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: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:2006-09-18
Why is the server side different ethically? Just curious, it seems like if you're sending your data to be manipulated then sent back you should know what was done to it.
It doesn't seem much different than if the program was executing entirely on your computer and half was open source and half binary blobs.
Member since:2007-03-04
Member since:2008-08-19
The distinction isn't always clear though. Take a GWT application, for example - the entire thing is coded in Java, with parts of it 'compiled' to javascript for clients. Some code runs on the client, some on the server, some run on both.
So to say that server-side code is a completely different issue isn't really true...
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:2006-07-30
Locked up code is not the problem.
Locked up content is. As long as Google provides a way for you to get your content out of their system, someone else will be able to import it into their app.
If you have the source code to their app, but can't get your content out, all the source in the world isn't going to help.
Basically, we need open standards for the content (perhaps ODF), so we can use whatever application we want, closed or open source. The same way that open standards allow us to use any browser we want.
Member since:2007-03-04
Member since:2005-08-18
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.