9 ms·

No one should have to use proprietary software to talk to their government

168 points by ashitlerferad 11y ago

Overtonwindow 11y ago
Have you seen our tax code lately, or the Internal Revenue Service? Forget proprietary software. Try proprietary documents, forms, and methods of submission!
- throwaway2016a 11y ago
  I was going to say that... I love it when a Government site makes me download a MS Word or Excel file. So I need to either buy a Microsoft product or trust OSS solutions that often mangle the document (through no fault of their own... reverse engineering a proprietary file format is difficult and displaying it the exact same is even harder).
  - matthewrhoden1 11y ago
    While you can't edit, you can view for free: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=10 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=10
    - throwaway2016a 11y ago
      It's good to know that exists. For what it's worth, I have a Mac so those won't work. I don't have the time right now to search microsoft.com for a Mac version so I reserve judgment until then :)
      - rz2k 11y ago
        Microsoft provides Windows images you can run in VirtualBox if you want to try it out. https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/mac/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/v...
    - daveloyall 11y ago
      Obligatory "That's gratis, not libre!"
    - slrz 11y ago
      Eh. Supported Operating System Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, Windows Vista, Windows XP Service Pack 2 Windows 7 So to view these propriatary document formats I'd first have to buy and set up a whole proprietary operating system?
jbob2000 11y ago
Wtf? Am I missing something here? People have problems with running propriety javascript? I don't get it. You don't have to install anything and if you're concerned about what could be in the javascript, then use incognito mode, tor, a proxy, etc. You're going to increase the cost of web software products exponentially if devs can't use propriety javascript.
- streptomycin 11y ago
  I think the thing you missed is the existence of people like the Free Software Foundation. There are indeed people who are generally opposed to proprietary software on a philosophical/ethical/moral level.
  - kefka 11y ago
    The older I get, and the more software work I do, the more I come in parity to FSF's platform as a whole. IoT is a mess right now, purely because of rent-seeking anti-standards, treacherous computing. Do you own your devices? Hardly! Phillips shut down all 3rd party bulbs, and 'graciously' fixed that after a bad 1 day campaign... but retains the ability to do it again. Google destroyed the Revolv servers for no good reason. It trashed all the devices that relied the purely webAPI implemented hardware. I can go on... In the end, I just get sick and tired of being pulled in 1000 different directions, with as many 'cloud providers', doing that many different bad implementations of the same thing (but as their serf in their castle). Open Source is a way out of local computing problems. Open Standards allows me to bring my business elsewhere when I'm alienated. Open Protocols allows me to communicate with other networks and computers. All are essential.
- brbsix 11y ago
  This is largely a philosophical and moral issue as opposed to a practical one. It would be something akin to a conscientious objector drafted for military service or an Amish person required to apply for a horse and buggy operator's license via a government website.
- mbrock 11y ago
  "You're going to increase the cost of web software products exponentially if devs can't use propriety javascript." Why?
Bartweiss 11y ago
As usual with FSF stuff, I don't actually disagree, but it blows my mind that they actually care this much. I can't imagine being unwilling to submit a request (that furthers the cause of free software) because it requires going through a proprietary portal.
- brbsix 11y ago
  Their actions seem to be consistent with their principles. I'd be far more surprised if they were willing to sacrifice them out of pragmatism. Rather, perhaps the advice they need is "choose your battles".
  - sethish 11y ago
    The anti-proprietary-js movement seems to be coming from RMS himself (given his complaints to con organizers). And he hasn't used a browser other than emacs in... ever?
    - davexunit 11y ago
      RMS uses the GNU IceCat fork of Firefox sometimes.
awinter-py 11y ago
I wish these guys worked on sounding less crazy. I agree with their point here: software does stuff we don't like and dot-gov has a responsibility to review third-party code. Linking that to an 'all software must be FOSS' argument starts to get nutty. I make money by selling software. Does that make me a pariah to the FSF? I've never been sure. I still want to donate money to preserve their unique voice, so maybe the answer is that you have to be a little crazy to do their job.
- schoen 11y ago
  > I make money by selling software. Does that make me a pariah to the FSF? I've never been sure. FSF encourages people to make money by selling software, but their view is that it is unethical to arrange for a user of software not to enjoy the four freedoms with respect to that software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_definition_and_the_Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T... If you've arranged for users of your software not to have those four freedoms, FSF finds what you do objectionable and wants you to stop doing it (I don't think "pariah" would be fair).
  - krapp 11y ago
    In other words, you can sell software as long as your license allows the user to make as many copies as they like, and give them away for free if they want. I can understand why so many people consider free software to be anti-capitalist in principle.
    - lucb1e 11y ago
      Sounds crazy right? I guess that's why we see so few examples of it being done in practice. However Factorio is a recent example that comes close: I rarely play games but Factorio seems nice. I tried the demo but wasn't sure if I thought it worth 20 euros. I then pirated it from a friend to try out further and a few days later decided to buy the game. I can give people as many copies as I like and yet they sold enough copies to make millions (on a team of 20 people iirc). I also bought the game a second time to gift it to someone.
underbluewaters 11y ago
I don't understand what they are objecting to here. What is "Proprietary JavaScript"? JavaScript is a part of the web, arguably the least proprietary technology platform in existence.
- privong 11y ago
  > What is "Proprietary JavaScript"? JavaScript is a part of the web, arguably the least proprietary technology platform in existence. They're not arguing the language is proprietary, they're taking issue that the code embedded in websites is often under a proprietary license. See https://fsf.org/campaigns/freejs https://fsf.org/campaigns/freejs
  - kefka 11y ago
    They say it right at the top of the document: > Proprietary JavaScript is a threat to all users on the Web. When minified, the code can hide all sorts of nasty items, like spyware and other security risks. Minification is the big baddie here, as it can hide all sorts of stuff. We all joke about spaghetti code and badly named variables. What happens with minification is that variables are a, b, c, d, e, .... and functions are truncated the same way. It'd be the equivalent of using an open-source system (like busybox), making modifications to it, and then including it on hardware. Then to comply with the license, you provide a hodgepodge of source files in non-standard ways, that might make the environment they provided.
    - fixermark 11y ago
      One practical key difference though is that the compute environment for the JavaScript is already built under an assumption that none of the software it's running can be trusted. So practically speaking, malicious JavaScript could, perhaps, exploit weaknesses in your sandbox but it can't save files the browser doesn't allow, read state the browser doesn't allow, make network connections the browser or the hosting machine's network configuration don't allow, etc., etc., etc. It's... An odd hill to choose to die on.
- SixSigma 11y ago
hashkb 11y ago
Wolf again?
- crpatino 11y ago
  The irony being that every damned time the boy cried wolf in the past, there was indeed a damned wolf stalking nearby, but the idiot villangers refused to acknolwledge that, and then they wonder where their damned sheep might be. Maybe we should rename the story as The girl that cried wolf instead... a girl that goes by the name of Cassandra.
mshaler 11y ago
"Should." Huh.
mbrock 11y ago
From the free software perspective, it's like the government is saying "in order to submit a comment to us, please download this obfuscated Turing complete software and run it on your computer." That this particular source code is JavaScript on a web page means that it obeys under some more or less correctly implemented sandbox, but you're still obliged to execute minified and unlicensed code. The FSF views that as unethical. You shouldn't need to load proprietary software onto your computer to communicate with the government. It's a principled stance that applies even where the current situation is not abusive, so it can seem like exaggeration or even "craziness." Their comment itself clearly explains their stance. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/2016-tech-comment-copyright-office https://www.fsf.org/licensing/2016-tech-comment-copyright-of...
- fixermark 11y ago
  I assume they're okay with the software on the copyright office's servers being proprietary and closed-source, as well as the software in the word processors and email servers and clients they'll use to banter the topic back and forth internally, right? It's just the fact that they can't HTTP POST their message to a server using open protocols that sticks in their craw? I'm curious where they draw the line at coming to terms with the mechanical necessities of interacting with the government to represent their constituency's interests.
  - mbrock 11y ago
    I'm not deeply familiar with the exact philosophy of the FSF, but I would guess: (1) software freedom is mostly about protecting the rights of you as a user of software, and if the government uses proprietary software on their own end to make decisions based on secret rules or whatever then that's basically their business; but on the other hand (2) there are strong arguments for making the decision making technology of government into free software since government is for and by the people who should have the right to understand the technology that governs them. So, in a way they do just want to be able to keep their own computers free from proprietary/secret binary blobs; on the other hand, advocating for government transparency goes hand in hand with advocating for software freedom (thus FSF and EFF are allies).
gtirloni 11y ago
Somehow I thought this was from the EFF and my immediate reaction was that they were going crazy. Then I realized it was the FSF instead and it all made sense. Closed tab.
daveloyall 11y ago
The LibreJS browser add-on blocks javascript that is above a certain size/complexity and doesn't have a programatically declared (or manually whitelisted) FOSS license. The FSF uses LibreJS on the computers in their office. Which makes it excruciating to buy airline tickets, for example. I was flabbergasted when I found this out. I thought something along the lines of "I've been giving these mad martyrs money!?". :) ...It took a while to sink in, but... They are right. The reasoning goes like this: A script embedded in a website is a tiny program that runs on your computer. It is software. Some software is morally wrong. Some software is morally neutral or good. Software can/has/will change the world, and it's important that it be a force of good, not evil. You can tell the difference between good and bad software by applying the following metrics. The software is "free" (as in William Wallace) if it provides the user with the following freedoms: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The javascript on government websites (even non-USA) should have those freedoms. Why not? Another comment here said that the FSF needs to "pick its battles". Actually, don't you think this is a great one to pick? There's no good excuse for a government web-dev to avoid meeting those requirements. And there's no good argument against users demanding them. It's just javascript! [Edit: wrap "excruciating" in * instead of ".]
- krapp 11y ago
  > There's no good excuse for a government web-dev to avoid meeting those requirements. Arguably, there is a perfectly valid excuse - the four freedoms aren't actually laws, so governments have no reason (or right) to enforce them.
  - daveloyall 11y ago
    Yet! ;)
gohrt 11y ago
It's interesting that when it comes to FOIA, the government will deliver documents in the most inconvenient way possible, but when soliciting input from the public, they only accept documents in whatever way is convenient for them.
mordae 11y ago
No one should have to use proprietary software. Period.
- fixermark 11y ago
  And yet almost everyone is willing to vote using e-voting machines and either drive to that voting location with a car that has an onboard computer or take some form of mass-transit with a location GPS and money transaction system...
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Pragmatic acceptance of the world as it is does not imply that you agree with it being that way. A lot of people sat at the back of the bus before Rosa Parks. I have a very strong aversion to evoting systems and will campaign against their introduction.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
dTal 11y ago
>The Copyright Office is the only agency we have dealt with that refuses to offer any method of submission that doesn't require proprietary software. I'm not sure whether that's ironic or expected.
darkstar999 11y ago
Does the following solution solve the FSF's problems with "proprietary javascript" (which just seems to mean that it has been minified)? Allow the browser to request un-minified javascript, at the cost of a larger payload.
- slrz 11y ago
  I think a (machine-readable) reference to the unobfuscated version is all that's needed.
- hawleyal 11y ago
  Most code is compiled. Their code is compiled, minified, not licensed, and not attributed.
MichaelBurge 11y ago
I wonder if the FSF should start their own religion. It would be easier to argue that the government should allow receiving comments by letter if not allowing them goes against their moral code. I don't think it would be stretching the definition of a religion, either.
- Torgo 11y ago
  They already have the Church of Emacs, and Richard Stallman is deemed Saint IGNUcius.
KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
A more egregious example is FinCen Form 114. This is a form that you must file with the Department of Treasury every year if you have a bank account abroad. This form is implemented as a JavaScripty PDF thingy that only works on Acrobat Reader on Windows (and maybe Mac) but not on Linux. The penalties for not filing this form are max($100K, 50% of your account balance), so you don't have much of a choice.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
I have been an FSF supporter for decades, but the JavaScript issue is one thing I don't totally agree with. That said, there should be nothing "fancy" on government web sites, and they should be compatible,with all operating systems and common web browsers.
skimmas 11y ago
What about java software running in the browser with unsecure certificates and full access to the system harddrive? because that's what we have in Portugal to fill taxes.
mankash666 11y ago
What a JOKE! There's NO control on how and where the government chooses to store your data, even if the javascript is GPL-ed. So, what gives? I had to double check if this was a buzzfeed clickbait or real FSF article. Travesty!

168 points by ashitlerferad 11y ago

Have you seen our tax code lately, or the Internal Revenue Service? Forget proprietary software. Try proprietary documents, forms, and methods of submission!

throwaway2016a 11y ago
I was going to say that... I love it when a Government site makes me download a MS Word or Excel file. So I need to either buy a Microsoft product or trust OSS solutions that often mangle the document (through no fault of their own... reverse engineering a proprietary file format is difficult and displaying it the exact same is even harder).
- matthewrhoden1 11y ago
  While you can't edit, you can view for free: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=10 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=10
  - throwaway2016a 11y ago
    It's good to know that exists. For what it's worth, I have a Mac so those won't work. I don't have the time right now to search microsoft.com for a Mac version so I reserve judgment until then :)
    - rz2k 11y ago
      Microsoft provides Windows images you can run in VirtualBox if you want to try it out. https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/mac/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/v...
  - daveloyall 11y ago
    Obligatory "That's gratis, not libre!"
  - slrz 11y ago
    Eh. Supported Operating System Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, Windows Vista, Windows XP Service Pack 2 Windows 7 So to view these propriatary document formats I'd first have to buy and set up a whole proprietary operating system?

jbob2000 11y ago

Wtf? Am I missing something here? People have problems with running propriety javascript? I don't get it. You don't have to install anything and if you're concerned about what could be in the javascript, then use incognito mode, tor, a proxy, etc. You're going to increase the cost of web software products exponentially if devs can't use propriety javascript.

streptomycin 11y ago
I think the thing you missed is the existence of people like the Free Software Foundation. There are indeed people who are generally opposed to proprietary software on a philosophical/ethical/moral level.
- kefka 11y ago
  The older I get, and the more software work I do, the more I come in parity to FSF's platform as a whole. IoT is a mess right now, purely because of rent-seeking anti-standards, treacherous computing. Do you own your devices? Hardly! Phillips shut down all 3rd party bulbs, and 'graciously' fixed that after a bad 1 day campaign... but retains the ability to do it again. Google destroyed the Revolv servers for no good reason. It trashed all the devices that relied the purely webAPI implemented hardware. I can go on... In the end, I just get sick and tired of being pulled in 1000 different directions, with as many 'cloud providers', doing that many different bad implementations of the same thing (but as their serf in their castle). Open Source is a way out of local computing problems. Open Standards allows me to bring my business elsewhere when I'm alienated. Open Protocols allows me to communicate with other networks and computers. All are essential.
brbsix 11y ago
This is largely a philosophical and moral issue as opposed to a practical one. It would be something akin to a conscientious objector drafted for military service or an Amish person required to apply for a horse and buggy operator's license via a government website.
mbrock 11y ago
"You're going to increase the cost of web software products exponentially if devs can't use propriety javascript." Why?

Bartweiss 11y ago

As usual with FSF stuff, I don't actually disagree, but it blows my mind that they actually care this much. I can't imagine being unwilling to submit a request (that furthers the cause of free software) because it requires going through a proprietary portal.

brbsix 11y ago
Their actions seem to be consistent with their principles. I'd be far more surprised if they were willing to sacrifice them out of pragmatism. Rather, perhaps the advice they need is "choose your battles".
- sethish 11y ago
  The anti-proprietary-js movement seems to be coming from RMS himself (given his complaints to con organizers). And he hasn't used a browser other than emacs in... ever?
  - davexunit 11y ago
    RMS uses the GNU IceCat fork of Firefox sometimes.

awinter-py 11y ago

I wish these guys worked on sounding less crazy. I agree with their point here: software does stuff we don't like and dot-gov has a responsibility to review third-party code. Linking that to an 'all software must be FOSS' argument starts to get nutty. I make money by selling software. Does that make me a pariah to the FSF? I've never been sure. I still want to donate money to preserve their unique voice, so maybe the answer is that you have to be a little crazy to do their job.

schoen 11y ago
> I make money by selling software. Does that make me a pariah to the FSF? I've never been sure. FSF encourages people to make money by selling software, but their view is that it is unethical to arrange for a user of software not to enjoy the four freedoms with respect to that software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_definition_and_the_Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T... If you've arranged for users of your software not to have those four freedoms, FSF finds what you do objectionable and wants you to stop doing it (I don't think "pariah" would be fair).
- krapp 11y ago
  In other words, you can sell software as long as your license allows the user to make as many copies as they like, and give them away for free if they want. I can understand why so many people consider free software to be anti-capitalist in principle.
  - lucb1e 11y ago
    Sounds crazy right? I guess that's why we see so few examples of it being done in practice. However Factorio is a recent example that comes close: I rarely play games but Factorio seems nice. I tried the demo but wasn't sure if I thought it worth 20 euros. I then pirated it from a friend to try out further and a few days later decided to buy the game. I can give people as many copies as I like and yet they sold enough copies to make millions (on a team of 20 people iirc). I also bought the game a second time to gift it to someone.

underbluewaters 11y ago

I don't understand what they are objecting to here. What is "Proprietary JavaScript"? JavaScript is a part of the web, arguably the least proprietary technology platform in existence.

privong 11y ago
> What is "Proprietary JavaScript"? JavaScript is a part of the web, arguably the least proprietary technology platform in existence. They're not arguing the language is proprietary, they're taking issue that the code embedded in websites is often under a proprietary license. See https://fsf.org/campaigns/freejs https://fsf.org/campaigns/freejs
- kefka 11y ago
  They say it right at the top of the document: > Proprietary JavaScript is a threat to all users on the Web. When minified, the code can hide all sorts of nasty items, like spyware and other security risks. Minification is the big baddie here, as it can hide all sorts of stuff. We all joke about spaghetti code and badly named variables. What happens with minification is that variables are a, b, c, d, e, .... and functions are truncated the same way. It'd be the equivalent of using an open-source system (like busybox), making modifications to it, and then including it on hardware. Then to comply with the license, you provide a hodgepodge of source files in non-standard ways, that might make the environment they provided.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    One practical key difference though is that the compute environment for the JavaScript is already built under an assumption that none of the software it's running can be trusted. So practically speaking, malicious JavaScript could, perhaps, exploit weaknesses in your sandbox but it can't save files the browser doesn't allow, read state the browser doesn't allow, make network connections the browser or the hosting machine's network configuration don't allow, etc., etc., etc. It's... An odd hill to choose to die on.
SixSigma 11y ago

hashkb 11y ago

Wolf again?

crpatino 11y ago
The irony being that every damned time the boy cried wolf in the past, there was indeed a damned wolf stalking nearby, but the idiot villangers refused to acknolwledge that, and then they wonder where their damned sheep might be. Maybe we should rename the story as The girl that cried wolf instead... a girl that goes by the name of Cassandra.

mshaler 11y ago

"Should." Huh.

mbrock 11y ago

From the free software perspective, it's like the government is saying "in order to submit a comment to us, please download this obfuscated Turing complete software and run it on your computer." That this particular source code is JavaScript on a web page means that it obeys under some more or less correctly implemented sandbox, but you're still obliged to execute minified and unlicensed code. The FSF views that as unethical. You shouldn't need to load proprietary software onto your computer to communicate with the government. It's a principled stance that applies even where the current situation is not abusive, so it can seem like exaggeration or even "craziness." Their comment itself clearly explains their stance. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/2016-tech-comment-copyright-office https://www.fsf.org/licensing/2016-tech-comment-copyright-of...

fixermark 11y ago
I assume they're okay with the software on the copyright office's servers being proprietary and closed-source, as well as the software in the word processors and email servers and clients they'll use to banter the topic back and forth internally, right? It's just the fact that they can't HTTP POST their message to a server using open protocols that sticks in their craw? I'm curious where they draw the line at coming to terms with the mechanical necessities of interacting with the government to represent their constituency's interests.
- mbrock 11y ago
  I'm not deeply familiar with the exact philosophy of the FSF, but I would guess: (1) software freedom is mostly about protecting the rights of you as a user of software, and if the government uses proprietary software on their own end to make decisions based on secret rules or whatever then that's basically their business; but on the other hand (2) there are strong arguments for making the decision making technology of government into free software since government is for and by the people who should have the right to understand the technology that governs them. So, in a way they do just want to be able to keep their own computers free from proprietary/secret binary blobs; on the other hand, advocating for government transparency goes hand in hand with advocating for software freedom (thus FSF and EFF are allies).

gtirloni 11y ago

Somehow I thought this was from the EFF and my immediate reaction was that they were going crazy. Then I realized it was the FSF instead and it all made sense. Closed tab.

daveloyall 11y ago

The LibreJS browser add-on blocks javascript that is above a certain size/complexity and doesn't have a programatically declared (or manually whitelisted) FOSS license. The FSF uses LibreJS on the computers in their office. Which makes it excruciating to buy airline tickets, for example. I was flabbergasted when I found this out. I thought something along the lines of "I've been giving these mad martyrs money!?". :) ...It took a while to sink in, but... They are right. The reasoning goes like this: A script embedded in a website is a tiny program that runs on your computer. It is software. Some software is morally wrong. Some software is morally neutral or good. Software can/has/will change the world, and it's important that it be a force of good, not evil. You can tell the difference between good and bad software by applying the following metrics. The software is "free" (as in William Wallace) if it provides the user with the following freedoms: * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The javascript on government websites (even non-USA) should have those freedoms. Why not? Another comment here said that the FSF needs to "pick its battles". Actually, don't you think this is a great one to pick? There's no good excuse for a government web-dev to avoid meeting those requirements. And there's no good argument against users demanding them. It's just javascript! [Edit: wrap "excruciating" in * instead of ".]

krapp 11y ago
> There's no good excuse for a government web-dev to avoid meeting those requirements. Arguably, there is a perfectly valid excuse - the four freedoms aren't actually laws, so governments have no reason (or right) to enforce them.
- daveloyall 11y ago
  Yet! ;)

gohrt 11y ago

It's interesting that when it comes to FOIA, the government will deliver documents in the most inconvenient way possible, but when soliciting input from the public, they only accept documents in whatever way is convenient for them.

mordae 11y ago

No one should have to use proprietary software. Period.

fixermark 11y ago
And yet almost everyone is willing to vote using e-voting machines and either drive to that voting location with a car that has an onboard computer or take some form of mass-transit with a location GPS and money transaction system...
- pjc50 11y ago
  Pragmatic acceptance of the world as it is does not imply that you agree with it being that way. A lot of people sat at the back of the bus before Rosa Parks. I have a very strong aversion to evoting systems and will campaign against their introduction.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

dTal 11y ago

>The Copyright Office is the only agency we have dealt with that refuses to offer any method of submission that doesn't require proprietary software. I'm not sure whether that's ironic or expected.

darkstar999 11y ago

Does the following solution solve the FSF's problems with "proprietary javascript" (which just seems to mean that it has been minified)? Allow the browser to request un-minified javascript, at the cost of a larger payload.

slrz 11y ago
I think a (machine-readable) reference to the unobfuscated version is all that's needed.
hawleyal 11y ago
Most code is compiled. Their code is compiled, minified, not licensed, and not attributed.

MichaelBurge 11y ago

I wonder if the FSF should start their own religion. It would be easier to argue that the government should allow receiving comments by letter if not allowing them goes against their moral code. I don't think it would be stretching the definition of a religion, either.

Torgo 11y ago
They already have the Church of Emacs, and Richard Stallman is deemed Saint IGNUcius.

KKKKkkkk1 11y ago

A more egregious example is FinCen Form 114. This is a form that you must file with the Department of Treasury every year if you have a bank account abroad. This form is implemented as a JavaScripty PDF thingy that only works on Acrobat Reader on Windows (and maybe Mac) but not on Linux. The penalties for not filing this form are max($100K, 50% of your account balance), so you don't have much of a choice.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

I have been an FSF supporter for decades, but the JavaScript issue is one thing I don't totally agree with. That said, there should be nothing "fancy" on government web sites, and they should be compatible,with all operating systems and common web browsers.

skimmas 11y ago

What about java software running in the browser with unsecure certificates and full access to the system harddrive? because that's what we have in Portugal to fill taxes.

mankash666 11y ago

What a JOKE! There's NO control on how and where the government chooses to store your data, even if the javascript is GPL-ed. So, what gives? I had to double check if this was a buzzfeed clickbait or real FSF article. Travesty!