4 ms·

This blocks JavaScript that isn't explicitly licensed exactly the way they want, right? In terms of the format of the license, the @licstart and @licend comment

This blocks JavaScript that isn't explicitly licensed exactly the way they want, right? In terms of the format of the license, the @licstart and @licend comments (with no comment afterwards), etc.? That's what this does?

janosdebugs 2y ago
It also doesn't block well-known libraries. Using this addon sounds like a really good way to have a bad time on the Internet. By the logic of this, why bot block websites which have non-free content or other supporting files? The whole premise of a website is that the owner gives you a licese of some kind to view it. Blocking only a technical part of it makes no logical sense. It's not like you are going to take the JS code under a free license that is likely dependent on the HTML structure under a non-free license and do stuff with it.
- gtsop 2y ago
  Your argument about non-free content does not apply to the gnu purposes with this plugin. Free Software is concerned with the problem of "what does my computer compute, what does it do, can i modify it". The content (images, text, video, html structure) on any website is not software
  - janosdebugs 2y ago
    You can do a lot of dark magic with CSS or SVG too. Specifically, CSS has calc too. Website haven't just been documents for a long long time and basically nobody is going to bother keeping any computation in the JS space only.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    > The content (images, text, video, html structure) on any website is not software What about things like htmx that put logic directly into html attributes?
- danlitt 2y ago
  [flagged]
wannacboatmovie 2y ago
[flagged]
- malicka 2y ago
  It’s not mental illness, it’s the logical extension of principle. If you think non-free software is unjustifiable and should be avoided, you’re probably going to try to avoid using it (or, at least, promoting it). There are three exceptions people sometimes make in their avoidance: Using non-free drivers, using non-free software for work/school, and using non-free software in the browser. It’s rational that someone would want to limit these exceptions as best they can, and LibreJS is useful for that. I use LibreJS not to help me completely avoid non-free JS, but to make me more concious of my software use. If a site has non-free code and LibreJS pings me about it, I’ll consider if there’s a better site I should be supporting instead.
  - KronisLV 2y ago
    > If a site has non-free code and LibreJS pings me about it, I’ll consider if there’s a better site I should be supporting instead. I wonder how viable this is in the age of the network effect, where most people and content can be found on like 10 big sites. If I need an answer for something but it's on StackOverflow, YouTube, Reddit or even a Discord server, then that's just where I'll go, principles be damned. For many it's probably the same way with X vs Mastodon, the latter of which does feel more wholesome but can get lonely, or at the very least limits your reach. Same with social media or professional sites like LinkedIn. Same with using one of the more popular browsers, OSes, drivers or a lot of other proprietary software. Not to dismiss anyone who cares deeply about free software, but honestly I wonder what % of people are actually committed to those ideals and how many are just cruising through life with whatever is the most popular option with least troubles for everything.
    - hhreefgguu 2y ago
      > principles be damned This is a very common occurrence: convenience or perceived necessity trumping principles. > I wonder what % of people are actually committed Almost 0%, if by “actually committed” you mean consistently applying these principles in practice, in the face of inconvenience. I nevertheless believe that having principles, however vague and sometimes inconsistently applied, is a good thing, in that it structures thought and informs action. It gives a way to discuss how things “should” be.
LukeShu 2y ago
In addition to the documented+recommended format, it also supports a few others. But yeah, it's pretty picky about how the license statement is formatted.
enriquto 2y ago
> This blocks JavaScript that isn't explicitly licensed exactly the way they want, right? The way you want. Nobody forces you to run this plugin. You can run this plugin, or not, or even change the plugin source code to better fit your needs (something that you cannot do with the javascript programs this add-on is designed to protect you from).

janosdebugs 2y ago

It also doesn't block well-known libraries. Using this addon sounds like a really good way to have a bad time on the Internet. By the logic of this, why bot block websites which have non-free content or other supporting files? The whole premise of a website is that the owner gives you a licese of some kind to view it. Blocking only a technical part of it makes no logical sense. It's not like you are going to take the JS code under a free license that is likely dependent on the HTML structure under a non-free license and do stuff with it.

gtsop 2y ago
Your argument about non-free content does not apply to the gnu purposes with this plugin. Free Software is concerned with the problem of "what does my computer compute, what does it do, can i modify it". The content (images, text, video, html structure) on any website is not software
- janosdebugs 2y ago
  You can do a lot of dark magic with CSS or SVG too. Specifically, CSS has calc too. Website haven't just been documents for a long long time and basically nobody is going to bother keeping any computation in the JS space only.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  > The content (images, text, video, html structure) on any website is not software What about things like htmx that put logic directly into html attributes?
danlitt 2y ago
[flagged]

wannacboatmovie 2y ago

[flagged]

malicka 2y ago
It’s not mental illness, it’s the logical extension of principle. If you think non-free software is unjustifiable and should be avoided, you’re probably going to try to avoid using it (or, at least, promoting it). There are three exceptions people sometimes make in their avoidance: Using non-free drivers, using non-free software for work/school, and using non-free software in the browser. It’s rational that someone would want to limit these exceptions as best they can, and LibreJS is useful for that. I use LibreJS not to help me completely avoid non-free JS, but to make me more concious of my software use. If a site has non-free code and LibreJS pings me about it, I’ll consider if there’s a better site I should be supporting instead.
- KronisLV 2y ago
  > If a site has non-free code and LibreJS pings me about it, I’ll consider if there’s a better site I should be supporting instead. I wonder how viable this is in the age of the network effect, where most people and content can be found on like 10 big sites. If I need an answer for something but it's on StackOverflow, YouTube, Reddit or even a Discord server, then that's just where I'll go, principles be damned. For many it's probably the same way with X vs Mastodon, the latter of which does feel more wholesome but can get lonely, or at the very least limits your reach. Same with social media or professional sites like LinkedIn. Same with using one of the more popular browsers, OSes, drivers or a lot of other proprietary software. Not to dismiss anyone who cares deeply about free software, but honestly I wonder what % of people are actually committed to those ideals and how many are just cruising through life with whatever is the most popular option with least troubles for everything.
  - hhreefgguu 2y ago
    > principles be damned This is a very common occurrence: convenience or perceived necessity trumping principles. > I wonder what % of people are actually committed Almost 0%, if by “actually committed” you mean consistently applying these principles in practice, in the face of inconvenience. I nevertheless believe that having principles, however vague and sometimes inconsistently applied, is a good thing, in that it structures thought and informs action. It gives a way to discuss how things “should” be.

LukeShu 2y ago

In addition to the documented+recommended format, it also supports a few others. But yeah, it's pretty picky about how the license statement is formatted.

enriquto 2y ago

> This blocks JavaScript that isn't explicitly licensed exactly the way they want, right? The way you want. Nobody forces you to run this plugin. You can run this plugin, or not, or even change the plugin source code to better fit your needs (something that you cannot do with the javascript programs this add-on is designed to protect you from).