javascript is non-free software, most javascripts are also malware

>>58680534
OP here, forgot link. Please read this before you post a stupid comment

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

>>58680534
Disable JavaScript
Enable ECMAScript

>>58680534
>i own every detail about what I do and which websites I use
You literally dont. Please be honest: what do you have to hide?

File: Richard_Stallman_by_Anders_Brenna_04.jpg (2MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3504x2336px

>javascript is non-free software
Calm down, everyone, this poster is incorrect. Most javascript libraries are in fact free software, for example jquery. The problem with javascript is that the final product, as in the javascript sent to the website's visitor, is sent without license in most cases.
Under modern copyright law, as soon as a javascript program is written it is covered by copyright. This means that your freedoms are restricted absent the rightsholder giving you those freedoms in the form of a copyright license.
This doesn't mean that javascript itself is nonfree, or that all javascript programs are nonfree programs. If a program is given a proper license declaration, it doesn't matter in what language it is written.

=====

Photo by Anders Brenna [CC BY 3.0 no (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/no/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Stallman_by_Anders_Brenna_04.jpg
This post is copyright nonfree.pizza and available under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
By replying to this post you agree to license your contribution under the same CC BY-SA 4.0 license or compatible terms.

>>58680731
> By replying to this post you agree to license your contribution under the same CC BY-SA 4.0 license or compatible terms.
I don't think that's how it works. A reply isn't a derivative work.

Anyway your points make sense and mostly agree with the article OP linked.


This post is released under the terms of the JSON license

>>58680555
Why did ECMAScript fail?

>>58681093
>A reply isn't a derivative work.
I agree; however, implicitly licensing your reply under the same terms will allow those who reuse my post to also reuse the replies if they desire, so long as they credit us.

>and mostly agree with the article OP linked.
This is true, but the OP appears to have misread or misinterpreted the article. I hope that I've clarified the truth.

>the JSON license
Please consider not using a botnet license in the future.

>disable JavaScript
>literally every website stops working
I'm not falling for that meme again, /g/!

>>58681289
Stop visiting shit sites.

>>58681278
>implicitly licensing your reply under the same terms will allow those who reuse my post to also reuse the replies if they desire, so long as they credit us.
You can't make people do that implicitly. You could request that people license their replies under the same license but if they don't say anything, the default is all rights reserved (unless 4chan has a license policy).

>I hope that I've clarified the truth
Yeah a bit, thanks

Also, has anyone been able to post on 4chan with LibreJS or NoScript enabled? With LibreJS, when I click "Post a Reply" the box doesn't show up.


This post is released under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License, either version 3 or, at your option, any later version. If you make this post available through a computer network, you must ensure that people who access it can also access the source code.

>>58680534
>what is LibreJS

>>58680534
But Anon... I'm currently working on a lewd JS game, you wouldn't play it? Botnet-free I swear.

>>58681326

stop being a faggot you sound like a climate change fag freaking out about people driving cars

shut the hell up and gtfo. you're not cool or edgy for disabling javascript, literally nobody cares

>>58681326
You can't post on 4chan without it enabled

>>58681401
You have to enable google and gstatic to get through captcha anyway.

>>58681447
I know.

>>58681401
>You can't make people do that implicitly.
As you've demonstrated, opting-out of using that license is as easy as saying "no I don't." I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know for sure how that works, but the license is there for anyone to read. If they disagree to it, they can say so.

>has anyone been able to post on 4chan with LibreJS or NoScript enabled?
cc >>58681447
I use 4chanx, and that takes care of it after I tweaked the settings a bit.

>>58681415
Please license it under a free license, and I will gladly give your game a look, anon.

File: Screenshot_2017-01-27_13-38-10.png (18KB, 1303x351px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1303x351px

>>58681487
So shut the fuck up.
>>58681515
>I use 4chanx, and that takes care of it after I tweaked the settings a bit.

>>58681558
Do you use 4chanx? That won't show up if you do.

>>58681618
>Do you use 4chanx
No, why would I use anything other than the native extension? Do you have javascript disable on the browser-level, or only on a per-site basis/through fire-walling extensions like uMatrix?

>>58681876
>why would I use anything other than the native extension?
The native extension is nonfree. There is a git repository out there of an earlier version released under a permissive license, but it is years out of date last I checked.

I have LibreJS installed which, while far from perfect, blocks nonfree javascript while allowing scripts it detects as free (or trivial) to run without issue.

>>58681273
ECMAScript its only the standard