undefined | Better HN

0 pointspavon6y ago0 comments

RMS and the FSF oppose any proprietary software, and refuse to use it. From a practical point of view, this means having to block javascript by default and at best whitelist it just on sites that are known to use only Free Software on their website. Furthermore, since that browsers and web standards don't provide an automated way to check javascript license before execution, and a site can change what javascript they use at any time (on every page load even), some Free Software advocates find it safer and easier to abstain from any javascript at all.

Payment processing software like Taler is most useful when integrated/embedded in as many websites as possible, including sites that use proprietary javascript. Even if the Taler implementation used only javascript with a Free license, using it on that site would require enabling both Free and non-Free javascript. Thus it would be preferable to Free Software advocates if Taler implementations were written to work without requiring javascript.

0 comments

lordlimecat6y ago

I'm not clear why javascript is the Boogeyman but html and css get a pass here. With javascript you can always see the source, and their license cannot obligate you as it's not-even-a-shrinkwrap license.

Html and css can also have licenses, and they are frequently generated by server-side code running what is almost certainly a proprietary license, one that is opaque to the user.

teh_klev6y ago

See:

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

lordlimecat6y ago

That article addresses essentially none of my points.

He remarks on the obfuscated nature of much JS as violating the principle of user interaction with the code; but HTML5 is very frequently generated in highly-convoluted form from server-side scripts that the user has no access to.

He remarks on the uncertain license of JS, but that applies just as much to HTML5 code.

He's concerned with tracking, but there are a number of ways to track a user using HTML5 alone. Cookies, canvas, webrtc, user agent, tracking images...

And he refers to HTML as mere markup, but the reality is that with no JS you can create a web application using HTML5 and server-side software as complex as any you can do in JS.

If i make a storefront based on Tomcat that relies on no JS, does the user have the freedom to inspect the software? Do they know the license, if I don't explicitly post it?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointspavon6y ago0 comments

0 comments

lordlimecat6y ago

Html and css can also have licenses, and they are frequently generated by server-side code running what is almost certainly a proprietary license, one that is opaque to the user.

teh_klev6y ago

See:

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

lordlimecat6y ago

That article addresses essentially none of my points.

He remarks on the uncertain license of JS, but that applies just as much to HTML5 code.

He's concerned with tracking, but there are a number of ways to track a user using HTML5 alone. Cookies, canvas, webrtc, user agent, tracking images...

And he refers to HTML as mere markup, but the reality is that with no JS you can create a web application using HTML5 and server-side software as complex as any you can do in JS.

If i make a storefront based on Tomcat that relies on no JS, does the user have the freedom to inspect the software? Do they know the license, if I don't explicitly post it?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse