Hacker News Reader

Comment by nolist_policy | Hacker News Reader

They do not hate javascript/wasm software per se but non-free software.

So how do you determine if a wasm blob is non-free?

If it's free them it should say so, under what license, and provide you the original source before compilation or whatever.

So every webpage should send the whole source code at each page render? That's not very efficient.

Also, how can the plugin know if the provided source code is correct without compiling it and comparing the outputs?

A moment's thought will hopefully provide you with the answer to both those questions

You clearly aren’t familiar with GNU or the Free Software Foundation. There’s nothing wrong with that: everybody starts out without being familiar with anything.

In a nutshell, Richard Stallman worked in MIT’s AI lab in the 1970s. The lab had a certain ethos that he loved ( https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html , https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.en.html ), but when it became common for software to be sold without the source code, he actually decided to start a foundation to recreate that lab ethos ( https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.en.html ). A lot of programmers agree with his view that refusing to give users source code, and legal permission to use that source code without restriction, is a terrible afront to freedom.

However, people have spent decades telling Stallman that if they adopted his principles, they couldn’t use their computers in the modern world. Every so often, he makes a declaration about various distinctions (it’s okay to use a computer even though the firmware isn’t free; it’s okay to read documents on the web, but any JavaScript should be treated as a program and you should insist on an acceptable license; he, personally doesn’t own a cell phone, but sees no problem with using somebody else’s non-free phone in a case-by-case basis; etc.). This is simply an extension to enforce one of his rules. Some programmers will feel bad about themselves if they don’t live up to Stallman’s expectations.

Thank you for writing such a kind and helpful comment and really putting to shame my lazy sarcasm in the sibling.

I’m honestly surprised I didn’t get any “how dare you say it’s all about feeling bad if we don’t do what Stallman says?” comments. I was trying to play it as straight as I could, without sounding like a crank. I’m not always successful.

GNU licenses don't mandate for the source code to be sent all te time. It only says that it must be available upon request, and the author must give pointers to get it (an url to download content or inspect it, an email to ask, ...)

I'm talking about this library, not free software in general.

How can it know when to block a website? Does an human curate a white/black list of valid websites?

It checks for the license header that developers should put in the served file. It does some exceptions for trivial code

Couple of issues with that, how does this plugin know that this wasm-blob is together with a certain source? Since wasm is often the compile target and don't have comments afaik how do you really tell the plugin what license it is?

I guess what I am really asking is how would it say so? Because even if it is free software I assume this plugin would block it anyway since it don't know.

You could write an html comment just above it but how will I as a website owner know that this plugin:

1. Exists.

2. How to respect it.

There are plenty of plugins but this seems just like a plugin if you like to suffer when you really don't have to. I can kind of understand the goal of the FSF and I do hate some modern software today and companies trying to remove ownership but I have never thought the way FSF is doing stuff is a good way to reach their goal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com