Updated GNU Framework Tries To Push "Free JavaScript"

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Updated GNU Framework Tries To Push "Free JavaScript"

Out this Sunday is a major update to GNU ease.js, which relicenses this JavaScript framework to the GPLv3 and has several other changes. GNU ease.js helps the Free Software Foundation's case for the "importance of free JavaScript" on the web...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTYzMjE

[curaga]

Perhaps I'm not thinking Free enough, but to me JS has bigger problems than non-free code: bloated libraries and clueless JS devs.

Site needs one small function, that transplanted would take 200 bytes, yet they include several megabytes of JS libs.
Site overuses JS, making it extremely laggy.
The quality of those frameworks in general is questionable: jquery for example drops browser support way too soon.

[toyotabedzrock]

The old Opera actually had userscript commands that would allow you to intercept any script and replace it.

[Calinou]

You should put quotes in italics, sometimes I'm not sure if something is a quote or not.

[jokeyrhyme]

GPL v3 question

Does this mean that ease.js cannot be used without also divulging all the source code for any server-side components? I'm hopefully confusing this with Afferro...

Or does this only require all other front-end JavaScript source code?

[AJenbo]

jquery for example drops browser support way too soon.

AFAIK they have no intention to EOL the 1.x branch that supports all the way back to IE6. I am a little sad that 2.x drops IE8 as I have to support that one

[Luke_Wolf]

Does this mean that ease.js cannot be used without also divulging all the source code for any server-side components? I'm hopefully confusing this with Afferro...

Or does this only require all other front-end JavaScript source code?

This ^ is actually a very good question. From a legal standpoint are the scripts, the document, styling, and server side components all considered separate entities (in which case it should effect just the scripts) or are they all a singular "work" (in which case it would effect the entire webpage), or has this even been established by anyone?

[brent]

It's pretty naive to assume that a more restrictive license will make people open up their code. There are tons of JavaScript frameworks. In the best case, developers that use ease.js will migrate to another framework without silly license terms. In the worst case, they will ignore the license terms.

[Delgarde]

The quality of those frameworks in general is questionable: jquery for example drops browser support way too soon.

Are you serious? Sure, the 2.x branch drops support for IE8 and before - precisely to reduce the bloat you're talking about - but the still-maintained 1.9 branch still supports IE6, for god's sake. And you accuse them of dropping browser support too soon?

[Delgarde]

AFAIK they have no intention to EOL the 1.x branch that supports all the way back to IE6. I am a little sad that 2.x drops IE8 as I have to support that one

If you need IE8 support, then just keep using the 1.x branch. You shouldn't be sad that 2.x dropped IE8 support, because ditching "difficult" browsers like IE8 is the entire reason for 2.x to exist.... providing a leaner version that doesn't have to include the overhead of supporting those older and less-compliant browsers. Because IE9 is really the line in the sand, the point where IE became "good enough"... something that could be treated as just another browser variant instead of some abomination that nobody wants to deal with...