the point where it doesn't register (especially with the crappy way the summary is written). Who cares if the JavaScript isn't open sourced, doesn't prevent users from learning how the code works and writing their own version (there is obscurification but it's not like that is a show stopper for the dedicated). You still have quite a bit of freedom with javascript, even if it's not EASY. So many other battles that people's time could be better spent.

An Inaccuracy and A Conundrum

[VernonNemitz]

So I read Stallman's article and am not quite certain that it is completely accurate. I've written a decent amount of JavaScript code, and all of it was built into HTML pages, even if some of it used AJAX to interact with PHP code on the Web Server. It has always seemed to me that that the entirety of the JavaScript code was right there for the user to inspect with a browser's "View Source" option, regardless of whether or not the overall web page was copyrighted. Well, at least it is easy to view the code that doesn't get loaded in a separate ".js" file; you need to use a browser's Developer Tools to access the "include" stuff. I am of course aware that there exists Server-Side JavaScript, and when it is used that code does not get sent to the browser. However, since it runs on the Server, not even Stallman can complain that the user who connected to the Server is being asked/required to run that non-free JavaScript code (But obviously if the web page is copyrighted, it may qualify as including non-free JavaScript code.)

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? 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:An Inaccuracy and A Conundrum

[Lennie]

I think you should have read the article that was linked from the article, that specifically mentions this type of Javascript-code:

"in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long"

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

The FSF was never interrested in giving developers freedom, they are care about users freedom. They want source code to be available so if a user wants a program to work in a different way then intended by the original developer they can modify it themselves or pay a developer to do so.

I think the FSF wants developers to create code users ask for. The user would pay the developer for the time spent on creating that code.

Stallman Needs to Learn the Serenity Prayer

[the eric conspiracy]

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

Re:Stallman Needs to Learn the Serenity Prayer

[H0p313ss]

I am waiting for Stallman to figure out that movies and television shows are not free either.

Re:Stallman Needs to Learn the Serenity Prayer

[Lennie]

Do you really think Stallman spents time on movies and television ? I really doubt he thinks it is interresting.

Re:Stallman Needs to Learn the Serenity Prayer

[H0p313ss]

Do you really think Stallman spents time on movies and television ? I really doubt he thinks it is interresting.

I'm sure he doesn't, which is why I'm sure he hasn't noticed.

Re:Why is so much JavaScript being used?

[Phroggy]

The real question we should be asking ourselves is why is there so much redundant JavaScript libraries out there? Date Pickers, Fancy Dialog Boxes, Slideshows, Accordion Components, Menus, Widgets, etc all use JavaScript. How come the HTML standard has not implemented these common components?

Some of them are in HTML5, but browsers haven't implemented them yet, and since everybody uses JavaScript anyway (and will continue to use JavaScript to support older browsers for the next decade) there's no pressure for browser devs to implement them.

Gov services should not require a merchant lock in

[Shompol]

After years of shoveling truckloads of malware from sister's computer, it was sentenced to run Linux only. One of the few problems to crop up: an Internet Explorer was required to apply for Federal financial aid online (FAFSA)!? This was around 2010-ish, when IE was not used by majority anymore.

This is not a private entity -- government services should be available to everyone without a requirement to purchase "widget A from coporation M". Until that becomes a rule -- FSF is doing a very good job.

The end does not justify the means

[arth1]

I really like this idea.

I don't.
It has one great flaw - in order to do like FSF asks and fill out the form on regulation.gov, we have to use a browser with non-free JavaScript.
So in essence, RMS asks us to use non-free JavaScript!?

Re:The end does not justify the means

[game kid]

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". That's how he developed GNU: until it was more mature (and Linux came along), he used non-free Unix to test.

Damn you FSF

[readingaccount]

It's this kind of misguided fanaticism by the FSF that makes hairyfeet despise the greater Linux community and ruin any chance of demonstrating that yes, there are some Linux users who are actually reasonable humans.

Is it really free?

[chrismcb]

Let's ignore the whole copyright issue of EVERYTHING else on the website. The CSS, the HTML, the words, and so on. The article talks about "it prevents people from understanding, modifying and building on the programs they are running" Well no it doesn't. Other than it being copyrighted. People could still understand it, modify it... But legally you can't run it, just like you can't take the text or the images and stick them on your page. Or is Richard suggesting we should do that as well?

No Script

[Karmashock]

I use it all the time. Very few sites are allowed to run javascript at all.

Why does everything on the web need to be "free"?

[edelbrp]

That doesn't make sense to me. Of course JS code, HTML, text, images, movies, etc. will be copyrighted. It's just a communication medium. Just because it is relatively new and the InTeRnEt doesn't mean it should all be an open collaboration with everything given away by default. Demanding 'free' Javascript is a bad message, imho. It gives the sense that it should all be free and therefore it might even be ethical to steal.

Don't get me wrong, I was a Linux kernel contributor for several years and I've released my own projects under L/GPL. But, I'm also a commercial programmer who knows the importance of keeping proprietary code protected. I don't find the two in conflict. I'm even on the fence for thinking a semi-standarized web DRM might not be a bad thing.

Part of my distaste on the matter stems from students who email me about a few papers I posted on the web while in college. Several blatantly told me they are going to submit my paper with their name at the top but just wanted a few clarifications in case their prof asked them any questions. Pissed the hell out of me. It was completely lost on some that that was stealing, plagiarism, and cheating. The web isn't all public domain and it wasn't meant to be and it shouldn't be or else it would become a very dull desert wasteland.

what's the negative effect?

[stenvar]

Having "non-free JavaScript" on a site seems no different to me than reading materials that are copyrighted. Does Stallman not read anything that's copyrighted? What's the problem with that? I just don't see the negative effect here.

It's not proprietary

[mtb_ogre]

What Stallman and the FSF are complaining about is bone standard ECMAscript, nothing proprietary about it. Minification is done by web administrators to conserve bandwidth and make their pages load faster. Stallman deliberately used a loaded term to paint this like it's worse than it is. If he'd just come out and said "People need to use more readable javascript" he'd look like an idiot So he fudged things a bit, coined a new phrase which if you read it literally doesn't make sense, then wrote a big essay about it. What's next, is he going to ban PERL because no-one can read it? Is everyone going to be required to use Python because it's the most readable language?

Re:It's not proprietary

[ceoyoyo]

It seems Stallman is exposing the ridiculousness of his own arguments. It's immoral to write bad code! Those one letter variable names you're so fond of? They take away the childrens' freedom!

Loaded terms...

[mtb_ogre]

If the server ran ActiveScript or Flash, I could see getting excited, but it's just minified javascript. This is the problem, were Stallman to describe minified code to most people they wouldn't see the 'evil' in it. So he invented a new phrase to try and make the rest of the planet see things the way he does.

Re:Want the code?

[Tridus]

No it's not. It's about the license the script is given to you under.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with what the script actually *does*, or if it's harmful. Code doesn't magically become safer because the license changes.

What a load of

[zakeria]

Bollix... next..

Re:Why does everything on the web need to be "free

[Lennie]

The article specifically talks about government websites, I can see if I already paid for it through taxes, then why should not be able to modify it and run in my browser on my machine as I see fit ?

This isn't related to copyright, you aren't distributing the code by running the code in your own browser on your machine.

Re:Gov services should not require a merchant lock

[Secret Agent Man]

FAFSA does not require IE. It throws big scary warnings about browser incompatibility at the user, but it does not stop you from continuing in Firefox or Chrome. I filed FAFSA from 2006-2009 in not-IE without issue.

Tools to intercept calls at the browser level

[tepples]

Also, you cannot change the code on the server(sort of, if you intercept calls at the browser level you could)

There already exist tools to "intercept calls at the browser level", such as Greasemonkey. Non-free licensing of JavaScript code prohibits end users from sharing their improvements with other users of Greasemonkey.

If we had a choice to use the page without script

[tepples]

If we had a choice to use the web site without the script that "the author licensed [...] that way", it'd be fine. But a lot of pages that use non-free JavaScript won't work at all with script off.

A little silly

[grumbel]

Javascript can certainly cause a lot of problems, but none of them are really related to it being non-free. Sticking a GPL on top of the Javascript code doesn't really solve anything. It doesn't make webpages more accessible or machine readable, it doesn't make it load faster, it doesn't make it run faster and it doesn't even make it easier to modify. If the server starts to ship on updated Javascript my Greasemonkey scripts would break just the same no matter if the Javascript is GPL or not. Lots of the time the Javascript code isn't even code that does something interesting, but just used for transition animations and such because CSS3 is not yet ready for widespread use.

I think the FSF should better spend their time on advocating good web practices, encourage people to provide APIs for their websites, make sure that data can be important and exported from the cloud and such. If it's Free Software or not doesn't really matter, as while it runs on your computer, you don't really control it either way, as it all depends on what kind of data the server ships to you. If the data format from the server changes, all your Free Software Javascript would be rendered useless.

Love-able loudmouths at the FSF

[chrishillman]

Forgive me if I post comments covered better by smarter people but I have just spent the past hour pacing in the hallway after reading this.

My initial reaction was "Non-free JavaScript? RMS must have glaucoma because his herbal remedy is really impacting his judgement". JavaScript is open source. As a computer security duck I can tell you that JavaScript is easily altered on any page you visit, and only a fool would license their JavaScript code... or worse "open source" it like Al Gore did to his web page just before we found out what a "chad" was. Calling a set of JavaScript code "closed source" is similar to closing the source on a batch file or shell script, or trademarking/copyrighting an arrangement of flowers or dead bees. It is possible to lay claim to such a "design" but as to how it could be enforced is beyond me.

Then I read some comments and people seemed to think this had to do with the readability of the JavaScript as "minified" JavaScript is too obfuscated to read by a lay person (by lay person I mean non-JS compiler). But this is silly as many plugins that allow you to alter the JavaScript you run on your browser when you visit a page will also easily de-obfuscate the JavaScript. So readability is more about presentation and the presentation can be trivially altered.

But, I have come to peace with the basis of the article, that there exists something called "non-free JavaScript" and that pages can implement such a thing. Here is how one can implement Non-Free JavaScript, if you use a JS library such as Sencha ExtJS (with the commercial license) and offer no alternate HTML only page. Sencha ExtJS with the commercial license is not GPL, so the license is not "free". And with the lack of an HTML page (where you kill off your search engines and section 508 ADA usability compliance), then RMS can't use the page in the pristine "free" form he desires as a nutty free software advocate.

This issue is a lot like having a "death and murder-free dinner party" for insane vegans. Normal people would be happy to throw a burger on the grill and drink some beer but people like RMS would amplify decisions like eating meat kills everything and hurts the environment and that beer prevents kids in Iceland from learning to read (with a 2 hour explanation as to why). Why can't the FSF install Firefox and use the web the way a given developer intended is beyond me. People who block JavaScript are jerks and people who block ads are theives. If you don't like a given web page, don't go there. The rest of us are sick of hearing you old coots yelling "get off my lawn", or more accurately quoting Sheldon "you are in my spot". Take some lithium and enjoy 2013.

Re:To all the whingers here

[Cajun Hell]

You're talking about requiring a certain environment for the page to work.

They're talking about..

..the same exact thing. Their site won't work unless you download and execute their proprietary javascript, thereby creating a specific environment within your browser.

A more careful (and slightly more believable as well) analogy would be that the municipal government's site only works with MSIE 6 running on Windows XP, but they do have a download link to a free-as-in-beer VM image which contains that software (And they expect everyone to use that VM, even people who already have Windows.) You're apparently allowed to click the link and use the VM image, but what exactly you're really allowed to do with it, is murky unless you research it.

Lawyers working at FSF looked into it, and found out that you're not allowed to improve, repair, or otherwise maintain this code which is required to use this taxpayer-funded government service. If it has a bug (or malicious bit) which happens to exploit your VM containment, then sucks-to-be-you: your only two legal recourses are 1) to fix your VM instead of removing the exploit itself, and just live with the hostile code constantly probing your containment. [and I'll admit that's a good idea nevertheless.] 2) Or completely replace the entire environment (what Berkeley did to AT&T's Unix) since you aren't allowed to create derived works ; make your custom WINE environment do whatever is needed to interoperate with the government's service. If that means implementing some MSIE6 bugs, so be it.

And on the topic of whether or not Microsoft and Adobe have actually consented to you downloading and using that VM, the lawyers can't even find a solid answer (Microsoft and the webmaster probably did negotiate some kind of license, but neither of them ever happened to tell you anything about it) so the lawyers are tempted to assume that copyright law prohibits you using the VM. If Microsoft ever did happen to sue you over it, could you prove you were allowed to copy that VM?

valid concern, but not sure how important

[Sloppy]

This is another one of those RMS things which really does seem pretty nitpicky and impractical, at the time it's written but history shows that whenever you later look back, RMS is almost always right.

Javascript is so transient, so unimportant, and so close to the blurry line between code and content (though I'm surprised to be reading so many opinions here which are placing it on the "content" side). Our browsers are getting pretty decent at sandboxing these days, so the consequences of running unmaintainable and unauditable code within them, seem light. Who really needs maintainance for code that you only use for a few seconds and then throw away?

But it's creep. Unless I have my browser only run Javascript from whitelists, the "normal" operation is that it's doing something (running all kind of crazy proprietary stuff) that, outside the browser, just doesn't happen. My machines aren't are "pure" as RMS' machines but even so, there are really only so many places where I still have unmaintainable and unauditable code. The browser multiplies that by thousands.

It's funny; I normally don't go adding thousands of proprietary PPAs to my Ubuntu machine, and tend to be pretty conservative about what I allow to be installed. Yet my browser still isn't using a whitelist for Javascript. That's not entirely sane or consistent, is it? No matter where you stand on the Free vs proprietary spectrum, you get to call me a hypocrite. (Fortunately, I probably get to call you one right back -- unless you're as hardcore as RMS or as resigned as an iPhone user.)

They're individually inconsequential (I think!!), but I sure spend a lot of time in the browser. What's otherwise a fairly trustworthy machine, seems to be hanging by a thread: the browser's correct virtualization of the Javascript universe. If I'm really ok with that, then you'd think I'd also have some Windows or Mac OS X virtual machines around too, to further run more unmaintainable and unaudited code for my convenience. Why don't I? Maybe it's simply because doing that wouldn't really give me any more convenience. But maybe I'm inconsistent because I don't have my shit together, mentally.

I think there's a valid concern here, it's just hard to say it's important or what (if anything) to do about it. But I remember when "The Right to Read" pretty much got the same opinion from me.

As far as what to do about it, FSF's proposal seems pretty modest: don't have government actively making the creep deeper. We have enough to worry about without our own government putting us further at risk. Regulations.gov shouldn't be distributing a bunch of proprietary code to citizens; leave that sort of thing to commercial sites. Even if it's currently believed that the current version of that code is harmless (it wouldn't totally surprise me if some people have illegally(?) audited the Javscript), it's not a best practice, and outside of exceptional-because-we-don't-have-our-shit-together web it's something we normally wouldn't do or permit. If regulations.gov told you to download and execute regulations.exe or the iOS app as the only way for citizens to get some information from them, I'm sure plenty of people would be screaming. This is the same, but also different, by degrees. Whether it's two degrees or ten, though, I don't know...

Re:valid concern, but not sure how important

[countach]

I don't know.... how is it morally more problematic to access a web site with javascript than accessing a web site with extensive back-end functionality? Why is the location of the CPU the moral dividing line?

While I can see the argument that something like Google docs or something where the entire app is basically javascript would be nice to have open source, I don't get that I want access to every random bit of code that does an ajax call (which is Stallman's criteria for code which should be open). I mean, if I'm on amazon.com, and I select something from a dropdown that refreshes a part of the screen by ajax, do I really care? Should it offend my sensibilities that the entire amazon.com backend server code is not mine to fiddle with and modify? I have sympathy for the open source ideal, but I'm really struggling to see how javascript is a moral issue.

Re:valid concern, but not sure how important

[Sloppy]

I'm really struggling to see how javascript is a moral issue.

When I go on about proprietary software being "unmaintainable and unauditable" do you think I'm talking about morality? If ever trade secret + legal monopoly software becomes as trustworthy as maintainable and auditable software, then we can pick morality nits.

Until then, let's stick to practical concerns. Practical concerns like "how can I be sure this foreign untrusted code isn't fucking me?" or "I figured out how this is fucking me, and I want to make it stop" or "I made it stop, but then I got a letter from a lawyer" or "I don't use that site anymore, because it was fucking me too much and their lawyers were assholes, saying I wasn't allowed to modify the code they were offering to my computer."

Re:Gov services should not require a merchant lock

[Shompol]

I specifically remember it not working, it is possible that they simply blocked functionality for non-IE browsers. Obviously your mileage may vary.

Re:Gov services should not require a merchant lock

[earlzdotnet]

When I was on unemployment, the state of Oklahoma's unemployment website thing actively prevents you from using anything but IE 7 and below. (IE8 didn't work, IE9 was still in beta at the time). The way I solved it was using a user agent switcher with Firefox. Everything worked as expected afterwards.

So let me get this straight.

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

1) Even though ECMAScript is an official spec, Javascript with obfuscation is now "wrong". Even though its an interpreted language and not encrypted, the fact that it's not easy to debug it is wrong. That means all perl is wrong, cause you really can't read the code anyway. Nevermind the fact that single character member names help with bandwidth costs. You'll pay more, because, well, Stallman says.

2) BSD is bad because of the license clause, adding a license was too unwieldy. Adding a license to FSF code somehow is ok, because, well, Stallman says.

Re:If we had a choice to use the page without scri

[exomondo]

If we had a choice to use the web site without the script that "the author licensed [...] that way", it'd be fine. But a lot of pages that use non-free JavaScript won't work at all with script off.

Then don't view the website, you don't have the right to force them into your ideology. And if you must view it then do it on a computer other than your own.

Are you sure?

[valkenar]

My understanding is that greasemonkey adds scripts that modify the page, rather than modifying the incoming javascript, but I don't know much about how it works under the hood, perhaps I'm mistaken. Even so, there is nothing illegal about running greasemonkey or sharing greasemonkey scripts, is there? Which means that changing the license for the page's javascript doesn't add anything from a legal or practical standpoint.

Re:Are you sure?

[Lennie]

If you just want to change one line in a larger function and it has a non-free license. You probably can't copy the modified function and distribute the greasemonkey script.

Why is client-side non-free worse than serverside?

[wad4ever]

If I browse to a website that executes proprietary code in my browser, non-free code is executed. But is this really any different than if I browse to a website that executes proprietary code on the SERVER? Does it matter which CPU runs the code?

hoo boy

[ananthap]

For a minute there I thought that there was a new technological invention called NonFreeJavascript. OK

Re:Why is so much JavaScript being used?

[Phroggy]

You're also forgetting the part where W3C was sitting in their ivory tower doing nothing useful, so the browser vendors (sans Microsoft) got together and formed their own group, WHATWG, which created HTML5. W3C only decided to adopt HTML5 after it became clear that all the browser vendors (except Microsoft) were already committed to implementing it. (Microsoft didn't get on board until W3C's adoption.)

But you're right, the expectation is that JavaScript is a big part of how the web is supposed to work.