Richard Stallman Warns About Non-Free Web Apps 747
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman has published an article which warns about the 'Javascript trap' posed by non-free AJAX-based applications. The article calls for a mechanism which would enable browsers to identify freely-licensed Javascript applications and run modified version thereof. 'It is possible to release a Javascript program as free software,' Stallman writes. 'But even if the program's source is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the original ... The effect is comparable to tivoization, although not quite so hard to overcome.'"
What's in a name? (Score:5, Funny)
From TFA:
"Javascript (officially called ECMAscript, but few use that name)..."
Linux (officially called GNU/Linux, but few use that name)..."
Practice what we preach, Hmmmmm?
Re:Nice to see it worked (Score:0, Funny)
Nice going you fucking asshole. Adding more fuel to the stallman bullshit fire.
Re:What's in a name? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:OK, dumb question after reading the article (Score:3, Funny)
I couldn't find a real reason why anybody (other than Stallman) would care.
Contrariness?
Implementation (Score:5, Funny)
But what's the solution? This is the real question.
Just put a checkbox in the Firefox preferences window somewhere. I suggest this wording:
(x) Warn me before running JavaScript written by capitalist pigs
Doesn't ring a bell (Score:2, Funny)
Richard... WHO?
Stallman now does what he used to fight. (Score:3, Funny)
He seems to be afraid companies will try to deny free software developers source code to improved versions of their free-software code by avoiding to ever distribute the software. It is however not clear that this is at all unethical in the same way as using copyright to restrict users from modifying software they have bought is. To demand a copy of the source code and documentation of software companies use to implement a service is a bit like demanding a cab company give you driving instructions if you ever traveled with them. Ok, so the analogy is not perfect, but there is a huge difference between proprietary software vendors trying to use copyright and shrinkwrap EULAs to limit how you use your computer, and that of service providers simply not distributing the code they use to provide a service.
In some ways Stallman is essentially making the same mistake proprietary software vendors do when they try to control what you do with software. He seeks to limit what people can and cannot do with software they run on their own computers. His demands even contradicts part of the GPL, which explicitly grant you the right to use the software "FOR ANY PURPOSE". The FSF's FAQ even explains that you're not allowed to ban using the software for things like pornography, because that would violate users right to use software for any purpose they see fit. It would appear that according to Stallman all purposes are equal, it's just that some purposes are more equal than others.
Re:What about the server side? (Score:5, Funny)
It turns out that if a boy cries wolf, and one is really there, it will run in fear and not be there when the villagers arrive. The villagers have only the boy to thank, but instead they ostracize him and call him a nut. Hey, come to think of it, there is a striking parallel here ...
Re:What about the server side? (Score:3, Funny)
Figures, a gem like this post only comes up when I don't have mod points.
Re:I thought I did. (Score:3, Funny)
It still counts as time wasted if you have to call up Geek Squad because you couldn't fix it yourself! ROTFLMAO
:-)
If you are going to seriously try to tell me that it isn't a pervasively well known fact that Windows degrades over time, becoming more and more virus ridden and slower and slower in proportion to the time it has been connected to the internet, then I can't take you seriously. Of course, if you openly acknowledge the fact and still can't think of an OS like the one I described then I can't take you seriously either.
Come to think of it, there is now no situation in which I could take you seriously
Here is your word of the day [reference.com].
I did. I splashed on something quite a bit faster, that is actually stable and secure. It is calledLinux ;-)
Re:whoosh (Score:5, Funny)
His beard looks non-free to me, it's obfuscating his face
Re:OK, dumb question after reading the article (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't he the guy that claims he browses the web by invoking some daemon to download an html page and email it to him? If so, why would he even care?
Re:Slippery slope to non-free (Score:3, Funny)
And that makes him an idiot. He has to come up with some reason to not use software so he can 'stick it to the man' based on some stupid arbitrary decision rather than the more logical method of determining if software is useful. By that I mean, 'does it work the way I need it to?'. So he finds software that meets the requirement to function as he needs, but he still refuses to use it because he thinks that closed source equates to killing babies.
Somethings not right with that man, he really shows that there are extremists everywhere, not just in religion. Or perhaps GPL is a religion to Stallman, that would actually make a lot more sense and explain the cult like response you get from the devout GPL supporters. I don't mean normal GPL supporters, I mean the ones like Stallman who think every license other than GPL is 'restrictive' but that its okay to add restrictions to GPL because those restrictions make it more free!
If this post doesn't make any sense then maybe its because Stallman rarely makes a whole lot of practical sense either.
Re:OK, dumb question after reading the article (Score:5, Funny)
"... vegans are rabbit food people."
Fixed that for you.