In the free software community, the idea that nonfree programs mistreat their users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to install proprietary software, and many others consider nonfreedom a strike against the program. Many users are aware that this issue applies to the plug-ins that browsers offer to install, since they can be free or nonfree.
But browsers run other nonfree programs which they don't ask you about or even tell you about—programs that web pages contain or link to. These programs are most often written in JavaScript, though other languages are also used.
JavaScript (officially called ECMAScript, but few use that name) was once used for minor frills in web pages, such as cute but inessential navigation and display features. It was acceptable to consider these as mere extensions of HTML markup, rather than as true software; they did not constitute a significant issue.
Many sites still use JavaScript that way, but some use it for major programs that do large jobs. For instance, Google Docs tries to download into your machine a JavaScript program which measures half a megabyte, in a compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long. The source code of a program is the preferred form for modifying it; the compacted code is not source code, and the real source code of this program is not available to the user.
In addition to being nonfree, many of these programs are malware because they snoop on the user.
Browsers don't normally tell you when they load JavaScript programs. Some browsers have a way to turn off JavaScript entirely, but even if you're aware of this issue, it would take you considerable trouble to identify the nontrivial nonfree programs and block them. However, even in the free software community most users are not aware of this issue; the browsers' silence tends to conceal it.
It is possible to release a JavaScript program as free software, by distributing the source code under a free software license. If the program is self-contained—if its functioning and purpose are independent of the page it came in—that is fine; you can copy it to a file on your machine, modify it, and visit that file with a browser to run it. But that is an unusual case.
In the usual case, JavaScript programs are meant to work with a particular page or site, and the page or site depends on them to function. Then another problem arises: even if the program's source is available, browsers do not offer a way to run your modified version instead of the original when visiting that page or site. The effect is comparable to tivoization, although in principle not quite so hard to overcome.
JavaScript is not the only language web sites use for programs sent to the user. Flash supports programming through an extended variant of JavaScript; if we ever have a sufficiently complete free Flash player, we will need to deal with the issue of nonfree Flash programs. Silverlight seems likely to create a problem similar to Flash, except worse, since Microsoft uses it as a platform for nonfree codecs. A free replacement for Silverlight does not do the job for the free world unless it normally comes with free replacement codecs.
Java applets also run in the browser, and raise similar issues. In general, any sort of applet system poses this sort of problem. Having a free execution environment for an applet only brings us far enough to encounter the problem.
It is theoretically possible to program in HTML and CSS, but in practice this capability is limited and inconvenient; merely to make it do something is an impressive hack. Such programs ought to be free, but CSS is not a serious problem for users' freedom as of 2016.
A strong movement has developed that calls for web sites to communicate only through formats and protocols that are free (some say "open"); that is to say, whose documentation is published and which anyone is free to implement. With the presence of programs in web pages, that criterion is necessary, but not sufficient. JavaScript itself, as a format, is free, and use of JavaScript in a web site is not necessarily bad. However, as we've seen above, it also isn't necessarily OK. When the site transmits a program to the user, it is not enough for the program to be written in a documented and unencumbered language; that program must be free, too. “Only free programs transmitted to the user” must become part of the criterion for proper behavior by web sites.
Silently loading and running nonfree programs is one among several issues raised by "web applications". The term "web application" was designed to disregard the fundamental distinction between software delivered to users and software running on a server. It can refer to a specialized client program running in a browser; it can refer to specialized server software; it can refer to a specialized client program that works hand in hand with specialized server software. The client and server sides raise different ethical issues, even if they are so closely integrated that they arguably form parts of a single program. This article addresses only the issue of the client-side software. We are addressing the server issue separately.
In practical terms, how can we deal with the problem of nonfree JavaScript programs in web sites? The first step is to avoid running it.
What do we mean by "nontrivial"? It is a matter of degree, so this is a matter of designing a simple criterion that gives good results, rather than finding the one correct answer.
Our tentative policy is to consider a JavaScript program nontrivial if:
>it makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make an AJAX request,
>it loads external scripts dynamically or is loaded along with scripts that do,
>it defines functions or methods and either loads an external script (from html) or is loaded as one,
>it uses dynamic JavaScript constructs that are difficult to analyze without interpreting the program, or is loaded along with scripts that use such constructs. These constructs are:
>>using the eval function,
>>calling methods with the square bracket notation,
>>using any other construct than a string literal with certain methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement, ...).
How do we tell whether the JavaScript code is free? At the end of this article we propose a convention by which a nontrivial JavaScript program in a web page can state the URL where its source code is located, and can state its license too, using stylized comments.
Finally, we need to change free browsers to detect and block nontrivial nonfree JavaScript in web pages. The programLibreJSdetects nonfree, nontrivial JavaScript in pages you visit, and blocks it. LibreJS is included in IceCat, and available as an add-on for Firefox.
Browser users also need a convenient facility to specify JavaScript code to useinsteadof the JavaScript in a certain page. (The specified code might be total replacement, or a modified version of the free JavaScript program in that page.) Greasemonkey comes close to being able to do this, but not quite, since it doesn't guarantee to modify the JavaScript code in a page before that program starts to execute. Using a local proxy works, but is too inconvenient now to be a real solution. We need to construct a solution that is reliable and convenient, as well as sites for sharing changes. The GNU Project would like to recommend sites which are dedicated to free changes only.
These features will make it possible for a JavaScript program included in a web page to be free in a real and practical sense. JavaScript will no longer be a particular obstacle to our freedom—no more than C and Java are now. We will be able to reject and even replace the nonfree nontrivial JavaScript programs, just as we reject and replace nonfree packages that are offered for installation in the usual way. Our campaign for web sites to free their JavaScript can then begin.
In the mean time, there's one case where it is acceptable to run a nonfree JavaScript program: to send a complaint to the website operators saying they should free or remove the JavaScript code in the site. Please don't hesitate to enable JavaScript temporarily to do that—but remember to disable it again afterwards.
Appendix A: a convention for releasing free JavaScript programs
For references to corresponding source code, we recommend// @source:
followed by the URL. This satisfies the GNU GPL's requirement to distribute source code. If the source is on a different site, you must take care to handle that properly. Source code is necessary for the program to be free.
To indicate the license of the JavaScript code embedded in a page, we recommend putting the license notice between two notes of this form:@licstart The following is the entire license notice for the JavaScript code in this page.
...
@licend The above is the entire license notice for the JavaScript code in this page.
Of course, all of this should be contained in a multiline comment.
The GNU GPL, like many other free software licenses, requires distribution of a copy of the license with both source and binary forms of the program. However, the GNU GPL is long enough that including it in a page with a JavaScript program can be inconvenient. You can remove that requirement, for code that you have the copyright on, with a license notice like this:Copyright (C) YYYY Developer
The JavaScript code in this page is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. The code is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU GPL for more details.
As additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7, you may distribute non-source (e.g., minimized or compacted) forms of that code without the copy of the GNU GPL normally required by section 4, provided you include this license notice and a URL through which recipients can access the Corresponding Source.
I thank Jaffar Rumith for bringing this issue to my attention.
Appendix B: Publishing free JavaScript programs as a webmaster
If you're a webmaster deploying free JavaScript software on your site, clearly and consistently publishing information about those files' licenses and source code helps your visitors make sure that they're running free software, and help you comply with license conditions.
One method of stating the licenses is the one described above in Appendix A. A second method, JavaScript license web labels, can be more convenient for libraries of minified JavaScript code, especially when you didn't write them.
RMS can suck a bag of dicks
>>54346047
Is this the new interjection?
JavaScript License Web Labels
If you are a webmaster deploying minified JavaScript on a site, here's a method for stating their licenses and source code locations without altering the minified files themselves. It's especially helpful in cases where the JavaScript is under one of the GNU licenses, but does not include the exception proposed in Appendix A of “The JavaScript Trap.”
The JavaScript license web labels method is meant for files of minified JavaScript code. This method complies with the relevant conditions in the GNU software licenses, and it enables LibreJS to confirm the correctness of the information on a site.
Using web labels presumes that the corresponding JavaScript source files carry license notices that properly release them under a free license. The compiled code isn't free unless its source code is, and indicating the license is essential for proper release of free source code. If you haven't done that, you should do that first.
You can use web labels on non-minified JavaScript files too, to indicate their licenses in a way a program can recognize; but these are source files, so please don't fail to give them human-readable license notices. Omitting those notices creates uncertainty about these files legal status.
The web labels method is not applicable to inline JavaScript included directly in HTML pages — their license information should be stated directly in those pages.
For more explanation of why we designed this format, see the rationale.
>i am having a mental breakdown
the thread
Writing the labels page
Add a page for JavaScript license web labels to your site. You can use whatever path or filename is most convenient for you; others will find it through links. The page must include one table marked with the attributeid="jslicense-labels1". This name lets automated tools find the table easily, and tells them what format to expect. Each row of this table will contain three cells, providing information about a standalone JavaScript file used on the site, its license, and how visitors can obtain its source code.
The first cell of each row names a JavaScript file used by the site. The cell must contain an anchor tag that links to that file, just asscripttags throughout the site do.
The second cell provides information about the license of this JavaScript file. The cell must contain an anchor tag whose link refers to the full license text, and whose text provides the license's full name, and if the license has multiple versions, the version number and whether or not the file is licensed under later versions of the license. Good license identifiers and their associated links are:
>GNU-GPL-2.0-or-later https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>GNU-GPL-3.0-or-later https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>GNU-LGPL-2.1-or-later https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
>GNU-LGPL-3.0-or-later https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html
>GNU-AGPL-3.0-or-later https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
>Apache-2.0-only http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>Modified-BSD http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_3Clause
>CC0-1.0-only http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
>Expat http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
>MPL-2.0-or-later http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0
The third cell provides a link to the JavaScript's source code. The source code file can be a single, unminified JavaScript file, a.tar.gzarchive, or a.ziparchive. If a source archive includes multiple JavaScript files, the archive must include a file named00-INDEXthat lists the order in which individiual source files should be concatenated to produce a single file that's equivalent to what's hosted on the site. If the JavaScript as it's served from the site, and linked from the first cell, is already in source code form, link to the same URL again in this cell.
Below is an example table for illustration. This site just uses one JavaScript file: a minified version of jQuery 1.7, distributed under the Expat license. The table lists the file with corresponding license information and a link to full source code:<table id="jslicense-labels1"> <tr>
<td><a href="/js/jquery-1.7.min.js">jquery-1.7.min.js</a></td><td><a href="http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt">Expat</a></td><td><a href="/js/jquery-1.7.tar.gz">jquery-1.7.tar.gz</a></td>
</tr></table>
This page may include other text and markup, including your site's normal layout and navigation tools, but the table must be displayed prominently on it.
Links to the labels page
On each page that uses JavaScript, include a link that points to the labels page described above. Mark this link with the attributerel="jslicense", so that automated tools can find it. For example, your final link might look like this:<a href="/about/javascript" rel="jslicense">JavaScript license information</a>
This link can be small, but it should be clearly visible to people who visit your site.
Notes
If you do these things, you will comply with the relevant conditions in the GNU software licenses, such as the GNU General Public License. They should also suffice to comply with many other free software licenses, but we can't say with certainty that they will comply with all of them. As always, please make sure you understand and follow the license conditions of any free software you distribute.
Taken from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
Copyright © 2009-2013, 2016 Richard Stallman
This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/>
Also taken from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/javascript-labels.html
Copyright © 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License. <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/>
k.
i run nonfree programs and am well aware of it
Meanwhile we have nonfree Google captcha.
>>54346626
appropriate use of this for once i get so tired of seeing people post it for a single sentence
I really dont care
>>54346626
hes saiyan those damn macz has slave programs shanequa lysteria jackson
it aint rite. they wuz kangz
WE WUZ KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
This is just retarded.
It's dangerous to run proprietary software on your machine, because it can spy on you and potentially send dangerous data to remote servers, like Skype. Of course it's not like microsoft is going to sell your bank account to 3rd party, but hackers won't hesitate to do it if they breach microsoft's security.
However there is no danger in running proprietary software inside sandboxed open source virtual machine such as chromium or firefox.
>muh spying and adds localization
These things aren't dangerous to you in any way. It doesn't matter if facebook or google or hackers will know you like reading X book and Y movie and Z Chinese cartoon. The worst thing that can happen to you is that you'll get J-list advertised or some other shit. And if you still care about it so much you can just get adblock with anti-social and 99% of this won't apply to you. Caring so much and crying that companies collect list of websites you've visited without incognito mode is just plain retarded.
Keyloggers, encrypted data transmissions in idle state, scanning files for no reason etc are things that are actually dangerous and should be avoided by using free software. Targeting adds and tracking visited websites isn't the problem.
>>54347068
>the free software movement is exclusively about security
>>54347103
I didn't said that.
>>54346047
Yes OP I actually run them and I'm aware of them and I have no problem with it.. wotcha gonna do?
>>54347068
there is a danger about nonfree JavaScript: a danger to your freedom to use your computer how you like.
For example, my browser can display text, so I should be able to read the news on a news website. If said website uses nonfree JavaScript there might not be a method for me to read their news without giving up control over my pc (for a limited amount of cpu time). That potentially excludes me from political and societal discourse.
As to your second point, in the text above Google Docs is mentioned as a negative example. You can be sure that everything you type in Google Docs is logged. That -is- a keylogger in Google's JavaScript, and that matters indeed.
And as that other anon said, the issue is not exclusively about security. Privacy is important because without it you cannot exercise your other freedoms.
I just came here for the inane comments.
>>54347540
These freedoms doesn't give you any real benefits, but would be a large obstacle for website's owner.
No one makes scripts that will take any significant amount of cpu time and the same thing may be applied to just HTML5 + CSS3 because they are turing complete on their own.
Also freedoms as in free software doesn't give you any benefits:
0. There is no point in running these scripts in any other way than front end of its website (you still can do it anyway)
1. There is no point in studying what these scripts do. There isn't anything interesting or valuable in them, they are mere front end (however you can still de-minimalize code and study it. They aren't complex. You can change the code using plugins, but there is no point in doing that and it will mostly likely break when something on back-end changes)
2. There is no point in redistributing scripts. They always are made to work for given back-end and are useless everywhere else
3. see 1. and 2.
It doesn't matter if Google Docs logs everything you type in it, because that's what this service is about. It's cloud hosting of documents and their whole history. It doesn't matter if they log what you type, because this service is about saving and logging on cloud changes you made in documents.
I'm using windows 10 right now
>>54348229
>There isn't anything interesting or valuable in them,
Take for example one of /v/'s flavour of the month browser games. This game is made in Javascript. If it were written in C instead and distributed as a binary, would it gain anything interesting or valuable that it doesn't already have?
>There is no point in redistributing scripts.
Suppose that I download the javascript for this game and make it better. Now there's a better version of this game out there, but no one can play it except me, and I already don't have the rights to do what I did.
This is just one example off of the top of my head. There are others.
>>54346047
Pretty much all I use on my PC is proprietary code apps. The few open source programs I do use are not free by the Stallinman definition.
Feels good mang.
The moment you start injecting politics even in the apps you use it's time to commit sudoku, you're not fit for this world.
I was on /o/ the other day and this pic was posted about stancefags - those people who lower their car stupidly beyond any usability to where it's 5mm off the ground, so they can't use it anymore for anything to go anywhere in the city and have to plan their route on roads that have absolutely no inclines and can't even use it for racing anymore. They all try so hard to be "different" from "regular people" by ruining their car yet all come to the same conclusion of fucking their car over. Then they have gay little "meetups" where they all hope nobody else shows up and when they do, ignore each other as hard as possible.
Freetard losers are basically the same way. They don't really care about software, computers, or any of this - they just want to be non-conformist and they end up going about that in the most conformist way possible. And what does that entail? Cuntpasting the same fucking shit from FSF over and over again for 25 years? Yeah you sure are different. Honestly I've been in situations where I gave interviews to people and I've meet some free software proponents but never a freetard. I'd probably not hire them based on this if they were this bad because the only thing they are good at is refusing to do work and refuse to use fucking everything because of some faux basement movement bullshit some homeless person came up with 45 years ago. Yes the government sure is monitoring you and you have to be free from these oppressive chains... so you can do what... jerk off to the same words about how all software that you are scared to use because you're stuck in the 80s is bad for some made up reason.
Redhat and ubuntu and all those people actually know how the world works and are the REAL linux heroes because they get vendors to install it and it gets mainstream attention. Meanwhile all the FSF does is fucking jerk each other off outside of tech conferences and appear like homeless people holding up a sign saying the world is going to end.
>>54348608
>this much mad at people who've evaded the botnet
>>54348443
>freedom is politics
Go fuck yourself, paid Microsoft troll.
>>54346071
>A strong movement has developed
Yes it has, and that means fuck all. I can form a strong movement to make you think that being 850 lbs means that you're pretty, doesn't mean you are. "A strong movement has developed" is about the same as wikipedia's article on weasel words that start with "Some say..."
Freetards always ignore massively horrible proprietary programs that are an actual blight on the world that cause people to suffer. Best examples are Windows and Respondus the latter of which is so hideous that every college that has it also has a group started by its students to drop it because you can actually fail out of a class from it killing your online test.
But no, we must focus on some autistic level javascript nothing that some websites may or may not use because the code is mostly open but not completely open so it's kind of in my area of attention because I'm a fucking CS dropout insisting the web be built on some dead early 80s language. Ignore all the vendors making shit software with proprietary formats creating lock in though, we have bigger fish to fry - this mostly free format isn't quite free enough because of my made up standards I've fooled myself into believing.
>>54348641
I wrote all this because there's a couple of chucklefucks on this board that don't do shit besides just re-paste the same 20 pages from the FSF. This is contrarianism at its worst and if you do this you are the stancefags of technology.
OP please stop making these threads and stick to your obscure IRC channel where the 5 people left just hurl these pages at each other verbatim all day and night.
>>54348399
From the very beginning I was talking about front-end scripts used in websites for things like displaying stuff, interactive/AJAX elements like in facebook/youtube, scripts to collect informations about you, what websites you browse etc, and not about full applications/game ran inside browser.
Games like that could be released as open source and it would make sense, but they won't because people want to make money. It's not like in the example of news website that requires you to run Javascript to see them, but could do all of that without JS. It's whole proprietary game made in JS can't be run without JS. Still, it's not unfair in any way. It's not like they limit some content for you because you don't want to use some theoretically unrelated technology(cause danger to your freedom), the whole product is that technology and you are free to use it or not.
Still my point is that proprietary JS ran in free browser doesn't cause any unexpected danger. It won't tell your passwords to remote servers in secret, it won't generate any informations/statistics that can harm you, it won't force you to sacrifice significant CPU time to browse data that could be provided without JS, it doesn't stops you from doing whatever you want with clients scripts, including disabling, replacing and releasing modified versions of them(the last one isn't guaranteed, but as long as you are not a dick no one cares if you upload scripts to change the way websites works).
>>54348763
>Freetards always ignore Windows
Wew, almost took you seriously for a moment.
>>54348797
Not him but you do know that Javascript vulnerabilities are ~90% of why people get ransomware, right?
>>54348797
>no one cares if you
By default, javascript programs are put under restrictive copyright. If you don't mind people doing something, you have to explicitly say so, or legally they can't. Is it fair? No. Is it right? No. Is it how copyright law works? Yes.
>>54348906
No, I don't. Do you have any more info about it?
Also keep in mind we are talking about just Javascript run inside firefox/chromium browser, not about using Node.js, proprietary browser or external malware that modifies browser by adding backdoors.
>>54348993
True.
However I've never seen anyone got sued because he made some scripts for userscripts.org
Still I wouldn't upload whole scripts from some website with just some improvements, as I said in previous posts it's not even practical. Independent user scripts that just improve website without modifying original scripts is more practical anyway.
>>54348443
blender and krita are foss dumbass
>>54349527
Oh, thanks for letting me know. Finding replacements for them now.
