FSF to Google: Free Gmail's JavaScript now!

And how exactly are we going to upload our customisations?

Maybe the FSF forgot something, but there is no mechanism by which Gmail users can upload modifications to the code, even if they had the means and knowhow to edit them.

I agree it'd be nice if all code could be "free" (libre) but here it's just not practical. In this case, it'd mean Google having to store one copy of the Gmail API for each user who wanted to "tinker" with their installation. There's no way in hell it'd be wise to just let all users mess with the Gmail instance that all users rely on, as one malicious user could insert some code to screw it for all Gmail users. It'd be a security nightmare and I fully understand why Google would be reluctant to do this.

That said, since there is IMAP, nothing stops you setting up your own web server somewhere (or buying web space), then installing an open-source web mail client such as RoundCube to access your GMail accounts.

Perhaps the FSF could get into the advertising/web search market themselves with some decent search engine and set up their own competing service? Good luck to them I say.

Wow... just wow.

I was originally going to post a comment suggesting a new elReg unit of measure, "the Stallman" as a measure of nuttyness, but then I realized it would be a moving target as he seems to be getting crazier by the year.

Frankly the FSF's "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too" attitude is getting old.

The only free software is in the public domain.

Isn't JavaScript...

by design open source? You download the source code to run it. Sure it may be obfuscated in some way, but it's still source code. It may not be free due to copyright, but it does meet a basic definition of open source.

That's probably why FSF is stressing "free" in this case -- they know the source code is by design available so they want to focus on the other aspects of free software (i.e, reuse and community contributions.)

What business do they have telling people what to do?`

I really don't understand this attitude. As a programmer, I feel that the author of a given piece of code should be able to determine what they want to do with it. What business does anyone else have telling people how to use their own code?

If Google want to release the code, that's great - I'm not against open source. However, no one should try to force others to release their code just because they have some political belief, it's absurd. Google invested considerable time and resources into writing that code, and if they want to keep it to themselves they should be well within their rights to do it.

What have the FSF invested in that code exactly? Nothing. Google is a business, they employ people who want paying and in order to do that they need to make money, if their business model means they can't/don't want to release the code, that's fine.

Closed-Source JS?

"That's right, it wants the code open sourced, but this being the Free Software Foundation, it prefers the term free software."

.

Why can't even writers for IT publications get the difference between "Open-Source" and "Free Software"? - it's clear as day.

Javascript, as far as this sort of thing is concerned, is interpreted on a client machine - the source code is staring you in the face! That doesn't make it free to use, free to modify, distribute and free from both patent encumbrance and proprietary taint.

.

Mild mocking of RMS et. al based on an erroneous postulate is a bit lame. You think promoting free software is a stupid idea?, fine - make your case on that instead.

Wouldn't the easiest solution

be to avoid GMail?

If you don't want non-free code (even if it is Javascript) running on your computer, then don't use those services that you know to use non-free code.

I'm a supporter of open source and FOSS, but I'm really not comfortable with the FSF getting on their high-horse and telling Google to open source their application code simply because an FSF zealot wants to use a Google service without experiencing a moral crisis.

FSF, a simple choice...

...turn off Javascript or be sullied by using non-free software.

Oh sorry that wouldn't satisfy your deperate need to be noticed. Perhaps you didn't get enough cuddles when you were young.

Help yourself to a pint of grow the fuck up.

Change Tactics, PLEASE

I respect the FSF's mission, but think that this tactic is misplaced.

GMail is essentially a client-server application. The client is written in JavaScript, and the server is embedded in Google's back-end infrastructure. The protocol between the two is proprietary and undocumented.

Google wrote its own email protocol because POP and IMAP, while standard, do not meet the needs of what people really want to do today. By throwing out the standards, they build a better end-user experience. This is not so different from the way Microsoft built its own proprietary email protocols in the past.

The most valuable thing the FSF could do here would be to:

1. Get people talking about standardized advanced-functionality email protocols, beyond POP/IMAP. Then we could all start building advanced email clients and servers with the great features that GMail has.

2. If they're going to prod Google to open something up, they should be asking for the protocol, not the JavaScript client. All they're going to get from the client is a bunch of GUI and network interface code that gives little insight of the actual heavy lifting going on behind the scenes. But realistically, the protocol probably won't give much more anyway.

The GMail back-end is what would really be interesting. But I sincerely doubt Google would even THINK of open-sourcing the GMail back-end. FSF should just start a project to write that kind of stuff itself.