Apparently it adds a "Complain" tab to your browser when it detects offensive JavaScript: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#Com...
Offensive JS includes:
"It makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request" and "Calling methods with the square bracket notation" and "Using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, …)."
If it includes something like the above (which 99% of HTML frameworks do) and it doesn't have a free license statement, should people really complain about it?
Like, fine. Sure. You don't want to run non-free JS. Okay. But there's no reason to waste someone's time complaining about it, either.
How is anyone supposed to take this seriously?
He spoke about LibreJS and about why we should complain, but I wasn't really convinced due to the exact same reason you mentioned.
70% seems quite high if you mean "free" as rms does.
I didn't say floss isn't prolific, I just think it's unlikely 70% of people here depend on it (almost) entirely
For the rest of us, his ways are extremely impractical, so we compromise. We run a lot of proprietary software, and we don't really think about it.
But RMS thinks about it, and tells us in every single instance exactly what we are giving up as a compromise. And in that regard he, and the FSF, are very useful, and deserves respect.
The world would be a worse place without him, but we also only really need one of him.
But by creating such polar opposite he gives space for a lot more "lessor" free, more practical solutions and options.
So he plays a very important guardian kind of role; which a lot of people will chalk up to paranoia.
I think what bothers people about Stallman (or at least, what bothers me about him, and extrapolating) is that he takes a moralistic approach. Non free software isn't a non optimal thing to be fixed for well-thought-out reasons X, Y, and Z, it is an Evil, and you are Wrong for perpetuating it.
So, if you consider "putting people in a situation where they have no control over their lives" as bad (I do), then the concept of proprietary software is wrong -- not just the ones that happen to misuse their power.
Heartbleed disagrees. Less likely? Arguable. "Can't happen"? Unequivocally false.
And besides such security benefits are gained by having the source visible, not necessarily "free".
So, please stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned security, I'm talking about freedom.
Two (non security, as you mentioned, even though it's brought up continually by apologists) examples off the top of my head:
* FileZilla, a GPLed FTP client, had malware added to its installer by Sourceforge at the request of its developers.
* Ubuntu, an operating system composed entirely of free software, started sending search data in its UI to third parties without prior notice.
If you think it's impossible for the developer to take advantage of you because their software is "free", you simply aren't being imaginative enough.
Aside: I don't think that security is a good argument for free software, because it's certainly possible to have secure proprietary software (in theory at least). But even if the software is secure, you can't prove that's the case or fix bugs by yourself or release the fixes to everyone.
I think it means not what you think it means.
You pretty much summed up one of the two biggest issues at why the FSF has not had a larger impact on the world. The organization makes issues over these kinds of details and then paints it into a "us vs. them" situation. It seems to have little interest with trying to work with people, and more insistent on making sure you follow it's dogma.
The other issue is that the organization presents its arguments like a sophomoric adolescent. "Windows 7 Sins"? Who's going to take that seriously?
Maybe it isn't the way they're presenting their message; maybe you just don't agree with them.
It has? I'll accept that only for the conception of FLOSS. However, I would then say that the OSI and Linux Foundations have had greater impact. They relied on the RMS's license, but they have actually managed to make inroads, whereas the FSF has stayed in it's corner, shouting.
> maybe you just don't agree with them.
What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have. The ability to know when to compromise is crucial to working with people.
They consider nonfree software to be not merely inconvenient, but evil, a violation of fundamental human rights. Why would they ever compromise?
I mean they're ‘GNU’ in GNU/Linux, which is a bit more widespread¹ than any BSD/Linux type thing.
¹Pretty sure Android/Linux wins in sheer numbers, but GNU/Linux has been historically more important and is deployed in more scenarios than smartphones. But if we consider ‘widespread’ to mean numbers, my statement is false.
So I don't agree that "GNU would've gone nowhere". If GNU had a kernel before Linus made Linux, then Linux would've gone nowhere.
There's a bit more to the OS than just the kernel.
I dunno, I think people tend to associate Emacs = GPL, Vim = BSD. Same with GCC vs Clang. Oh and Emacs says ‘GNU Emacs’ all over itself, same with the GNU Compiler Collection.
The OSI and Linux Foundations are results of the FSF. The FSF changed the entire face of computing, and the daily lives of every programmer in the world.
> What I don't agree with is the all or nothing attitude they have.
They are an ethics organization. They are consistent and clear. They do not work with organizations or individuals who actively oppose the ethics they endorse. Exactly what goals are they trying to achieve that would benefit from that?
Their goals do not include getting the most users, making computers more convenient, or cheaper, producing the greatest software, or selling the most ads. They are clear about their purpose. When they attempt those things, it is solely to advance ethical goals. Specifically, who should they be working with, to what end?
That sounds weirdly like Scientology.
Where they don't compromise is in situations where it would go against the very purpose of the organization, and why should they?
I mostly agree with the FSF position and have defended Stallman on these pages many a time, donate a little bit to the Free Software Conservancy... but I have to agree with Delmania that the FSF does crap on in an adolescent manner at times. Like making pet nicknames and always using them (eg the 'Swindle'). The way the arguments are presented, it's like preaching to the choir - name-calling and in-jokes aren't exactly a dispassionate presentation of philosophy, and aren't going to win many friends who aren't already inclined that way to begin with.
Stallman argues that the name-calling is actually maturity-in-disguise, and that humour is needed in fighting oppression[1]. However, he's wrong about that, and even if he was right, it's shithouse, clumsy humour that is made for the choir, not for the wider audience.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.htm...
Why on earth would this project concern itself with the coding styles of the JS that the author prefers? Even if the site and/or JS is free software, why do things things matter?
I mean, I get linting your own code, but linting the code of sites you visit just seems pointless.
This, banning AJAX requests and with the arduous process of getting into the 'libre' whitelist, makes this project a complete joke.
I've opened https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#ind... and see that having functions, doing AJAX requests, square brackets and the other stuff is what they use to distinguish between trivial JS code and non-trivial one. And it exactly makes sense - no one wants to stick a license over every trivial JS one-liner that's could be less of a program and more of configuration statements block. But those who care about free software don't want to run non-free programs. So, the heuristics.
But I really can't find anything like a ban on use of functions or AJAX requests, or something similarly ridiculous, that some comments here seem to imply.
Seriously, WTF?
If that's not some pedantic RMS bullshit, I don't know what is.
At least it's easy enough for a spam filter to catch.
In a former case, please clarify and have my apologies. In two other ones - sorry, but that really needs some downvotes.