The web is basically just an instrument for exchanging information.
If you visit a website containing pictures of great artists, the content is
the same like you see it in a museum and it doesn't have to be free and is
not of practicel use.
However, the way the website is rendered out of an
By your logic, I also have to stop reading books, stop watching videos, stop
listening to talks... basically, your argument boils down to having to live
under a rock. I don't believe that.
Information doesn't directly control anyone's life. Software does, because it
is a series of
If you're going to be that uptight about web freedom, you need to stop
browsing the web altogether.
Web pages might not be software. But are they not a work of practical use,
which according to the FSF should carry the same rights as software? Is it
not true that rendering text and UI
If you have your own server, there's GitLab: https://gitlab.com
Armworm wrote:
If you're going to be that uptight about web freedom, you need to
stop browsing the web altogether.
Web pages might not be software. But are they not a work of practical
use, which according to the FSF should carry the same rights as
software?
Some web pages are, others are
Is it not true that instructions rendering text and UI elements in an
aesthetically pleasing way could be considered practical.
Things like HTML not, but. Does websites like google docs serves for
practical use? Of course they do. Then, the software that powers that should
be free (at
Software freedoms apply also to works of practical use. The Web is a work of
practical use. Therefore, software freedoms should apply to the Web.
There's a discussion about this on an internal GNU mailing list.
One path that GNU might take is downloading scripts into the users home
directory so they have control over them, possibly based on the dotjs
extension: https://github.com/rlr/dotjs-addon
What about dynamically created web pages?
rootstrikers.org is a dynamically-created AngularJS application that's set up
to work with GNU LibreJS. It's not too hard to properly license all your
scripts, no matter how dependent your site is on JavaScript.
Responsive design?
I don't know
Armworm:
What about dynamically created web pages?
Server side? User scripts?
Responsive design?
CSS3?
Do those not require JavaScript? Yet they are not replaceable by
installed software.
They are replaceable by user scripts (such as Greasemonkey-compatible
scripts).
The web is built
. I have been browsing the web for years with
JavaScript disabled. A small number websites don't provide fallback
options which can be an issue.
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. You can't even order a pizza without
javascript.
Same goes for flight tickets, train tickets... I could go on
When I said web browsing I meant reading and browsing through web
pages/documents, not logging into websites.
Who needs to order a pizza online anyway? Just make a phone call.
Andrew
Same goes for flight tickets, train tickets... I could go on
forever. It's best to mention the websites that do work without
javascript... Mostly simple homepage-style information sites with
text and pictures only like stallman.org I think denying the problem
won't get us anywhere.
But I do
There is a problem with JavaScript requirements, but it's important to keep
in mind that most of them are gratuitous and can be fixed. Take ordering a
pizza, for example, which is really just sending some information to someone.
It's perfectly possible to send information to a server without
It basically reads like 'look how awefull it is that thousands of programs
get installed and executed on our pcs from random sources without our
permission
As somebody who hasn't quite got the expertise in programming would you
please enlighten at least myself as to why it isn't (assuming
https://gitorious.org
That doesn't matter, because JavaScript code can still do malicious things
that you don't want it to do, like making an AJAX request to Google
Analytics.
Even if the JavaScript isn't doing something malicious, there are countless
reasons why you would want to change what the code is doing.
Yeah, Gitorious works as a place to host git repositories, but it doesn't
have most of the features that GitHub provides. It would be nice to see an
issue tracker in Gitorious, as well as a web hosting mechanism like
onpon4.github.io is using.
But Julian's essay is talking about nonfree or proprietary JavaScript code
First of all, that's just wrong. Julian is explicitly talking about all
javascript out there, free as well as non-free. Librejs aims to wipe out
non-free javascript, but that's not enough to his eyes.
If i
If all you care about is security, then sure, you can say JavaScript is
pretty much fine
I think there are too many JS related issues for one to be able to say so.
https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/
What I should have said is: his essay talks about the differences of nonfree
and free JavaScript, not malicious and non-malicious JavaScript.
Well, that is a different issue then. And that's being addressed by the
Mozilla team.
If i understood correctly, one of his main problems with javascript is that
those 'programs' get silently 'installed and executed' from various untrusted
sources.
You're right, that does seem to be his main concern. In that case, I'd
suggest NoScript, or not running JavaScript at all.
From Julian's essay:
Let's suppose even further that LibreJS succeeds so much that it causes a
large portion of the Web to release scripts under libre licenses and document
the licenses in a format LibreJS can understand.
It seems great on the surface, but what follows from this is that
To my mind, for the system of JavaScript to be acceptable, each script
installation must be explicitly authorized by the user, unless the user has
decided to place trust in someone, and permanent so that you can keep an old
version; and it needs to be possible to install other scripts in
Yeah, your intentions are noble and all, but it's not going to happen.
What about dynamically created web pages? Responsive design? Do those not
require JavaScript? Yet they are not replaceable by installed software.
The web is built on JavaScript, and it is normally used for good and not
I posted a topic about this recently. Now I've written an essay about it:
https://onpon4.github.io/other/kill-js/
I've come to the conclusion that making JavaScript code libre is the wrong
direction to take. I think automatically installed JavaScript should just be
rejected, and I have
Reading an article about software freedom that is itself hosted by non-free
software seems ironic.
I was thinking the same thing.
Julian, I enjoyed reading this essay, but I would stay away from Github
whenever possible.
They're extremely corporate-minded.
the GPL is too restrictive and dogmatic to be usable in many cases. I want
everyone to benefit from my code. Everyone. That's what
javascript has always been turned off for me since I first understood how
many problems ,especially security wise, it can introduce..
always off..
When I last weighed my options, it was the best choice I could find. I was
only looking at gratis hosts at the time because I didn't have a stable
source of income, and the only other alternative I could find which didn't
require gratuitous JavaScript and didn't require me to run proprietary
Onpon, there is one big flaw in your argumentation: you portray the
installation and execution of a javascript program as equal to the
installation and execution of normal software.
It's just not the same thing. The capabilities of javascript are far, far (!)
more limited than this is the
It is still software and, regardless of what it can do, still needs to be
free. The free software movement is about ethics, not about security or other
issues (although they do intersect but still, you know what I mean.) :)
That makes sense. But there are other choices. You can search for SDF, or
devio.us. I would host your website if you want on my linode VPS.
All the services I've mentioned don't necessarily align with the goals of
GNU, but github in particular I have issues with because of their 'corporate
That may be so, but still the comparison drawn in the essay is not correct.
It basically reads like 'look how awefull it is that thousands of programs
get installed and executed on our pcs from random sources without our
permission' but it doesn't talk about the major differences here.
35 matches
Mail list logo
