4 ms·

Doesn’t that reasoning also imply that GNU and Linux are awfully opaque and not free nor open, since they are typically distributed as binaries?

by mbrock 7y ago

re-actor 7y ago
If the binaries were the only way to access GNU or Linux then yes, obviously. That's not the case now is it.
- mbrock 7y ago
  Right, because when you distribute free software in binary form, you make sure to make the source code available with a copyright license disclaimer allowing redistribution. This applies exactly to WebAssembly software just as it does with Java software. Software freedom is compatible with binary distribution.
neckardt 7y ago
No, because GNU and Linux are bound by license restrictions which require the unobfuscated source code to be made available. If all websites made their source available as well as distributing the binary, there wouldn't be a problem.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
eikenberry 7y ago
Only if the sites using webassembly binaries also have the source available to download.
mtrower 7y ago
Well, for one thing, mature debuggers exist (the equivalent to the tooling he inquired about for .wasm). More importantly, however, anything GPL must make source available and reasonably accessible. There is no such guarantee or even expectation for random programs on the web.
- mbrock 7y ago
  Indeed, huge amounts of JavaScript that’s already out there does not come with a free software license. The FSF has been complaining about this for years. As for debugging, this is not a particularly hard or fundamental problem. It’s basically solved already. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/webassembly https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/webassembl...
dmvinson 7y ago
The source for GNU and Linux is viewable by everyone, which negates the inability to view what is happening inside a binary. This is the problem Javascript source maps are meant to solve for the web, and I would welcome WASM more if part of the standard was a requirement for a source map when browser Dev Tools are open.
- bogwog 7y ago
  > This is the problem Javascript source maps are meant to solve for the web That's not the problem source maps are meant to solve. They exist to debug transpiled code. > The source for GNU and Linux is viewable by everyone, which negates the inability to view what is happening inside a binary. That's not true. It is non-trivial to verify that the binary you received was built with the source code that's openly available. The point of FOSS is that you always have the option to build your own binaries so that you can be 100% certain of what is running on your machine. Most people aren't going to do that, so they need to place their trust on a third party (like whoever built their kernel). FOSS just makes that trust optional instead of mandatory (like it is with something like Windows)
LaGrange 7y ago
I think it's quite different, because it used to enforce (past tense) availability of the source code, which was quite neat from the consumer perspective. Linux distros had a very different dynamic, so that enforcement was effectively unnecessary. It stopped working as enforcement ages ago, though, so ️.

Doesn’t that reasoning also imply that GNU and Linux are awfully opaque and not free nor open, since they are typically distributed as binaries?

by mbrock 7y ago

Doesn’t that reasoning also imply that GNU and Linux are awfully opaque and not free nor open, since they are typically distributed as binaries?

re-actor 7y ago

If the binaries were the only way to access GNU or Linux then yes, obviously. That's not the case now is it.

mbrock 7y ago
Right, because when you distribute free software in binary form, you make sure to make the source code available with a copyright license disclaimer allowing redistribution. This applies exactly to WebAssembly software just as it does with Java software. Software freedom is compatible with binary distribution.

neckardt 7y ago

No, because GNU and Linux are bound by license restrictions which require the unobfuscated source code to be made available. If all websites made their source available as well as distributing the binary, there wouldn't be a problem.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

eikenberry 7y ago

Only if the sites using webassembly binaries also have the source available to download.

mtrower 7y ago

Well, for one thing, mature debuggers exist (the equivalent to the tooling he inquired about for .wasm). More importantly, however, anything GPL must make source available and reasonably accessible. There is no such guarantee or even expectation for random programs on the web.

mbrock 7y ago
Indeed, huge amounts of JavaScript that’s already out there does not come with a free software license. The FSF has been complaining about this for years. As for debugging, this is not a particularly hard or fundamental problem. It’s basically solved already. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/webassembly https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2019/12/webassembl...

dmvinson 7y ago

The source for GNU and Linux is viewable by everyone, which negates the inability to view what is happening inside a binary. This is the problem Javascript source maps are meant to solve for the web, and I would welcome WASM more if part of the standard was a requirement for a source map when browser Dev Tools are open.

bogwog 7y ago
> This is the problem Javascript source maps are meant to solve for the web That's not the problem source maps are meant to solve. They exist to debug transpiled code. > The source for GNU and Linux is viewable by everyone, which negates the inability to view what is happening inside a binary. That's not true. It is non-trivial to verify that the binary you received was built with the source code that's openly available. The point of FOSS is that you always have the option to build your own binaries so that you can be 100% certain of what is running on your machine. Most people aren't going to do that, so they need to place their trust on a third party (like whoever built their kernel). FOSS just makes that trust optional instead of mandatory (like it is with something like Windows)

LaGrange 7y ago

I think it's quite different, because it used to enforce (past tense) availability of the source code, which was quite neat from the consumer perspective. Linux distros had a very different dynamic, so that enforcement was effectively unnecessary. It stopped working as enforcement ages ago, though, so ️.