Submitted by Richard Stallman, frontman of the Free Software Foundation, has shifted his attention towards web applications. “In the free software community, the idea that non-free programs mistreat their users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to install proprietary software, and many others consider non-freedom a strike against the program. Many users are aware that this issue applies to the plug-ins that browsers offer to install, since they can be free or non-free. But browsers run other non-free programs which they don’t ask you about or even tell you about^aEUR”programs that web pages contain or link to. These programs are most often written in Javascript, though other languages are also used.”
Does anyone still listen to this guy or what? Seems to me he is getting way too much media exposure. The last time he said something sensible, his hair was half as long…
JAL
I suppose he’s good for a laugh if nothing else.
I may not always agree with what he says, but I respect him.
What on Earth is this guy on? It’s gotta be something seriously dangerous to his health.
Does anyone other than this guy and maybe some members of the GNU Project really think that end users want to choose when to run the Google Gmail or the hippy Stallman edition of Gmail?
Maybe he does want to but lets get serious.. this is nothing more than a political stance and offers absolutely nothing to the advancement of the Internet and web-based applications other than CONFUSION.
Edited 2009-03-24 10:45 UTC
Hang on — what’s got you so worked up? As far as I can make out from the article, Stallman is trying to create a standard way of making Web-app source-code available. Seems like a sensible suggestion to me. I didn’t see any mention of a “hippy” Gmail!
Seems to me like he wants that and the ability for browsers to give him the choice of running it or a modified version of his choosing.
I just used Gmail as an example.
Edited 2009-03-24 11:12 UTC
It’s a decision from the end user to run Google Docs (non-free) or OpenOffice.org (free). As long as you prefer Google Docs, you accept its almost closed source and you’re fine with it. If you can’t stand thinking the code you’re running in your browser is unreadable, don’t use it. The user is free to choose. There will always be open and closed options.
Another point to consider is that if you could read easily Google Docs’source code, what would be the point? It’s only half the code because you don’t have access to the server-side code.
And seriously, what computer users (other than Stallman and friends) want to have access to javascript source code in web sites? What’s next? Will Stallman ask web sites to also make available source files for company logos so people can open the logo files in the GIMP and change them at will? Will he ask also for all webmasters to make a tarball of their PHP application available in the “About Us” page for people to look at and make changes at will?
I’m all for freedom and openness in software, but this is becoming laughable. Javascript is an open language, it’s a great alternative to Flash and VBScript for web applications, neat visual effects and interactivity on the web if used smartly. It runs great on uncommon systems (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, etc…) because it has a free and open specification (ECMA). I don’t see the problem using it. If you want your code open, make your JS file easy to read; if you want to protect your code for some reason, obfuscate it. The user chooses to run it or not. No freedom issue, really!
Edited 2009-03-24 11:25 UTC
You’re missing the point!
What’s the difference between a closed app you install on your system and a closed app you run server side?
If you’re an open source advocate, then any server side code should also be open source and viewable by anyone.
Just because it runs on someones server and you don’t physically install it does not excuse the fact that it’s closed and proprietary.
Please people, try to see the whole forest, not just the trees!
This is what I said:
– The Javascript is only half of the code. Having it open is not enough to run the application, you need the server-side code as well.
– Next, Stallman is going to ask webmasters to make a tarball of their PHP application available in their “About Us” page.
That would be rather strange to see a link in Google Docs saying people can download the source code the the application and modify it at will. Few would understand what it means. This is not what people want. They don’t want the source code. (Do they even know what it means?) They want an online service.
Turn down the FUD, please. In this article RMS specifically addresses the client-side programs of “web applications” (that are silently downloaded into your computer). He clearly says that the server-side software of “web applications” is a completely different issue:
Why is the server side different ethically? Just curious, it seems like if you’re sending your data to be manipulated then sent back you should know what was done to it.
It doesn’t seem much different than if the program was executing entirely on your computer and half was open source and half binary blobs.
“Why is server-side code different?”
I’ll take a stab at this,though i could be wrong lol
I think the the guy is trying to make the point that from a user standpoint, client side software runs on your system and you should have a choice on what your system runs. He is asking for a standard way to find open client-side javascript (and eventually other stuff…like flash, etc).
Also, from a developer standpoint, Lets say you are a member of a free software project developing something in javascript (lets say you are writing an OS in javascript for some crazy reason). You stumble across a website with awesome javascript logic and would like to incorporate that into your project, with proper credit, how do you know you are free to do so? How do you know down the line you wont be sued for using said code? or worse being accused of using code that you DIDNT use?
Server-side software (JSP,Php, Ruby, etc) is a different beast, you are using normally open standards (HTML, HTTP, CSS) to interact with an application that may or may not be free software, running on someone else’s hardware. From a user standpoint, no big deal (its generally easy to find out if said server-side app is freely available), from a developer standpoint no big deal, no worry of someone accusing you of stealing code. Though they can still accuse you of stealing an idea…but those are different problems.
You already have that choice. Just dont go to sites that uses closed source java code.
You know because of copyright law. Unless explicitly stated you have no rights to that code.
What FUD? Also, I don’t know why RMS considers server-side code is a different issue. Are there areas where free software matters more than others? Just curious…
I can’t speak for Stallman but, I think the distinction is important because, unlike client-side software, server-side software is not distributed at all, so it may be regarded as a particular case of private software, which is NOT the same as proprietary software. In fact, private use of the software at discretion (without additional requirements, like the obligation to release what you do with the software) is one of the four freedoms the FSF aims to protect.
The distinction isn’t always clear though. Take a GWT application, for example – the entire thing is coded in Java, with parts of it ‘compiled’ to javascript for clients. Some code runs on the client, some on the server, some run on both.
So to say that server-side code is a completely different issue isn’t really true…
That would be rather strange to see a link in Google Docs saying people can download the source code the the application and modify it at will.
Only if you’re not used to Open Source/Free Software.
Few would understand what it means.
Who are those few? Will it matter if they don’t know what it means? Google Docs will work all the same.
This is not what people want.
Who are those people? Do I know them? Do you? Are are these people the mythical “Joe Sixpack”? The persona we created to model for all the computer users we don’t understand nor care to understand. It is so much easier to come up with a being with no brain using a computer and attributing to Joe what ever we think should be happening in computing.
They don’t want the source code.
Who wouldn’t want the source code? Source code is very valuable, even for non-coders. Source code with the right license is a form of insurance.
If Google Docs were Free Software, it would balance the relationship between Google and the users of Google Docs. With source code available, Google has to keep honest and deliver top notch service. They can’t use lock in strategies, they can’t reduce the quality of the service with source code in the open. If they do, users have the code and can fork if necessary.
(Not saying Google will abuse their position. Nevertheless, with proprietary code they do have that option. Users have nothing to balance it with, except leaving Google Docs behind and possibly risk losing their data.)
The only adversaries of FOSS are the exploiters of the proprietary software model. Everybody else benefits from open code.
(Do they even know what it means?)
Once again, does it matter? Will Google Docs refuse to create documents if a users doesn’t know what it means that s/he can download the source code?
They want an online service.
Does having the option to get the blue prints of the service hamper the quality or the use of that service? Does the option of available source code preclude online use of the software?
What is the big deal of a link with “get the source code here”?
Locked up code is not the problem.
Locked up content is. As long as Google provides a way for you to get your content out of their system, someone else will be able to import it into their app.
If you have the source code to their app, but can’t get your content out, all the source in the world isn’t going to help.
Basically, we need open standards for the content (perhaps ODF), so we can use whatever application we want, closed or open source. The same way that open standards allow us to use any browser we want.
Yes! Someone who gets it. Open source is not (comparatively) important, open and unencumbered standards are.
Open standards makes for a truly level playing field where the consumer can freely chose what he/she wants, be it open or closed source.
But Google Docs uses open standards. You can save or export your documents using many different file types. If Google Docs goes awry, just export your docs into .odt for instance, and keep working in OpenOffice.org or MS Office (.doc, .rtf, etc…).
Competitive advantage.
Maybe my choice is that it’s ok with a closed source app. Maybe I don’t think every software has to be open source.
No excuse? WTF? There’s no excuse needed for not making open source apps. It’s a choice. If you dont like it fine, but stop trying to force everyone into your point of view.
You only see the forest, not the individual trees.
What is the big deal of a link with “get the source code here”?
Security reasons obviusly.
What is the big deal of a link with “get the source code here”?
Security reasons obviusly. (sic)
Security through obscurity is bunk. At best it just slows someone who wants to do damage down a bit. If security through obscurity is the epitome of protection, why are there exploits in the wild for closed source software?
Having code in the open forces developers to write secure software. Or at least try harder to do so. I’d rather have tight visible code, than a nicely painted Swiss cheese with Deity knows how many ways to compromise it.
That’s a myth, Open Source software is not more secure by definition.
MS IIS have been more secure than the Open Source Apache server.
So Im not really drinking that kool-aid.
It may look like and advantage but also as a disadvantage.
Edited 2009-03-24 17:33 UTC
I believe GPLV4 will be “Using any code that isn’t gpl, or using any software that views any code that isn’t gpl OR using any hardware with GPL product thats drivers isnt GPL licensed with your GPL software is strictly forbidden”
More like, “If you use GPLv4 in your enterprise you are granting a 20% share of your enterprice stocks to us the good Free Software Foundation”.
The web is a different game, and I think is out of the reach of the FSF, not even MS could controll it.
For the desktops or server, there was Linux and GNU Tools as GPL, much people were willing to pay the price of using GPL because they were using it internally, their code doesn’t have to be shared to anyone outsite their own servers domain. Services and code stay in the server.
This is different, and the question is, what does the FSF have to offer this time as an encouragement to adapt this?.
Edited 2009-03-24 17:29 UTC
If you people don’t understand the point of this particular message, I would argue that you don’t understand Stallman’s views on software freedom at all http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html . The point of this new essay is nothing new as RMS is repeating the exact same thing as he did when he started in the 1980’s – you should value your freedom or be doomed to lose it .
What is different in this case, is the mechanism of how the proprietary software is being transferred to the users’ computers. According to RMS, the act of accessing some web sites through your web browser can cause proprietary software to be silently transferred onto your computer. Many of these programs are written in the ECMAscript language (aka. Javascript).
RMS is cautioning the audience to be careful about surfing the web lest, the audience “accidentally” download and use these sneaky proprietary computer programs (that are often written using the Javascript language).
Edited 2009-03-27 11:41 UTC