I enjoyed reading Mr. Stallman's proposal. I support it and I would like the abilities he mentions, to turn off and replace javascript, to be included in Firefox.

Most of what you say is well-hashed anti-GPL stuff. A few web searches should provide you with all of those arguments, much more carefully written, and save you a good deal of ranting time.

Personally, I don't think there is any good reason to believe that the copyright system promotes the economy or general society, or "the Useful Arts and Sciences" as it is required to do by the US Constitution. Your examples of iPhone and Facebook applications and writing a database are not very convincing. Why should programmers everywhere be constrained from copying something in order to subsidize the creation of iFart ? Giant multi-national corporations use GPLd versions of Oracle competitors, even through MySQL and Postgres and SQLite are licensed in exactly the way you object to, and somehow the free market system still figured out how to pay programmers to work on those projects.

All the people that made Fedora 9 worth $10.8 billion for free disagree with you [1]. Just because you wont work for free doesn't mean other people wont. It's a pretty unbelievable display of human passion and generosity. Why criticize that?

[1] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux....

Stallman surely realizes that minifying JavaScript is a standard process, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to his point. First, it not straightforward to determine the licensing for many scripts, and second it does not provide access to an unobfuscated copy of the source. In no way does he ask for JavaScript to be served without minification, but rather he asks that minified JS contain a pointer to a non-minified copy. Doing so doesn't create an additional cost for the site owner, beyond possibly requiring an extra step in a build script.

I think you are pushing two distinct movements into the same box: the free software movement championed by Stallman, and the "get users first, monetize later" euphoria of the "Web 2.0" movement. The first group is pursuing a moral agenda; the second believes that it is a legitimate route to wealth. Much of what you are blaming Stallman for seems better directed at the second movement or at open source developers (who are often a very different breed than Stallman, and who--in my experience--tend to hate the GPL as an unnecessarily restrictive license).

I also find your example of iPhone and Facebook applications as somewhat problematic. These platforms are ghettos where developers are dependent on the capricious rules and regulations provided by the owners. This is hard to ignore when you see traffic to applications dropping by a reported 50% after the latest redesign for Facebook, and also when independent apps like Podcaster (err, whatever the name was) barred from the AppStore because it competed with functionality that Apple's own apps provided. Opportunity abounds in both, but there are many many losers in both as well. The real winner in both these situations is Apple and Facebook. Asking forgiveness from Marx, when possible it is always best to be the landlord.

My second to last point in this unfortunately disconnected response is that neither Stallman nor Web 2.0 have ever been the "guard". Both are and have always been fringe movements. The "guard" has always been large companies selling software to other large companies and making tremendous sums of money while doing so.

Finally, people do get paid for open source contributions. It isn't straight forward, and the correlation between time spent and money returned is not predictable in the same way it is for an hourly consultant gig, but there is always money there for people who grasp it.

If nothing else, Stallman serves as a constant reminder that we should consider the extremes -- both free, and what would happen should freedom disappear -- in order to keep a realistic perspective.

We should be happy that RMS is out there fighting the good fight. Though most of us don't go quite as far as he does, our livelihood depends on the availability of Free and open source software, and the ideals of the Free Software Movement. Democratic society is built on debate. When you have people at various extremes arguing you end up somewhere in the middle and I'm glad RMS is there to skew the average.

Stallman's Javascript proposal seemed a bit out there to me to as I was reading it but then I remembered how many of Stallman's other ideas seemed goofy at the time they were written. In 1989 the GPL was an absurd idea but now it's been hugely successful and changed everything for all of us. He's earned enough lifetime karma points for me to think carefully about what he's saying.

Also, by definition radically good ideas have to start out as radical ideas.

First...discussion thread here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527500

Second, the account you posted with has had 1 karma for 147 days. A rant should not be the first thing that you share with this community.

Critique the argument not the person.

I agree, ad hominem -> bad form.

I think a really interesting proposition would be to get together and write some GPLed javascript libraries. Things that would be immensely useful in coding up something like Google Docs. IANAL, but we may need some modified Affero type GPL for this. I'll leave licensing up to Stallman and Co. Then, you'd quickly see some GPL adoption on that side.

The key is seeding the domain (in this case javascript libraries) with code so good and tempting, people would rather give back their improvements than rebuild the base from scratch.

I hope that RMS or any other Free Software advocate hasn't ever come to your place & threatened you to develop/use free software. If you like the concept you got that way & if you don't... you are free to go your way... It's the freedom of choice.

And I too believe that RMS is very strict & straight on his view. But we shouldn't worry about that. Since he is the icon that represent Software Freedom, he being loosy will not do any good to the community.

RMS says that proprietary software is evil. He makes those developing proprietary software feel bad for making a living. His endgame isn't about choice to be free, it's about everyone making free software.

If he had the power, do you think he would outlaw proprietary software?

"If he[Stallman] had the power, do you think he would outlaw proprietary software?"

This kind of hypothetical question is not a valid argument.

"If you were starving to death would you become a cannibal?" Should we put you in jail now if you answer yes?

I think it's a valid question because this is what we wants to accomplish, as he has stated many times. He openly states proprietary software is evil, and by association the vendors.

Chaunx said he isn't threatening. I disagree, and feel he is quite threatening to those who don't share his world view.

I doubt anybody shoveling money into the fire of their life-sized toy steam engine train will feel bad about making all that loot on their proprietary software startup. I think they will manage somehow. :)

I understand why you're writing this but I don't think you are making much sense. Don't get me wrong, I see how Stallman sounds utterly ridiculous. But he is Richard Stallman. Also, you are sort of making a whiny "wah wah let's get rid of this open source hogwash cuz I want my money wah wah wah -- but don't think I am against open source" argument.

FSF has a particular agenda, an agenda most of us here should at least understand. This javascript stuff does pose potential problems for complete free software types from following their principles and using the Web. It makes it difficult. So Stallman is proposing a means by which one can know if a JS is GPL. Fine. I had been wondering for a couple years now why I hadn't heard much about this issue.

If this is what put you over the edge about Stallman, then you just haven't been paying much attention.

In a way you're right. But I do know what Stallman stands for and respect what he's done. I was just hoping he would lay off the web.

The web is open, by definition. Anybody can view a javascript file in the browser cache, and it's not hard to work out how it works even if it is minified/obfuscated.

I just don't see the need to start blocking scripts because the developer doesn't subscribe to his radical views.

In the unlikely event of his idea taking off, it could dampen innovation rather than encourage it.

Well, but minified or "obfuscripted," if you like, Javascript is not really in keeping with the views of FSF. A programmer sufficiently dedicated can work out and deal with assembly code of a given executable. The point is that, according to FSF, it should be utterly free.

As far as dampen innovation, eh, I doubt it. I don't think enough people will take Stallman's view seriously for there to be any real danger here. I certainly don't. But I understand your reservations.

Free software is great. But it's okay to charge for things, too.