Group talk: NoJavaScript

Twitter and Facebook up next

I think these will be the next targets. Mattl 15:33, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

Giving more explanations on what we expect to achieve?

I just received the email about this campaign and several things are still not clear to me, so I suppose it will not be clear for another average internet user:

• As javascript is interpreted from source form by the browser, isn't the source code already available?
• Why are greasemonkey scripts not convenient enough to update it? What more is expected from a free release of some JS code?
• What is the signification/purpose of redistributing a javascript source code? How is it possible to share a modified version of some gmail JS code with other gmail users?

So I think the first step should be to give more explanations on these issues on this page: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/gmail-jstrap

Rixed 01:54, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

About your first point, sure the source code is available but the license probably doesn't allow to tamper with it. About your 2 other points I do have the same questions. I'd also add that Javascript is only a part of their system, it's not more or less of a trap than the non-free software they run on their servers... The issue with using Gmail is rather using Gmail itself than running some proprietary Javascript part of their service on your computer... Finally, neither of the solutions proposed on Group:NoJavaScript/Gmail are satisfactory: the first just removes all scripts without (for the moment) offering a really usable alternative; the second is just how to configure an e-mail client to work with Gmail (I believe that when people use a webmail it usually means that they don't want to use an e-mail client - that's my case at least) Redfo1 02:18, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

JavaScript source code is sometimes available (although it is often compressed/obfuscated). But, as Redfo1 said, you are still legally prohibited from sharing it or sharing your improvements to it. This is also why greasemonkey scripts are not sufficient -- if those scripts are derived from Google's official JavaScript, then it would not be legal to share them. If you have a modified version of the gmail JS code, then it is trivial to have your browser load that code instead of the original version.--Johns 16:41, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Has anyone who is in web development asked Google if they can derive their scripts? It couldn't hurt. There's no good end in complaining about it if nobody does that. Barring that, a clean room implementation of the current JavaScript action should be started. Minozake 06:35, 10 May 2011 (EDT)