4 ms·

Look, dude, web software is often part of a software as a service model. If I let you dig through my JS, you would get the service for free. In short: No.

dmv 18y ago
That does not -- and should not -- immediately follow. If you consider your look and feel software to be your exclusive value-add, you are not a candidate for FOSS and RMS is irrelevant. The traditional SOAS advantage is availability and data access; having your client code freely available does not reduce either advantage. Accessing is not (should not) be equivalent to access. If I had the front-end javascript source code to gmail or salesforce or basecamp, that would neither give me access to other user's data, nor give me free access. Proof: I do have access to their complete front-end source code, just minified. Having it more readable would just be convenient. Minification / Obfuscation != Security. Don't put anything in your front end code that you would not want an adversary to read (true of the backend too, if perhaps less urgently).
- swolchok 18y ago
  Obfuscation adds an inconvenience barrier: you get the code for free (of course, because you can't be stopped), but you don't get nice, maintainable, well-written code for free.
  - jodrellblank 18y ago
    You get the code without charge, but you don't get it with (legal, licensed) freedom to tinker with it, which is RMS's ongoing concern.
mahmud 18y ago
Facebook can release its entire application platform as Free software and you could not take their user base away from them. I think web developers are over estimating the sophistication of their work :-)
- axod 18y ago
  If their software was available from the very start - eg before they had any users, it's quite possible someone else may have 'won'. You can't argue based on a 'network effect' website that has obvious lock-in. Look at some non-social webapp. Say an online image editor. If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share. There's no upside to releasing the source code, and obvious downside (Assuming you're in it to make money and not just spread love).
  - mahmud 18y ago
    "If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share." Image-editing algorithms are published in text-books. Graphics API for the web (flash, java, canvas, etc.) are published in API documentation. Nothing is secret. If someone copies your GPLed Free software and improves on it you can go and copy the improved version if you want it. If a competitor is blindly copying you, you probably have nothing to worry about (should I elaborate?.) And if your competitive edge can be taken away with cut-and-paste, then you have ALLOT to worry about.
    - axod 18y ago
      It's a decision that should be up to the author. And I personally have complete respect for both decisions.
      - mahmud 18y ago
        Respects. But allow me to add that the great majority of web startups are running on the value of a "social network". Remove the users and the service is worth nothing. You can't say that about shrink-wrap software; even if the great majority of the people don't use it, there is that one or two lucrative corporate or government contract to make it all worthwhile. So in that light, shouldn't the users of web apps be entitled to something a little more than "free use"? Say, a little assurance that the platform they trust so much of their private lives is transparent, extensible, and should the company sink tomorrow, available for replication? What happens when you strike it rich, sell the startup to a Mega Corp and move to Tahiti? The users will be at the mercy of greedy suits who will fill data warehouses with every click, persona and profile of your users, the very same people who made you rich.

dmv 18y ago

That does not -- and should not -- immediately follow. If you consider your look and feel software to be your exclusive value-add, you are not a candidate for FOSS and RMS is irrelevant. The traditional SOAS advantage is availability and data access; having your client code freely available does not reduce either advantage. Accessing is not (should not) be equivalent to access. If I had the front-end javascript source code to gmail or salesforce or basecamp, that would neither give me access to other user's data, nor give me free access. Proof: I do have access to their complete front-end source code, just minified. Having it more readable would just be convenient. Minification / Obfuscation != Security. Don't put anything in your front end code that you would not want an adversary to read (true of the backend too, if perhaps less urgently).

swolchok 18y ago
Obfuscation adds an inconvenience barrier: you get the code for free (of course, because you can't be stopped), but you don't get nice, maintainable, well-written code for free.
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  You get the code without charge, but you don't get it with (legal, licensed) freedom to tinker with it, which is RMS's ongoing concern.

mahmud 18y ago

Facebook can release its entire application platform as Free software and you could not take their user base away from them. I think web developers are over estimating the sophistication of their work :-)

axod 18y ago
If their software was available from the very start - eg before they had any users, it's quite possible someone else may have 'won'. You can't argue based on a 'network effect' website that has obvious lock-in. Look at some non-social webapp. Say an online image editor. If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share. There's no upside to releasing the source code, and obvious downside (Assuming you're in it to make money and not just spread love).
- mahmud 18y ago
  "If the source was available, copy cats competitors could spring up and take away market share." Image-editing algorithms are published in text-books. Graphics API for the web (flash, java, canvas, etc.) are published in API documentation. Nothing is secret. If someone copies your GPLed Free software and improves on it you can go and copy the improved version if you want it. If a competitor is blindly copying you, you probably have nothing to worry about (should I elaborate?.) And if your competitive edge can be taken away with cut-and-paste, then you have ALLOT to worry about.
  - axod 18y ago
    It's a decision that should be up to the author. And I personally have complete respect for both decisions.
    - mahmud 18y ago
      Respects. But allow me to add that the great majority of web startups are running on the value of a "social network". Remove the users and the service is worth nothing. You can't say that about shrink-wrap software; even if the great majority of the people don't use it, there is that one or two lucrative corporate or government contract to make it all worthwhile. So in that light, shouldn't the users of web apps be entitled to something a little more than "free use"? Say, a little assurance that the platform they trust so much of their private lives is transparent, extensible, and should the company sink tomorrow, available for replication? What happens when you strike it rich, sell the startup to a Mega Corp and move to Tahiti? The users will be at the mercy of greedy suits who will fill data warehouses with every click, persona and profile of your users, the very same people who made you rich.