Slashdot Mirror
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."
I never realized visiting a website required me to "sacrifice my freedom"!
The BIOS, you say? Stallman's way ahead of you there.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
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.
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.
I think the specs on the MIPS platform are open, IIRC.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
What about all the non-free images and text taking away your rights?
Wake up people!111
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.
Ah yes, nothing says "freedom" like buying a product from the Chinese government.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Indeed. Since when was software freedom more important than people freedom?
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"?
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...
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.
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
... whatever
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.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
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.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Why would people not get paid ?
Many people currently get paid to create new GPL-code.
New things are always on the horizon
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.
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...
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.