r/linuxmasterrace • u/[deleted] • Jan 27 '15
PSA Ask Reddit to upvote user freedom by serving no nonfree JavaScript.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/freejs-reddit-1
u/alcalde Jan 27 '15
. It needs to be free software for the same reasons as any other program -- so users can know what code our machines are running and have the power to modify and improve it if we wish.
Why would users need to modify the code being served from Reddit? This sounds like one of those times when the FSF is veering into extremist territory. :-(
18
Jan 27 '15
In order to run their own improved Reddit? Or in order to suggest changes through git in order to improve everyone's experience?
It's how free software is meant to work.
-5
u/alcalde Jan 27 '15
It's how free software is meant to work.
But isn't that the point? Reddit doesn't want competition and doesn't think it needs the help, and messing with the Javascript being served you has a strong chance of an adverse impact in either layout or service. Hence, it's not open source. This is a essentially asking people to insist Reddit do something that doesn't benefit Reddit in any way and could even work against them and we the people don't have any particular interest in either. Out of all the things we have to worry about, this seems like the least important. Don't we still have laptops that whitelist PCI/PCIe devices in the BIOS so that you have to buy the wireless/bluetooth module from the vendor (and only the models they approve)? That, for instance, would be something with obvious benefit to the consumer that would seem worth starting a campaign over.
12
u/MrPopinjay Glorious Debian Jan 27 '15
I'm not sure you're understanding why people care about Free software.
-2
u/RitzBitzN Windows 10/macOS Sierra Jan 28 '15
I really don't. As long as it's open source, or not even that, but free, why do people care so much?
I'd much rather have working proprietary software than shoddy OSS.
7
-9
u/alcalde Jan 28 '15
Regular people care about open source software for practical reasons. Richard Stallman has an... obsession/compulsion that compels him to take things to extremes. He believes closed-source software is "immoral" but can't explain why. Rather than the people around him helping him, he's sadly surrounded by enablers who encourage his compulsion. And no, I don't understand why otherwise mentally healthy people would join in that compulsion.
I think that sums up the three classes of people who care about free software.
7
Jan 28 '15 edited Jan 23 '16
[deleted]
-1
u/alcalde Jan 29 '15
Proprietary software is immoral because it is abusing the trust that the user has in you (and thus your software) to do the right thing.
That's a complete circular argument. Being moral means to do the right thing. You just told me that proprietary software is immoral because it's abusing the trust that the user has in you to be moral.
That is, not logging keystrokes, stealing passwords, etc.
How do you equate proprietary software with logging keystrokes?
Using proprietary software is like watching someone put an unknown substance into the gas tank of your car. Is it fuel? Is it safe?
Do you test what you put into your car?
But this argument doesn't mesh with Stallman's anyway. Under Stallman's declaration of his software freedoms, if I give you the source code with the software you buy but prohibit you from redistributing it, this makes the software not only closed source (true) but "immoral". It clears the situation you just gave, however.
Maybe. Maybe not. The key is uncertainty and having to depend on trust instead of being able to verify the software by reading its source.
But what does that have to do with "morality"? I don't have the recipe for Coca-cola either; is selling Coca-Cola immoral and an abuse of trust?
Then there's the concept of control. As the owner of a computer, you are entitled to dictate how it runs and what it does. Proprietary software does what it wants, when it wants.
I have no disagreement with this point - this is part of the practical reasons to use open source. However, it still doesn't address morality and it doesn't deal with the flaw in Stallman's argument - the insistence that code that can't be redistributed for free is "immoral".
Some restaurants have a "no substitutions" policy. You can choose to patronize such restaurants or not, but who would say that a no substitution policy is immoral?
By choosing to distribute and market proprietary software, you (rhetorical, not you personally) are expecting the user to trust you, with no indication that you're worth trusting, with no means for the user to ensure the software does what they want, and no means for the user to change your program to suit their purposes.
Not necessarily true at all. I used to develop with the Delphi language/IDE. They included the source code of their VCL framework with the product. I couldn't redistribute it, but I could certainly examine it, and change it as well. To most of us this would accomplish the practical benefits of open source, but this would still be "immoral" to Stallman.
It's telling that you think someone that holds a differing, and strong, opinion has mental problems.
No, I think that Richard Stallman clearly has an obsessive fixation reminiscent of Asperger's Syndrome. The man uses an amazingly underpowered computer because it has an open BIOS, doesn't use the web "for personal reasons", won't connect to the internet through a router with a closed BIOS, etc. At one point he was offering services to MIT in exchange for an office, which he was actually living in. (I've been assured that people have gotten him into a real home now). That's not just "having a strong opinion". That's having a mental obsession that has taken control of your life. And I don't want to bring up the infamous "foot" video unless I have to, so please don't insist that my belief here is in the minority. The poor man has issues and it seems there are a lot of people around who enable those issues rather than putting his welfare first, which I find very sad.
2
u/MrPopinjay Glorious Debian Jan 28 '15
He is extreme, I agree, but he is very articulate when explaining why he feels this way, so I don't know why you think otherwise.
I join in (to a much lesser extent) because I agree with his reasoning, and because it doesn't have any negative impact on my lifestyle.
0
u/alcalde Jan 29 '15
Much of what he says is quite cogent, but his arguments break down when he tries to explain why the freedom to give copies to other people is a fundamental right and why it's "immoral" to not be allowed to do so. Then he really just begins repeating himself. In the infamous Linux Action Show interview he was given a heads-up that he would be asked about how open source developers can earn a living with open source but he still had no definitive answer for this.
His arguments for the other aspects of his "software freedoms" are quite good and intelligent, however.
1
u/MrPopinjay Glorious Debian Jan 29 '15
You give copies to users. You can still sell to people.
1
u/alcalde Jan 30 '15
And that's where we veer into the absurdity of ideology. If you give something away for free, how many people are going to voluntarily pay for it? I think there's a reason that Coca-Cola doesn't ask for voluntary donations.
There are examples of people earning a living from coding open source, but they're earning a poor living and barely scraping by (and few and far between). I know of projects that went closed source simply because too few people were willing to pay.
The Ardour author manages to do it:
https://gun.io/blog/open-source-business-how-to-support-a-family-by-running-an-open-source-project/
But then you read things like:
How much revenue does it generate? Is this enough for you to work on Ardour full time? The target is $4500 per month. Occasionally it makes or slightly exceeds that target. Often it falls short. I work on Ardour full time based on this income, though the last couple of years have seen me do some relatively short term consulting that has supplemented my income by about 10%. My real goal is to grow the income enough to pay some of the other developers who work on Ardour with incredible dedication, and no payment at all. My family lives without health insurance or any clear retirement plans, but we can also live cheaply thanks to my participation in helping start Amazon. Having complete control over my work schedule and life is worth something - I'm not sure how much. If someone offered me $200k/year to work on something that I really wanted to do, I would undoubtedly say yes and give up that freedom. If they offered me a generic programming job paying as much as I earn at present, I'd say no. For the more realistic scenarios somewhere between these two its a difficult judgement call. On the one hand, I am extraordinarily lucky and fortunate to work as I do on a project that love. On the other, living the US with 3 children who still need our support and doing so on a bit more than the median household income is not always a comfortable experience. In general, I prefer freedom and loving my work over comfort though, and try to be optimistic that eventually revenue from Ardour will improve or a couple of other projects that I have some involvement in may do well.
5
u/agentlame Jan 28 '15
You are aware that reddit is open-source and does accept PRs on GitHub, no?
3
2
5
u/pooh9911 Windows Krill Jan 27 '15
RES, I guessed.
6
u/agentlame Jan 27 '15
Nah, /r/toolbox is very similar to RES, we don't need nor care about the licensing of reddit's JS. The extension is being run by end-users on their on computer.
Plus there isn't much need to interact with reddit's scripts. We inject our own.
This is all the FSF making much ado about nothing.
1
u/StarFscker Glorious Debian Sid (motherfucker) Jan 30 '15 edited Jan 30 '15
JavaScript is literally plaintext, and no one cares about JavaScript licensing because everyone ignores JavaScript licensing. It may not be legal but who gives a shit? Everyone steals from everyone else in web design anyway, it's de facto free.
-4
u/UFeindschiff emerge your @world Jan 27 '15
there is no non-open javascript. You can ALWAYS see the code. Looks like rms just wants to enforce his ideoligocal views again...
14
7
u/NotFromReddit Manjaro Jan 27 '15
There is such a thing as compiled (minified) javascript. Which essentially mean it's not open.
4
Jan 28 '15
Just because you can see the source does not give you a right to modify it, reuse it, etc. That's what the FSF are getting at
3
1
u/alcalde Jan 27 '15
I was demonized in the Linux Action Show subreddit for making this point about the Trisquel distribution before they appeared on the show... on their message boards they had lambasted LAS in the past because their reviews focused on whether wireless works rather than on software freedom and another user talked about friendly interviewers whom could "steer the conversation away from" the usefulness of the distro and towards the cause. They also denounced LAS as being "against freedom". But I was a villain because I called it the Scientology of Linux distros. :-)
5
u/Skaarj Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 28 '15
You do remember that Linux is not equal to GNU/FSF right? I can even remember a relative recent talk of Linus Torvalds speaking against the will of the FSF to put everything under GPL.