3 ms·
RMS has said he doesn't mind using ATMs that use non-free software because he can't be responsible for what other people run on their devices. If we consider th
by mcovey 12y ago
RMS has said he doesn't mind using ATMs that use non-free software because he can't be responsible for what other people run on their devices. If we consider the website a service, where the javascript runtime is isolated to the web, then it is a similar situation - while it is evaluated on your device, the code itself is not installed on your computer, and it is sandboxed to have very limited access.
This only really applies to JS served from the website. Offline apps are a little more iffy, and browser extensions certainly qualify as installed software that you are running. Possibly less so in Chrome, where the extension API has some pretty hard limits on what extension code can access, but in Firefox you have the ability to do almost anything on the user's machine, which is why Mozilla reviews add-ons before approving them and has stricter guidelines for how they should behave.
- belorn 12y agoThe problem of comparing ATM's with web services is that banks are liable for the machine to work correctly. For software, users are commonly the one liable if something goes wrong and thus in need of liberty to balance responsibility with freedom. If a bank websites JS software goes wrong and causes damages, whose fault is it? Is it the customer fault, maybe because his machine had broken hardware? Is it the bank, because its their service and they are responsible that all transactions are done correctly? Is it the JS developers who maybe introduced a bug? When we can define whose responsibility it is, we can define if the user of the software/service need access to change, modify and distribute the code.