3 ms·

They were mentioned in the Credit/Debit card section just not by name. Mostly it's because they use proprietary code that the organization doesn't feel aligns w

by jimminy 10y ago

They were mentioned in the Credit/Debit card section just not by name. Mostly it's because they use proprietary code that the organization doesn't feel aligns with it's ethics. ". Most merchants outsource to third party card processing facilities (which won’t be mentioned here), typically redirecting to a page on that providers website, for accepting payments. The problem with this is that they often serve proprietary JavaScript"

ploxiln 10y ago
I appreciate what the FSF has done, and I generally appreciate their hard-line stance on free software issues ... but it's corner-cases like website javascript where I think they've gone off the rails. The browser running the javascript can be free/libre, the OS it is running on can be free/libre, the javascript language and browser environment is relatively standardized, it's sandboxed ... The JS is really just part of the page and/or service API. FSF doesn't have as big a problem calling banks that use closed-source telephony software or making api requests to closed-source webserver backends, there's really not that big a difference from a fully free/libre client interpreting a script in a standardized sandboxed environment, which it just received from a service, as part of using that service. The other odd FSF corner-case is that firmware blobs that you can't update are OK, but firmware blobs that you can update are not OK (even if they are freely redistributable). I'd say having a hardline stance on this is just not helpful.
- webscaleizfun 10y ago
  Re: Javascript, all the FSF wants is a bright line for libre JS and proprietary JS & choice for what users want to run, and the ability to substitute in alternative javascript to replace the closed source JS on most sites. We're basically in the same place as Mono (Silverlight) and Shumway (Flash) did/could have ended up, where sure the engine to run the code is libre, but the code itself is not, and worse yet it is not clearly licensed. On firmware, the FSF has drawn a bright line on where hardware ends and software starts, and where they've drawn it is on whether firmware on device can be updated or not. If its not updatable, its a piece of hardware, plain and simple. If its updatable, then it is software, thus said code should be freely licensed and not Tivoized.

by jimminy 10y ago

ploxiln 10y ago

I appreciate what the FSF has done, and I generally appreciate their hard-line stance on free software issues ... but it's corner-cases like website javascript where I think they've gone off the rails. The browser running the javascript can be free/libre, the OS it is running on can be free/libre, the javascript language and browser environment is relatively standardized, it's sandboxed ... The JS is really just part of the page and/or service API. FSF doesn't have as big a problem calling banks that use closed-source telephony software or making api requests to closed-source webserver backends, there's really not that big a difference from a fully free/libre client interpreting a script in a standardized sandboxed environment, which it just received from a service, as part of using that service. The other odd FSF corner-case is that firmware blobs that you can't update are OK, but firmware blobs that you can update are not OK (even if they are freely redistributable). I'd say having a hardline stance on this is just not helpful.

webscaleizfun 10y ago
Re: Javascript, all the FSF wants is a bright line for libre JS and proprietary JS & choice for what users want to run, and the ability to substitute in alternative javascript to replace the closed source JS on most sites. We're basically in the same place as Mono (Silverlight) and Shumway (Flash) did/could have ended up, where sure the engine to run the code is libre, but the code itself is not, and worse yet it is not clearly licensed. On firmware, the FSF has drawn a bright line on where hardware ends and software starts, and where they've drawn it is on whether firmware on device can be updated or not. If its not updatable, its a piece of hardware, plain and simple. If its updatable, then it is software, thus said code should be freely licensed and not Tivoized.