Hacker News Reader

Comment by romey | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com