Hacker News Reader

Comment by _b8r0 | Hacker News Reader

From the article:

"Further, we've recently seen companies such as Research In Motion (makers of the Blackberry) advising customers to entirely disable JavaScript in the WebKit browser on its devices because of a security problem that was discovered. While free software JavaScript can have security problems too, this example illustrates that we have a real need to be able to see what the code we're running on our computers is actually doing, and change it."

I think the author doesn't understand how client side javascript works. If on the other hand they're referring to server side Javascript, that has nothing to do with the web browser over say, PHP. You don't necessarily get the source to a PHP-based web app when you use it. Why so much Javascript hate?

View on HN

I think the rub here is not that they want to be able to see the script files, it's that they want the javascript behind GMail and other big apps to be released under a Free Software License.

I can understand the point, but is it really necessary to express it in a way that evokes the works of L Ron Hubbard?

You may not be aware of the dangers of JavaScript — a problem we've deemed The JavaScript Trap — proprietary software running on your computer, inside your web browser.

Danger! Your very soul is at risk!

This page is even worse: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

Silently loading and running nonfree programs is one among several issues raised by "web applications". The term "web application" was designed to disregard the fundamental distinction between software delivered to users and software running on the server.

Beware, dear reader. They may be starting with this fundamental distinction... but your children will be next!

I agree, it is rather unsettling how they frame their argument--there really isn't an argument at all as to why these things should be released under such a license, besides a vague allusion to security concerns. I love open source stuff, but the Free Software Foundation always seemed to me like that annoying vegan friend who never leaves you alone about the evils of animal products

the tagline in the link reads like a scary movie trailer: >You may be running nonfree programs on your computer every day without realizing it--through your web browser.

Security concerns was not the only argument. "It's clear that JavaScript is a very powerful and useful technology in the right hands. Many free software developers have written add-ons and enhancements to popular websites thanks to tools like Greasemonkey. There's a slew of fantastic free software Greasemonkey scripts for Gmail. The existence of scripts like these shows both that Gmail's JavaScript is not trivial, and that there are users who could make useful, interesting contributions if the JavaScript were released as free software for them to modify." They argue that we should be able to change GMail's javascript code just like we do other applications we use.

>They argue that we should be able to change GMail's javascript code just like we do other applications we use.

What the FSF doesn't get is that its actually much easier to change proprietary JavaScript than it is to modify a binary running on your system.

I think they do understand that. It is, however, nontrivial to edit compiled JavaScript. There might also be legal complications to editing the scripts...

besides a vague allusion to security concerns

Not to mention that should it be licensed under a free model, those security concerns don't just magically vanish. I agree with you summation their stance can be radical and preachy at times much like the Vegan community.

I'm extremely relieved to see so many posts mirroring my exact impression from this article. Here we have a splendid reference as to the power of words to illicit an emotion, with no real effort to craft an argument of any substance.

They should instead be advocating users to move on to services which use the GPL. Good luck getting all these corporations to open up their source code just like that.

I think it can be split into the issues of license-free JavaScript (those with no license attached), obfuscated JavaScript, and the lack of tools to modify JavaScript on the client side.

I think it's a poorly researched article... maybe first drafted in 2001?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com