Hello Joe, Thanks for taking the time to provide this feedback. I hear you, and agree that it can be time and labor intensive to verify that your site's JS is not only freely licensed, but also properly annotated as such. We have recently discussed ways to improve GNU LibreJS that address this concern.
I disagree with your characterization of developers and teams who release their web apps as free software as "idiots". There are various nuanced reasons why a developer/team would do this, and none of them are taken lightly. Furthermore, such language and behavior is not tolerated on this mailing list. I believe that you are conflating the freedom of the licensing of the JS web app and the selling of access to the web app, and the "free" part of "free software" is only concerned with the former and not the latter. Additionally, as you can read in our recent update on GNU LibreJS [0], we are currently working on an update which makes use of the WebExtensions APIs. This allows the same browser extension to run on any browser which supports these APIs, which includes popular non-free browsers such as Firefox and Chrome, in addition to GNU IceCat. I hope that I've addressed your concerns, and once again, thanks for your feedback. You are always welcome to join us in hacking on GNU LibreJS or just chat about JS licensing in #librejs on freenode. Good luck and happy hacking! -zach [0] https://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=8987 > On Nov 14, 2017, at 20:39, Joe Clayton <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am sorry guys, but you are fighting a losing battle here. > > No web site admin/maintainer is going to dig through hundreds (in our case, > thousands) of web pages to figure out if we have 'non-free' modules, replace > those javascript modules/code with 'free' versions, or more to the point, > release our own javascript - which support commercial 'web applications' - as > free. Only an idiot is going to spend thousands of dollars and months of time > developing a commercial web app - and I don't know of any that don't include > javascript - and then release it as free code. > > Also, I - like many - have no intention being forced to use Firefox - when > we prefer Chrome - only to enforce all of that 'only free' javascript. > Frankly, as a user, if I am paying to use a commercial web app, and 'LibreJS' > or anything else starts blocking code because it is 'non-free' - I would > immediately rip it out. > > I hope our donations to FSF are NOT focused on this effort to get every web > site to agree to only use 'free' javascript, because it is just not going to > fly. A better approach is guidelines/rules/laws that limit what 'non-free' > javascript is allowed to do, such as not collect/mine information. > > Joe Clayton > Creative Software > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Donald Robertson, III, FSF <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Read online: > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/you-can-now-register-as-a-dmca-agent-without-using-nonfree-javascript > > <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/you-can-now-register-as-a-dmca-agent-without-using-nonfree-javascript> > > Dear Joe Clayton, > > With the deadline for registering as a DMCA agent looming at the end of the > year, these two add-ons allow you to register without the use of nonfree > JavaScript. > > Users shouldn't be forced to use nonfree software when interacting with their > own government. Every user has the right to control their own computing, and > the government shouldn't force you to download and install proprietary > software just to take advantage of its services. But when it comes to > registering as an agent under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) in > the United States, that's exactly what the government expects you to do. > > Users are likely familiar with the DMCA's more draconian aspects, namely the > creation of legal penalties for circumventing Digital Restrictions Management > <https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management>. > The Free Software Foundation's Defective by Design campaign is fighting > <https://www.defectivebydesign.org/DMCA-exemption-commenting-process-broken> > to end that nightmare and repeal that part of the law. But like many laws, > it's crammed full of a wide variety of provisions, the anti-circumvention > rules being only one of them. > > Another piece of the law creates what are known as the safe harbor > provisions. These rules set out some steps that maintainers of Web sites can > take to avoid liability when a user of their site uploads potentially > infringing copyrighted materials. The main provision here is that if a > copyright holder finds their work on your site without their permission, they > can submit a take down notice to an agent registered for your site. This > agent can then remove the work, thus avoiding liability for the potentially > infringing distribution. Without this safe harbor, the site maintainer could > potentially be sued. > > While this safe harbor rule can lead to abuse, with improper take downs, it > also allows maintainers of Web sites to permit their users to share works. If > the rule wasn't in place, it would be too dangerous to accept such uploads > without reviewing each work -- something most Web sites can't afford to do. > The Free Software Foundation takes advantage of the safe harbor provisions to > ensure that we can continue to share software created and uploaded by free > software developers, or to share information like that found in the Free > Software Directory <https://directory.fsf.org/>, or to help people organize > locally via LibrePlanet.org <https://libreplanet.org/>. > > As mentioned before, though, taking advantage of the safe harbor provisions > requires having an agent to accept the notices. This is where the problem > arises. The U.S. Copyright Office is now requiring Web site maintainers to > re-register using https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/ > <https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/> by December 31st of 2017. This > site, like many others that the Copyright Office requires use of > <https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/it_isnt_just_dmca_broken_beyond_repair>, > is lousy with nonfree JavaScript > <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap>. Unlike the server software > you may interact with when visiting any Web site, JavaScript is actually > downloaded and run on your machine. Like any proprietary software, it does > not serve the user, and cannot be trusted. Users must avoid nonfree > JavaScript just as they would avoid any piece of proprietary software. But if > they want to continue to enjoy safe harbor provisions, they must allow this > intrusion onto their computer. > > The Free Software Foundation reached out to the Copyright Office with these > issues, and we still hope to work out a solution with them for the long term. > But with the deadline coming up, we had to fix it ourselves. We collaborated > with a volunteer to develop a workaround that allows you to register using > only free software. The fix requires installing two freely licensed add-ons, > Register DMCA claim contacts w/o bad Javascript > <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/librejs-compatible-pay-gov/> > and Automatically reveal hidden HTML elements > <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/submit-me/>. These add-ons, > when used with GNU LibreJS <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/>, allow > anyone who needs to register as a DMCA agent to do so without loading the > harmful nonfree JavaScript. > > There are still a few quirks that are being hammered out. Currently you have > to add alternate names by uploading a document rather than filling in a text > field. The only document type that they will accept is Excel, a proprietary > format, but users can create documents in that format using LibreOffice > <https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/LibreOffice>. It's not a perfect solution, > but it does enable users to actually complete the entire registration process > using only free software. We will also be talking with the Copyright Office > about supporting better formats. That is one of the beautiful things about > free software: when people see a problem and have control over their own > tools, they have the power to come together and make things right. > > Users have a right to control their own computing. Governments everywhere > should ensure that participating in any program they provide does not require > the use of nonfree software. But where governments are slow to react, we all > have to work together to route around the threat of proprietary software. > Here's what you can do to help: > > Spread the word to any Web site maintainers you know that they can register > using free software. > Use the add-ons to register for your own sites, and let us know you did by > emailing us at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>. > Help improve GNU LibreJS <https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/>. > Support the work of the Free Software Foundation by donating > <https://www.fsf.org/donate> or becoming a member <https://www.fsf.org/join>. > Sincerely, > Donald Robertson, III > Licensing and Compliance Manager > > Follow us on GNU social <https://status.fsf.org/fsf> | Subscribe to our blogs > via RSS <https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS> | Join us as an associate member > <https://www.fsf.org/jf> > Sent from the Free Software Foundation, > 51 Franklin St > <https://maps.google.com/?q=51+Franklin+St&entry=gmail&source=g>, Fifth Floor > Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1335 > UNITED STATES > Unsubscribe > <https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/mailing/unsubscribe?reset=1&jid=155053&qid=29457639&h=034a7d6b5e7bd888> > from this mailing list. > Stop all email > <https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/mailing/optout?reset=1&jid=155053&qid=29457639&h=034a7d6b5e7bd888> > from the Free Software Foundation, including Defective by Design, and the > Free Software Supporter newsletter. >
