Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

JavaScript is non-free?


Recommended Posts

Yesterday I was reading this article and this statement appeared:

Quote

If passed, the bill would see to it that state-run websites stop serving JavaScript (which is considered non-free), a Libreboot blog post said;

I really don't understand why this page says that and wanted to see if someone knows why JavaScript is pointed as a "non-free" element.

Cheers.

Edited by Humming Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Javascript is just a language. I think the article is written poorly with this exception:

Quote

lawmakers who are more often than not poorly educated, technology-wise, and poorly aware of the consequences closed, proprietary systems have on the economy and society.

In order to remove liability for the state systems, they would obviously want to halt the use of third-party or cross-site includes. Which (of course) had been the motto of web development over 20 years ago. But anyways, if an entity with a website were to be sued or involved in a legal matter, they would have no control over scripts from other websites but do have control on putting them on their website. If they cannot provide documentation or the source of those includes (they would need to get permission from the site it is linked to) then they would be in violation of that particular provision.

So to me, I do not think it would mean that they couldn't use javascript anymore, but rather not be using javascript made by someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 8:20 PM, UCyborg said:

I guess it refers to actual JavaScript software served on web pages, which is not necessarily free.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

I saw that page after and didn't read it to much because I don't trust the author.

9 hours ago, Tripredacus said:

I think the article is written poorly with this exception:

Quote

lawmakers who are more often than not poorly educated, technology-wise, and poorly aware of the consequences closed, proprietary systems have on the economy and society.

I can relate to that, but in my case (country) they aren't even educated.

10 hours ago, Tripredacus said:

So to me, I do not think it would mean that they couldn't use javascript anymore, but rather not be using javascript made by someone else.

I guess this is a simple way of describing how the bill will manage JS. According to the Libreboot page mentioned in the article it actually says that it is the "non-free" part of JS that will be banned so it is a bad redaction point on the article.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re:  lawmakers who are more often than not poorly educated, technology-wise, and poorly aware of the consequences closed, proprietary systems have on the economy and society.

No offense, but "closed, proprietary systems" are NEVER going to be made "illegal".

And most forget, even monopolies are LEGAL (here in the US) - they are only illegal "if they are established or maintained through improper conduct".

Not to be confused with "proprietary specifications", which are prohibited by most federal agencies (here in the US).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...