8 ms·

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript". Offensive JS includes: "It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scr

That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding about "offensive JavaScript". Offensive JS includes: "It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)." If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML frameworks do) and it doesn't have a free license statement, should people really complain about it? Like, fine. Sure. You don't want to run non-free JS. Okay. But there's no reason to waste someone's time complaining about it, either. How is anyone supposed to take this seriously?

madeofpalk 11y ago
> Calling methods with the square bracket notation > If it includes something like the above [...] and it doesn't have a free license statement, should people really complain about it? Why on earth would this project concern itself with the coding styles of the JS that the author prefers? Even if the site and/or JS is free software, why do things things matter? I mean, I get linting your own code, but linting the code of sites you visit just seems pointless. This, banning AJAX requests and with the arduous process of getting into the 'libre' whitelist, makes this project a complete joke.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Where do you guys see the prohibition? I've opened https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#index-javascript https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#ind... and see that having functions, doing AJAX requests, square brackets and the other stuff is what they use to distinguish between trivial JS code and non-trivial one. And it exactly makes sense - no one wants to stick a license over every trivial JS one-liner that's could be less of a program and more of configuration statements block. But those who care about free software don't want to run non-free programs. So, the heuristics. But I really can't find anything like a ban on use of functions or AJAX requests, or something similarly ridiculous, that some comments here seem to imply. Seriously, WTF?
s4chin 11y ago
I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical. He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.
- alfonsodev 11y ago
  He usually says that we give up freedom in exchange of convenience. For example Facebook is convenient so, who cares about privacy ? I don't use LibreJS or plan to use it either, but I think his points are valid theoretically, implement them in our society is pretty hard but my point is, these libre tools being "impractical" doesn't invalidate the philosophical idea behind. I'd would call him idealist rather than a paranoid.
  - matt4077 11y ago
    Let's not forget that he's the impractical idealist who created gcc, bison, emacs, make, the GPL. I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. Thousands of startups were probably made possible by access to tools – not just because they couldn't afford it otherwise, but also because a large part of cs education depends on a 12-year old's ability to clone stuff on github.
    - stephenr 11y ago
      > I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. 70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        What are you thinking of? MIT/BSD/Apache/etc are all considered Free by rms and the FSF (even if they prefer copyleft licenses).
Delmania 11y ago
> That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the world. The organization makes issues over these kinds of details and then paints it into a "us vs. them" situation. It seems to have little interest with trying to work with people, and more insistent on making sure you follow it's dogma. The other issue is that the organization presents its arguments like a sophomoric adolescent. "Windows 7 Sins"? Who's going to take that seriously?
- pessimizer 11y ago
  The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding. Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.
  - Delmania 11y ago
    > The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting. > maybe you just don't agree with them. What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.
    - krapp 11y ago
      >What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people. They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?
    - PeCaN 11y ago
      As long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting. I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing. ¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.

madeofpalk 11y ago

> Calling methods with the square bracket notation > If it includes something like the above [...] and it doesn't have a free license statement, should people really complain about it? Why on earth would this project concern itself with the coding styles of the JS that the author prefers? Even if the site and/or JS is free software, why do things things matter? I mean, I get linting your own code, but linting the code of sites you visit just seems pointless. This, banning AJAX requests and with the arduous process of getting into the 'libre' whitelist, makes this project a complete joke.

drdaeman 11y ago
Where do you guys see the prohibition? I've opened https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#index-javascript https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#ind... and see that having functions, doing AJAX requests, square brackets and the other stuff is what they use to distinguish between trivial JS code and non-trivial one. And it exactly makes sense - no one wants to stick a license over every trivial JS one-liner that's could be less of a program and more of configuration statements block. But those who care about free software don't want to run non-free programs. So, the heuristics. But I really can't find anything like a ban on use of functions or AJAX requests, or something similarly ridiculous, that some comments here seem to imply. Seriously, WTF?

s4chin 11y ago

I attended an RMS lecture about free software and the GNU movement. To me, RMS just seems to be too paranoid about "non-free" software to the point that it just seems impractical. He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.

alfonsodev 11y ago
He usually says that we give up freedom in exchange of convenience. For example Facebook is convenient so, who cares about privacy ? I don't use LibreJS or plan to use it either, but I think his points are valid theoretically, implement them in our society is pretty hard but my point is, these libre tools being "impractical" doesn't invalidate the philosophical idea behind. I'd would call him idealist rather than a paranoid.
- matt4077 11y ago
  Let's not forget that he's the impractical idealist who created gcc, bison, emacs, make, the GPL. I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. Thousands of startups were probably made possible by access to tools – not just because they couldn't afford it otherwise, but also because a large part of cs education depends on a 12-year old's ability to clone stuff on github.
  - stephenr 11y ago
    > I'd bet >70% of people here work with a complete or almost-completely free software stack. 70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      What are you thinking of? MIT/BSD/Apache/etc are all considered Free by rms and the FSF (even if they prefer copyleft licenses).

Delmania 11y ago

> That's just what the world needs. More bikeshedding You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the world. The organization makes issues over these kinds of details and then paints it into a "us vs. them" situation. It seems to have little interest with trying to work with people, and more insistent on making sure you follow it's dogma. The other issue is that the organization presents its arguments like a sophomoric adolescent. "Windows 7 Sins"? Who's going to take that seriously?

pessimizer 11y ago
The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. The constant discussion of how they should be presenting their message should be in the dictionary under bikeshedding. Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.
- Delmania 11y ago
  > The FSF has had a massive impact on the world. It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting. > maybe you just don't agree with them. What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.
  - krapp 11y ago
    >What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people. They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?
  - PeCaN 11y ago
    As long as the FSF controls Emacs, GCC, and coreutils they're definitely doing a little more than shouting. I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing. ¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.