Comment Love-able loudmouths at the FSF (Score 1) 318
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.
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.