Richard Stallman, frontman of the Free Software Foundation, has shifted his attention towards web applications. "In the free software community, the idea that non-free programs mistreat their users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to install proprietary software, and many others consider non-freedom a strike against the program. Many users are aware that this issue applies to the plug-ins that browsers offer to install, since they can be free or non-free. But browsers run other non-free programs which they don't ask you about or even tell you aboutâ"programs that web pages contain or link to. These programs are most often written in Javascript, though other languages are also used."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-04
This is what I said:
- The Javascript is only half of the code. Having it open is not enough to run the application, you need the server-side code as well.
- Next, Stallman is going to ask webmasters to make a tarball of their PHP application available in their "About Us" page.
That would be rather strange to see a link in Google Docs saying people can download the source code the the application and modify it at will. Few would understand what it means. This is not what people want. They don't want the source code. (Do they even know what it means?) They want an online service.
Member since:2006-01-01
Turn down the FUD, please. In this article RMS specifically addresses the client-side programs of "web applications" (that are silently downloaded into your computer). He clearly says that the server-side software of "web applications" is a completely different issue:
Member since:2005-07-06
That would be rather strange to see a link in Google Docs saying people can download the source code the the application and modify it at will.
Only if you're not used to Open Source/Free Software.
Few would understand what it means.
Who are those few? Will it matter if they don't know what it means? Google Docs will work all the same.
This is not what people want.
Who are those people? Do I know them? Do you? Are are these people the mythical "Joe Sixpack"? The persona we created to model for all the computer users we don't understand nor care to understand. It is so much easier to come up with a being with no brain using a computer and attributing to Joe what ever we think should be happening in computing.
They don't want the source code.
Who wouldn't want the source code? Source code is very valuable, even for non-coders. Source code with the right license is a form of insurance.
If Google Docs were Free Software, it would balance the relationship between Google and the users of Google Docs. With source code available, Google has to keep honest and deliver top notch service. They can't use lock in strategies, they can't reduce the quality of the service with source code in the open. If they do, users have the code and can fork if necessary.
(Not saying Google will abuse their position. Nevertheless, with proprietary code they do have that option. Users have nothing to balance it with, except leaving Google Docs behind and possibly risk losing their data.)
The only adversaries of FOSS are the exploiters of the proprietary software model. Everybody else benefits from open code.
(Do they even know what it means?)
Once again, does it matter? Will Google Docs refuse to create documents if a users doesn't know what it means that s/he can download the source code?
They want an online service.
Does having the option to get the blue prints of the service hamper the quality or the use of that service? Does the option of available source code preclude online use of the software?
What is the big deal of a link with "get the source code here"?
Member since:2005-08-18
Maybe my choice is that it's ok with a closed source app. Maybe I don't think every software has to be open source.
No excuse? WTF? There's no excuse needed for not making open source apps. It's a choice. If you dont like it fine, but stop trying to force everyone into your point of view.
You only see the forest, not the individual trees.
Member since:
2005-10-10
You're missing the point!
What's the difference between a closed app you install on your system and a closed app you run server side?
If you're an open source advocate, then any server side code should also be open source and viewable by anyone.
Just because it runs on someones server and you don't physically install it does not excuse the fact that it's closed and proprietary.
Please people, try to see the whole forest, not just the trees!