4 ms·
It's our right as developers to modify and upgrade the tools we use. It's important to ensure that this remains true both today and in the future. I wanted to
by shawn 8y ago
It's our right as developers to modify and upgrade the tools we use. It's important to ensure that this remains true both today and in the future.
I wanted to give you a moral boost, in case you were looking for a reason to take a stand. But if you don't want to, that's entirely valid.
- overcast 8y agoOk Stallman, now back to reality where people do own software, they do have legal restrictions on its use, and it's not a human right to circumvent it.
- eertami 8y agoYeah and I also own the machine that's rendering the HTML and executing the Javascript. Nobody has any legal right to prevent me modifying my browser and changing how it interprets said javascript.
- overcast 8y agoThey do when you want to redistribute it with their name, which is the whole point of this discussion.
- shawn 8y agoThe heart of their complaint was not the name. It was the fact that the extension injects code into their site.
- overcast 8y agoSo, even more nefarious, and in violation of their terms?
- maple3142 8y agoIf you are using IE to browsing slack, and IE couldn't correctly render it. It is illegal?
- saagarjha 8y agoThat’s what we’re arguing. Slack should not be able to restrict me from modifying the experience on my hardware.
- matzy 8y agoJavaScript runs on the client genius, not the server. You're not changing their product, your modifying how it is run on your personal machine.
- facetube 8y agoThose terms bind Slack users. This problem goes away if the maintainer doesn't use Slack and has never used Slack. It wouldn't be efficient, but it'd be possible.
- tomrod 8y ago> the extension injects code into their site. But it doesn't inject code into their site, right? The HTTP request is made to the server all the same, nothing modified via the browser, it's all code additive/correction in the extension?
- pixl97 8y agoI'm not sure I'd say it injects code in to 'their site', as slacks site never sees the code. It injects code into the dom model of the users browser.
- saagarjha 8y agoNo, there are two points raised by the cease-and-desist: one was not to modify the experience, and the other was to change the name. These are two independent issues.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]