3 ms·

JavaScript is one of the freeist languages in common usage. On any page on the Internet, I can hit Alt+Shift+I and literally modify the source code of the page

JavaScript is one of the freeist languages in common usage. On any page on the Internet, I can hit Alt+Shift+I and literally modify the source code of the page in real time. Yeah, sometimes the names are minified (which is presumably what this campaign is about), but it's a stretch of credibility for the FSF to put a proprietary OS and a minified web site in the same category. More to the point, the sites that are big enough for this to even be an issue (such as the cited Google Docs) have a business interest in keeping that code proprietary. If you drew a Venn diagram of sites complex enough that minification prevents tinkering and sites with any likelihood of GPLing that code, you'd have two independent circles.

winter_blue 13y ago
Fair point. So we have a situation similar to any other kind of software. I just want to point out though, that optimized & minified code isn't really that different from say -- a blob of JVM code. JVM can be de-compiled, and sort-of be brought into a human readable form. This is a tab bit harder with x86 - but we're forgetting obfuscators here. Anyone who really don't want you to peek into their code will use an obfuscator. Ultimately though -- I think the defining aspect of whether X code is open or closed, is the a measure of the ease with which I can take that code and modify it (perhaps make some enhancements to it). This is either difficult or sometimes practically impossible with x86, obfuscated JVM, obfuscated and/or minified JS, etc.
streptomycin 13y ago
The FSF's goal isn't to allow you to view and tinker with code. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You seem to be arguing that because X is worse than Y, we shouldn't worry about Y. Or that because Y is hard to change, we should ignore its problems. The FSF will never agree with that, though.

winter_blue 13y ago

Fair point. So we have a situation similar to any other kind of software. I just want to point out though, that optimized & minified code isn't really that different from say -- a blob of JVM code. JVM can be de-compiled, and sort-of be brought into a human readable form. This is a tab bit harder with x86 - but we're forgetting obfuscators here. Anyone who really don't want you to peek into their code will use an obfuscator. Ultimately though -- I think the defining aspect of whether X code is open or closed, is the a measure of the ease with which I can take that code and modify it (perhaps make some enhancements to it). This is either difficult or sometimes practically impossible with x86, obfuscated JVM, obfuscated and/or minified JS, etc.

streptomycin 13y ago

The FSF's goal isn't to allow you to view and tinker with code. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You seem to be arguing that because X is worse than Y, we shouldn't worry about Y. Or that because Y is hard to change, we should ignore its problems. The FSF will never agree with that, though.