[mdlug] "non-free javascript"

[LAP]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 02:55:43 -0800
Ron / BCLUG <admin at bclug.ca> wrote:

> 
>  > in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript.
> 
> That's a bit incendiary, "Obfuscript". Clever though.
> 
> Of course, if it weren't minified, there'd be complaints about it
> being too big.
> 

I believe that Stallman's argument is not that the code block is
too big.  The argument is that obfuscated code is not transparent
to the user and thus the user cannot modify it according to his whims.
Therefore the code is not actually free and open and is contrary
to the aims of the FSF.

Stallman also proposes a solution to this condition:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/javascript-labels.html

Some people may consider such arguments to be eccentric and
regressive, but it all revolves around the idea of software
freedom.

Yes, ecmascript may be a boon to "modern" web applications
but it also undeniably poses a threat.  How much we are willing
to accept this potential threat will determine our acceptance
of ecmascript and associated technologies.

I lean toward the regressive: less functionality but more
freedom.