4 ms·

As far as I see it, freeness of javascript more or less meaningless in a web application. The fact is that the barriers to making web applications free are much

by trezor 18y ago

As far as I see it, freeness of javascript more or less meaningless in a web application. The fact is that the barriers to making web applications free are much higher, and there are a lot more legitimate arguments as to why it shouldn't be free. But you'll keep running them on those servers powered by free software running on a free operating system stating how open solutions are better, wont you? How is that for bigotry? It's like you are deliberately trying to stir up a troll-storm. But please: Do give me some insights on why making web-based applications free poses any more challenges than freakin' kernel-code.

dasil003 18y ago
Sorry, I made a leap there and you misunderstood me. What good is free javascript in a web application where a significant portion of the code lives on the server? The fundamental issue of software freedom is trivial when you are running software locally. I'm running this software locally, and I want to be free to do with it as I will. However web application software has the local component (JS) and the server component. The software that is running on the server is clearly not being run by the end user and therefore the notion of freedom is not so clear. Sure, we can make it "free" by releasing the source of the server code, but setting up a server may be non-trivial. Or it may be useless without the data from the service. Maybe the user's data could be released, or maybe it's intertwined with other user's data. The point is, I care very much about freedom of software in general, but having free javascript by itself is essentially useless to me in the vast majority of cases.
- trezor 18y ago
  Thanks for clearing that up. That statement makes a lot more sense. There are a lot of free javascript libraries out there, and quite a few which doesn't directly involve server-callbacks, and leaves you with the power to hook things together as you please. In that case, free javascript libraries still makes a lot of sense. For situations where the bulk of the solution is actually server-side code, I wouldn't really call that a "javascript library", but some regular server-side solution with added javascript/AJAX functionality. And in those cases I can be willing to agree with your statement.

by trezor 18y ago

dasil003 18y ago

Sorry, I made a leap there and you misunderstood me. What good is free javascript in a web application where a significant portion of the code lives on the server? The fundamental issue of software freedom is trivial when you are running software locally. I'm running this software locally, and I want to be free to do with it as I will. However web application software has the local component (JS) and the server component. The software that is running on the server is clearly not being run by the end user and therefore the notion of freedom is not so clear. Sure, we can make it "free" by releasing the source of the server code, but setting up a server may be non-trivial. Or it may be useless without the data from the service. Maybe the user's data could be released, or maybe it's intertwined with other user's data. The point is, I care very much about freedom of software in general, but having free javascript by itself is essentially useless to me in the vast majority of cases.

trezor 18y ago
Thanks for clearing that up. That statement makes a lot more sense. There are a lot of free javascript libraries out there, and quite a few which doesn't directly involve server-callbacks, and leaves you with the power to hook things together as you please. In that case, free javascript libraries still makes a lot of sense. For situations where the bulk of the solution is actually server-side code, I wouldn't really call that a "javascript library", but some regular server-side solution with added javascript/AJAX functionality. And in those cases I can be willing to agree with your statement.