online-freedom/talk.tex

\documentclass[pdf,red]{beamer}
\mode<presentation>{}
\usetheme{Boadilla}

%% preamble
\title{Restore Online Freedom!}
\author{Mike Gerwitz}
\date{20 March, LibrePlanet 2016}

\usepackage{listings}

% hide pesky navigation
\setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{}

\newwrite\lecturenotes
\openout\lecturenotes=lecture.notes

\def\hangleft#1{%
  \settowidth{\dimen0}{#1}%
  \hspace*{-\dimen0}%
  #1%
}


\def\lecturestart{%
  \makeatletter
  \xdef\@@lecture@notes{}
  \makeatsymbol
}
\def\lecture#1{\write\lecturenotes{\unexpanded{#1}}}

\def\todo#1{#1}


\begin{document}

%% TODO mention DRM in HTML5


%%%=== BEGIN TIMEBLOCK 8m ==============================================

\begin{frame}
  \titlepage

  \lecture{I'm going depress everyone upfront---this is a~talk about
           problems.  Problems that are fundamental to the Web today, and
           don't have a trivial solution.  So who am I to tell you what is
           and is not a problem with one of the great pillars of modern
           life?}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Who am I?}
  \lecture{Well, I'm Mike Gerwitz.}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item Long-time free software hacker and activist
      \lecture{I'm a long-time free software hacker and activist}

    \item GNU volunteer, software evaluator, and part of maintainers team
      \lecture{and volunteer for the GNU project.  I'm part of the small
               team of evaluators for GNU project submissions, and I'm what
               I'd called a trainee on the maintainers team.}

    \item Author of GNU ease.js
      \lecture{I'm also the author of GNU ease.js, a classical
               object-oriented framework for JavaScript licensed under the
               GNU GPLv3+.}

    \lecture{I've been involved in web development to at least some capacity}
    \item 10+ years of web development
      \lecture{for well over ten years.  But possibly just as importantly,
               I've been a \emph{user} of the web for even longer.  Now, I'm
               26---I'm not part of the generation that was swiping at
               newspapers when they were babies, wondering why nothing was
               happening, but I did grow up with the Internet.}

    \begin{itemize}
      \item<2-> The Web has \only<2>{changed}\only<3->{{\bf worsened}} a lot
        \lecture{And as I'm sure all of you here can attest to---and I'm
               really stating the obvious here---the Internet has changed a
               \emph{lot} in the past ten, fifteen years.  In fact, it's had
               a version change---the so-called ``Web 2.0''!  Which, to
               clarify, is just jargon; there's not actually a version
               change.}

        \lecture{But I suppose I could phrase this in another way: the
                 Web has also \emph{worsened} a lot in the past ten
                 years.  A version bump isn't always an upgrade.}
      \end{itemize}
    \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{``But the Web is great!''}
  \lecture{``But the web is great!'', you'll hear people say.}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item<2-> The Web has improved \emph{technically}
      \lecture{Yes, the web has improved \emph{technically}---}

    \begin{itemize}
      \item<2-> Modern software on the web rivals traditional desktop
                software
    \end{itemize}
      \lecture{you can do things on the web today that were
               \emph{unfathomable} ten years ago.  I don't think any
               rational person who's seen the~transition over the past
               ten-plus years would argue that.}

      \lecture{But we're talking about \emph{freedom}.}

    \item<3-> The truth is---the web has become alarmingly hostile and
      freedom-denying toward users
      \lecture{The web has become increasing \emph{hostile} and
               freedom-denying toward its users.  And that's not progress;
               technical advancements are great, but \emph{not when they
               deny users their freedoms}.}

    \item<4-> Freedom trumps all.
      \lecture{\emph{Freedom trumps all.}  So we can say that, while Web~2.0
               was a \emph{technical} upgrade, it has been an alarmingly
               progressive \emph{downgrade} for users' freedoms.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\defverbatim{\gnurequest}{%
\small
\begin{verbatim}
         $ curl -v https://gnu.org/
         [...]
         > GET / HTTP/1.1
         > User-Agent: curl/7.35.0
         > Host: gnu.org
         > Accept: */*
\end{verbatim}
}

\defverbatim{\gnuresp}{%
\small
\begin{verbatim}
         $ curl -v https://gnu.org/
         [...some lines removed]
         < HTTP/1.1 200 OK
         < Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:45:21 GMT
         < Server: Apache/2.4.7
         < Cache-Control: max-age=0
         < Expires: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:45:21 GMT
         < Transfer-Encoding: chunked
         < Content-Type: text/html
         < Content-Language: en
         <
         { [data not shown]}
\end{verbatim}
}


\begin{frame}[fragile]{Understanding the Web}
  \lecture{Alright; so before we can really talk intelligently on these
           issues, what is the Web?  Quick summary:}

  \begin{overlayarea}{\textwidth}{\textheight}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> Usually involves a web browser
      \lecture{Normally when we talk about the ``Web'', as opposed to the
              ``Internet'' as a whole, we're referring to something that you
              would access using a web browser.  That web browser might be a
              graphical browser like GNU IceCat, it might be a text-mode
              browser like w3m, or maybe even \tt{wget} or \tt{curl} to
              directly and look at the plain text of the document, or parse
              it with a script.}

    \begin{enumerate}
      \item <2-> User enters a URL or clicks on a link
          \only<2>{\par(e.g. \url{https://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html})}

        \lecture{The user first indicates the resource that they want to
                 ``browse'' to using a URL, which stands for ``Uniform
                 Resource Locator''; it contains both a protocol and a
                 resource identifier.  Let's take ``gnu.org'' as an
                 example.}

      \item<3-> For HTTP(S), brower sends HTTP request to host on port
                 80/443
        \only<3>{\gnurequest}
        \lecture{The beginning of the URL is usually HTTP or HTTPS; we don't
                 care about others for this talk.  The former transfers data
                 in plaintext whereas the later is encrypted using SSL.  The
                 browser sends an HTTP request to the host requesting the
                 resource.}

      \item<4-> Server responds with resource
        \only<4>{\gnuresp}
        \lecture{The server responds.  That response might be affirmative,
                 it might be an error, it might be garbage; let's assume
                 that it was a successful response.}

      \item<5-> Browser recursively loads all resources referenced by
                 webpage
        \begin{itemize}
          \item<5-> Stylesheets, Images, Scripts, etc.
        \end{itemize}
        \only<5>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/gnu-resources.png}}
        \lecture{This is the meat of the talk.  The browser then recursively
                 processes all resources referenced by \emph{that}
                 resource.  Most often, these include images, stylesheets,
                 and scripts.}
    \end{enumerate}

    \item<6-> Distributed network (``web'') of computers
      \lecture{So fundamentally, the web is a distributed network of
               computers that serve resources.  Resources can be anything
               from your conventional web page, to a program that runs in
               your browser, to a live video stream of this talk.}
    \end{itemize}
  \end{overlayarea}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Interoperability}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> Fundamental building blocks are standardized (W3C)
      \lecture{Technically, you can include anything on the
               Web---certain formats will just invoke external programs or
               trigger a download.  But as far as web pages go, they
               traditionally consist of HTML}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item<2-> HTML---Describes the document
          \lecture{which describes the~document, and CSS}

        \item<3-> CSS---Describes the document style (appearance)
          \lecture{which describes the~document \emph{style}---how it looks,
                   what font to render in, the background color, et cetera.}

          \lecture{Those documents can contain more than just text---there
                   is support for media as well, like images and embedded
                   video.  Users can submit information by entering data in
                   form fields.  Most of that falls under the HTML spec.}

        \item<4-> HTTP---Communication protocol
          \lecture{All of this communication is done using the HTTP
                   protocol, which defines how the server and client
                   communicate.}
          \lecture{Back in the day, most every reaction to user input
                   involved loading a new webpage.  You're seeing less and
                   less of that today---many web pages look and behave more
                   like \emph{software} than documents.  You might hear the
                   term ``single-page'' programs.}

          \item<5-> JavaScript---Embed programs in web browser
            \lecture{The standard way to do this today is with a language
                     called JavaScript.}
    \end{itemize}

    \item<6-> Variety of programs and standard tools can communicate with
              webservers and read documents
      \lecture{Given these standards for representing documents, styles,
               media, etc---you're free to use whatever software you choose!
               Everything is interoperable, on both the server and the
               client.  And this is incredibly important for user freedom,
               and essential for free software.}

    \item<7-> Threatened in the past: Java applets, ActiveX, Flash,
               Silverlight, and other proprietary/non-standard software
      \lecture{That interoperability has been threatened in the past by
               other proprietary systems for embedding software in the
               browser.  The most popular ones include Java applets,
               ActiveX, Flash, and Silverlight.  Those were dark ages.}
      \lecture{We do in fact have another looming threat---the Encrypted
               Media Extensions proposal being considered by the W3C which
               would effectively introduce DRM as a \emph{standard} for the
               Web.  We must oppose it, and I encourage you to join us
               in protest just outside the conference tonight at 6:45.}

    \item<8-> Now the greatest threat is JavaScript
      \lecture{But an \emph{existing} standard is now our greatest
               threat.  JavaScript.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{What is JavaScript?}
  \lecture{So what is \emph{JavaScript}?}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item<2-> ECMAScript (Standard: ECMA-262; ISO/IEC 16262)
      \lecture{Formally, it's ECMAScript, which is the standard defining the
               language.  But browsers tend to incorporate their own
               features beyond the standard, which might subsequently be
               adopted.}

    \item<3-> Traditionally: Browser-based, client-side scripting language
      \lecture{JavaScript started out in the web browser, specifically
               Netscape.  It was written in 1995 with the goal of offering
               something that was easier for non-programmers to write than
               Java Applets.  The name JavaScript has nothing to do with
               Java the language.}

    \item<4-> Today: General-purpose programming language
      \lecture{But today is has evolved into a popular general-purpose
               scripting language, used on both the client and the
               server.  It's worth noting that JavaScript has been used on
               the server for pretty much as long as it has
               existed---Netscape used it on the server back in 1995.}

      \begin{itemize}
        \item<5-> Heavily popularized by Node.js
          \lecture{But it wasn't until Node.js that it exploded in
                   popularity, and is often times even \emph{preferable} by
                   some to other languages on the server.  I'm not getting
                   into \emph{that} debate today.}
      \end{itemize}

    \item<6-> ``Assembly language'' of the web
      \lecture{It's often called the ``assembly language'' of the web,
               because there are dozens of languages that compile into
               it---if you want code running in the browser, the standard
               way to do it is by using JavaScript.}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item<7-> Soon: WebAssembly (WebASM)
          \lecture{But there are properties of the language that don't make
                   ideal for being the compiler target for all things on the
                   web.  One popular method is a subset of JavaScript called
                   asm.js that is more effectively optimized.  But now we
                   have a low-level language on the horizon called
                   WebAssembly, which is intended as a compiler target for
                   C/C++ code.  So expect these issues I'm about to describe
                   to only propagate further in the future as it becomes
                   more and more trivial to write software for the web.}
      \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

%%%=== END TIMEBLOCK 8m ==============================================


%%%=== BEGIN TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================

\begin{frame}{The Illusion of Remote Execution}
  \lecture{Perhaps one of the greatest dangers of software on the Web is the
           illusion of remote execution---}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item<2-> Looks like the web page is manipulating itself
    \begin{itemize}
      \item<2-> Many consider the web page as a remote resource, not a local
            copy of that resource
    \end{itemize}
      \lecture{the illusion that, because the program is manipulating and
               appears to be a part of the web page, it must be executing
               in a magical remote place.}

    \item<3-> JavaScript programs run \emph{on the client}
      \lecture{But it's not.  JavaScript programs are executed \emph{on your
               computer, by your web browser}: the program is downloaded
               just like any other resource and interpreted by a JavaScript
               engine in your browser.}

    \item<4-> Illusion inhibits consideration of freedoms
      \lecture{This is an important distinction, because we can't begin to
               consider how to exercise our four freedoms if we can't even
               get around to the fact that the program is actually running
               on our computer.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[plain]{}
  \begin{center}
    \center\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{images/you-win.png}

    Would you run some random website's program on your computer?
  \end{center}

  \lecture{(Read slide)}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[plain,c]{}
  \lecture{Well, you do.}

  \begin{center}
    Well, you do.
  \end{center}

  \lecture{If only our web browser gave us a warning like that.  But
           instead, it's silent.  And this is more dangerous than a phishing
           attack---because at least when the user is presented with
           \emph{this} (return to previous slide), they have a \emph{chance}
           to be suspicious.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Covert Ephemeral Software}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Browser downloads and executes arbitrary, often non-free software
      \begin{itemize}
        \item (Automatically clicks the download button for you!)
      \end{itemize}

      \lecture{But no---our web browsers are being stupid on our behalf!}

    \item Most users have no idea this is happening
      \lecture{And most users---even many technical ones---really don't have
               any idea that this is happening.  Because they don't think
               about it like that.}

      \begin{itemize}
        \item And if they did, would they know to care?
          \lecture{But let's say they did; would they even
                   \emph{know} to care?  You can be taught to be suspicious
                   of sites advertising awards and such, but when a site
                   offers no indication at all, then what exactly do you
                   teach?  What do you tell them to be suspicious of?
                   Instead, it's just a website.}

        \item Most who \emph{do} know don't care.
          \lecture{But then there are those who are well aware of what is
                   going on.  Many of those are web developers---the same
                   people that \emph{write} this covert software.  And
                   surprisingly, at least from my experience, most of them
                   don't care.  Many instead take the stance that JavaScript
                   is an essential component of the modern web and it would
                   be silly to consider disabling it and quote-unquote
                   ``break'' websites.}
      \end{itemize}

      \item Ephemeral software
        \lecture{And then at the end the software disappears, leaving no
                 trace except for some persistent data storage.  A browser
                 doesn't list all the scripts that it executes as
                 ``installed software'' like it would an addon.  Users won't
                 know that they were running software.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[c]{Just Say ``Yes!''}
  \lecture{So if we adopt the philosophy of those who really don't care,
           then life becomes a hell of a lot easier.  Just saying ``yes''
           all the time is much less confrontational; especially when
           your web browser is doing it for you.  And this makes a lot of
           people pretty excited!  Like...}

  \begin{center}
    \only<+>{Advertisers}
    \lecture{Advertisers!  You say ``yes!'' to their spyware that tracks
             and analyzes you.}

    \only<+>{Crackers \& Script Kiddies}
    \lecture{Crackers and script kiddies love you too.  You happily say
             ``yes!'' to their payloads.}

    \only<+>{Governments (also Crackers \& Script Kiddies)}
    \lecture{Governments!  Also crackers and script kiddies.  They like to
             broadly distribute exploits in the hope of maybe catching a
             criminal.  One such exploit was a 0-day used by the FBI to
             deanonymize Tor users, guilty or not.}

    \only<+>{ISPs (Like Comcast)}
    \lecture{And what about the entity you depend on the most for your
             communications online?  In November of last year it was
             discovered that Comcast was MITM'ing customers to inject
             JavaScript into non-SSL webpages to inform customers of
             copyright violations.  Oh yes.}

    \only<+>{People who want to show off their cool stuff}
    \lecture{There are certainly other malicious actors, but not everyone
             has bad intentions---you also have hackers that just want to
             show you their cool new programs.  And some of those are also
             the ones that find it silly to disable JavaScript---how else
             would you be able to witness their hard work?}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[c]{Just Say ``Yes!''...and ``Yes!'' and ``Yes!'' and ``Yes!''...}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<+-> Everyone expects their code to run, always, or there's
              something wrong with your browser

    \lecture{So if your browser doesn't default to saying ``yes'' to
             untrusted, random, freedom-denying, possibly malicious
             programs, then your browser is broken.  This is in fact a big
             deterrent for common-sense freedom and security practices: the
             Tor Browser Bundle, for example---although it comes with
             NoScript installed---does not block any websites by default,
             even though it would make its users safer.  No, that would
             ``break'' websites.}

    \item<+-> But most browsers today give you a binary choice:
      \lecture{But let's say you are one of those people who might be a
             little uncomfortable with this situation, and want to do
             something about it.  Well, with most browsers, what are your
             options?}

      \begin{enumerate}[<+->]
        \item No---disable JavaScript
          \lecture{You could disable JavaScript completely.  But there might
             be \emph{some} things that you'd like to run.}

        \item Yes---run everything!
          \lecture{Or you could run everything!  Good choices here.  These
                   are clearly not choices that taken into consideration
                   these issues.}
      \end{enumerate}

      \lecture{Now, many people will simply say, ``Well, I trust the sites I
               visit.''}
      \item<+-> You aren't just running that site's JavaScript
        \lecture{But it's very important to understand that you aren't just
                 running the programs for that website.  That website might
                 also include code from other servers---like CDNs.  It might
                 inject other code like the Google Analytics spyware.  And
                 what if the site is compromised, or susceptible to a XSS
                 attack, and an attacker loads additional scripts?}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{How Do We Install Software (Usually)?}
  \lecture{If all of this seems awkward to consider, that's because it
           is.  Let's go back to the desktop for a bit; now that we're
           thinking in terms of programs running on our computer, how do we
           normally install software?}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item<2-> Explicitly.
      \lecture{Explicitly.  You indicate that you want some program foo and
               you make it so.  Unless you use a backdoored operating system
               like Windows, OSX, iOS, or others---they tend to install
               things for you.}

    \begin{itemize}
      \item<3-> GNU/Linux---Usually through a package manager
        \lecture{On a GNU/Linux operating system, you usually install
                 software through that distro's package manager.  GNU Guix
                 is a pretty good one to try.}

      \item<4-> Source distribution (tarballs/etc)
        \lecture{You might compile from source.  That's even more of an
                 explicit process.}

      \item<5-> Binaries (especially on proprietary operating systems)
        \lecture{And, as is usually necessary on proprietary operating
                 systems, there are binaries.  They might be downloaded from
                 a website or a walled weed garden,}
    \end{itemize}

    \item<6-> There is a conscious effort made by the user
      \lecture{but it's generally a conscious operation all the same.  Even
               users of proprietary operating systems don't like when things
               appear on their computer without having been requested.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Software Signing}
  \lecture{We also have certain other guarantees.  Or attempts, at least.}

  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Any package manager worth using will verify signatures of package
      maintainers
      \lecture{If you're using a package manager that doesn't verify a
               cryptographic signature of the package, then you should
               consider another package manager.  Many package managers
               provide---with some caveats---assurances that the package you
               received is actually the package that the author or
               maintainer intended for you to receive.  I'm not getting into
               those caveats here.}

    \item GNU projects also distribute detached signatures for manual
          verification
      \lecture{In the case of source distributions, detached signatures are
               often used.  You'll see this with GNU programs, for
               example---if you download a program from ftp.gnu.org, you'll
               also find a corresponding signature file, and you should use
               GPG to verify that your download is what the author
               actually signed.}

    %% TODO: either come up with a plan or delete this
    \item No such thing exists for the Web
      \lecture{...We don't have this type of thing for the web.}

    \item<+-> We need a web of trust (e.g. PGP)---decentralized
      \begin{itemize}
        \item<+-> What not to do: Firefox refuses to install/run addons that
                  are not signed by Mozilla
        \item<+-> No ``walled gardens''
      \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{But what does the absence of user control mean?}
\end{frame}

%%%=== END TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================


%%%=== BEGIN TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================

\begin{frame}[c]
  \begin{center}
    Everyone is flocking to the web
  \end{center}

  \lecture{Everyone is flocking to the web.  And a major reason is because
           of the convenience that is provided by transferring even more
           control away from the user to the authors and distributors.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Effortless Distribution}
  \lecture{This convenience provides a distribution model that is
           exploitative, and highly alluring to many.  Two things that go
           great in the same sentence.}

  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Software is downloaded \emph{automatically}---guaranteed!
      \lecture{So, when you visit a website---as we've already
               discussed---your browser just starts saying ``Yes!'' to
               software.  So, for the majority of your users, it's
               essentially guaranteed that your software will be downloaded
               and executed, and it will be done so immediately.  If not,
               their browser is broken, right?  Right.}

    %% Shackle as a Service
    \item It's so easy for you---just click here!
      \lecture{Baiting the user into downloading that software is also a
               trivial task---there's no trying to trick the user into
               downloading and invoking an executable.  Just provide the
               user with a link, and their freedoms are automatically
               robbed.}

    \item Cross-\{device,platform\}!
      \lecture{In the modern web, platform or operating system isn't a
               border---you can rob someone of their freedoms anywhere, any
               time, whether they're on a mobile device, their home
               computer, or their refrigerator.}

    \item Automatic updates!  We know best!  (Ephemeral software)
      \lecture{And let's not worry about those pesky users who decide to
               exercise their freedom to decide what software they want to
               run.  Just overwrite their software for them, at any
               time.  Updates are automatic, and the user has no
               choice.}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item Your browser is effectively a backdoor
          \lecture{You might hear from security experts that most
                   computers have a backdoor---software updates.  Well, in
                   this case, the backdoor is the front door.  You have no
                   option.  There \emph{is no} separate installation and
                   update---they're one and the same.  As I mentioned, we
                   can say that the software is ephemeral---it exists as
                   long as you're on the website, and then disappears until
                   you next load it again.}
      \end{itemize}

    \item We control your data (SaaSS)!
      \lecture{But that's not enough.  How can we remove every atom of
               freedom that the user has?  Ah, let's also hold their data
               hostage, and control what they can and cannot do with it!}

    \item So easy to spy on you!
      \lecture{And what's a magnificent consequence of all of this?  We get
               to spy on you for free!  It's part of the package!  We know
               exactly what you are doing, when your are doing it, how you
               are doing it, and anything in-between.  This is too good to
               be true!}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
  \begin{center}
    \only<1>{We can finally get rid of that pesky little bit of control you
             had left over your physical computing!}

    \lecture{Greedy, malicious software developers and distributors have
             been searching long and hard for ways to prevent users from
             even studying the binaries, letalone source code.  They've
             pursued draconian technical and legal measures like DRM and the
             DMCA out of desperation.}

    \only<2>{SaaS---Shackles as a Service}
      \lecture{But as it happens, the answer fell right into their
               laps---``Shackles as a Service''.  We're at the point today
               where the next step to strip all power from the user is to
               remotely render the program and stream images.  And
               unfortunately, such a thing already exists!  It's called
               ``cloud gaming'', or Gaming as a Service.  Hold the fart
               jokes.  These services remotely render games and stream them
               to the user.  All user input is sent to the service.  The
               next logical step after that is then licensing eyeball or
               brain implants so that the user can't record or manipulate
               the image on her screen!  Vision as a Service, perhaps.}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{The Web Is Easy}
  \lecture{Let's explore another aspect of why the Web is so appealing for
           software developers.}

         %% TODO: let's emphasize the benefits a bit more
  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Low Barrier To Entry
      \lecture{Most everyone has a web browser.  Everything rendered in that
               browser uses standardized document and styling formats---HTML
               and CSS---which have been used for decades to represent
               documents.  This retrofitting of sorts makes it easy to
               inspect programs' UIs and play with them.  Every modern
               browser comes with debugging tools for inspecting the DOM and
               running scripts, for monitoring and inspecting network
               traffic, for debugging scripts.  This is \emph{great} for a
               free Web---it encourages studying and tinkering.  So
               interested users can easily tweak the page, or type some
               scripts in the browser's console to see what happens.  And
               when they start writing software, they can see it in the
               familiar environment that is their web browser.  There's not
               much that is alien to them; if you introduce someone to shell
               scripting, C, Perl, Python, etc, they're diving into a world
               that is entirely hidden from their perspective as a
               \emph{user} of software.}

    \item Huge number of libraries and tools for web development
      \lecture{Now, the leap from a document format to a program can be a
               bit daunting.  But, because of all the reasons I mentioned,
               the number of libraries focused on web development is growing
               at an \emph{unbelievable} rate.  You can have working
               software running on most every modern operating systems
               quickly and easily, and not even have to worry about how
               you're going to package and distribute it!  And most of these
               popular libraries are free software.  The most daunting task
               for new web developers is often what library to pick.}

    \item Even desktop software using web libraries
      \lecture{And then we have software like Node.js that allows running
               code written for the web directly, without a web browser.  So
               it often makes sense to write software in JavaScript or a
               language that compiles into it, because then you can share
               code between the server and client.  It makes sense to write
               your UI using HTML and CSS, because you can execute the
               program in a way that it doesn't look like a website;
               Chromium, for example, has a ``app'' mode that makes the
               loaded page look like a normal program.  And then you have
               those that only really know web development, but are now able
               to take that knowledge and apply it directly to the server or
               the desktop.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
  \begin{center}
    \only<1>{This is great for software freedom.}
    \lecture{All of this is great for software freedom---you have all of
             these libraries that make it \emph{easy} to develop free
             software!}

    \only<2>{But we have a problem.}
    \lecture{...but we have a problem.  Well, another in the \emph{web} of
             problems, I suppose.}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}

%%%=== END TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================


%%%=== BEGIN TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================

\begin{frame}{Effortless \emph{Proprietary} Software}
  \lecture{While it's making software easy for the good guys, it's also
           making it easy for the bad guys!  And there's an explanation for
           that.}

  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item We have a licensing problem.
      \lecture{What we have is a licensing problem!  We have a \emph{lot} of
               free software,}

    \item Permissive licensing \emph{enables} proprietary software
      \lecture{but most of it is licensed under a permissive license---the
               most popular being the MIT~Expat license, which allows for
               non-free derivatives.  What this means is that proprietary
               software authors have a relatively easy time developing
               software that denies users their freedoms.  Writing software
               is expensive---it takes time, and time is money in
               business.  Any time that can be saved using these wonderful
               free software libraries is money that they can divert toward
               adding attractive features, releasing early, and implementing
               ways to screw over the user.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Philosophy/Culture Problem}
  \lecture{The predominant underlying reason of the licensing problem is a
          philosophical and cultural one.}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item<2-> ``Open source almost everything''---Tom Preston-Werner
      \lecture{If you've listened to any in-depth criticism about licensing
               practices of the modern web development community, then
               you've probably heard of Tom Preston-Werner's post entitled
               ``Open source almost everything''.  It has some startling
               statements that illustrate the mindset of the larger web
               development community, and the open source community in
               general.  Let's take a look at a few.  Now, just a warning,
               some of what you are about to see may shock and confuse
               you.  Viewer discretion is advised.}
  \end{itemize}

  \only<3>{
    \begin{quote}
      \hangleft{``}If you do it right, open sourcing code is \textbf{great
      advertising} for you and your company.  [...] we like to talk publicly
      about libraries and systems we've written that are still closed but
      destined to become open source.  [...] It helps determine what to open
      source [...].  We recently open sourced [...] our chat bot
      [...].  Within two days it had 500 watchers on GitHub and 409 upvotes
      on Hacker News.  This translates into goodwill for GitHub and more
      superfans than ever before.''  (Emphasis \emph{not} mine.)
    \end{quote}
    \lecture{This is an excellent example of why we should reject ``open
      source''---as a development methodology, it ignores users' freedoms
      entirely.  While we're talking about users' freedoms, Tom's talking
      about liberating code for advertising and building suspense over a
      project to produce ``superfans''.  And he determines what to liberate
      based on input from that suspense.  Not because it's the ethical thing
      to do.}
  }

  \only<4>{
    \begin{quote}
      \hangleft{``}If your code is popular enough to attract outside
      contributions, you will have created a \textbf{force multiplier} that
      helps you get more work done faster and cheaper.'' (Emphasis
      \emph{not} mine.)
    \end{quote}
    \lecture{Free labor; that's what Tom sees.  They can focus on all the
             proprietary goodies that provide business value while the
             community writes the rest of the software for them.}
  }

  \only<5>{
    \begin{quote}
      \hangleft{``}When you open source useful code, you \textbf{attract
      talent}. Every time a talented developer cracks open the code to one
      of your projects, you win.'' (Emphasis \emph{not} mine.)
    \end{quote}
    \lecture{In other words---liberated code is used in a predatory manner
             to lure free software hackers into a position of developing
             proprietary software.}
  }

  \only<6>{
    \begin{quote}
      \hangleft{``}Ok, then what shouldn't I open source?  That's
      easy. Don't open source anything that represents core business
      value.''
    \end{quote}
    \lecture{But what about the stuff that is truly innovative and valuable
             enough that you consider it a core part of your business?  The
             stuff that you think is the most valuable to you?  The stuff
             that the free software community needs to compete with this
             ever-growing proprietary world?  You hide it.  And you suggest
             that others do the same.}
  }

  \lecture{Alright, now this last quote blows my mind.}

  \only<7>{
    \begin{quote}
      \hangleft{``}Lastly, \textbf{it's the right thing to do}. It's almost
      impossible to do anything these days without directly or indirectly
      executing huge amounts of open source code. If you use the internet,
      you're using open source. That code represents millions of man-hours
      of time that has been spent and then given away so that everyone may
      benefit. We all enjoy the benefits of open source software, and I
      believe we are all morally obligated to give back to that community.''
      (Emphasis \emph{not} mine.)
    \end{quote}
  }

  \lecture{What!?  We are all \emph{``morally obligated''}, he says.  This
           is baffling.  He recognizes how much he benefits from the free
           software community after talking about how to exploit it and
           contribute back only what might benefit their business by
           attracting free labor and good talent.  To quote Bradley~Kuhn
           from one of his talks, this is incredibly self-serving.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{The Web Scene}
  \lecture{Tom's philosophy is pervasive throughout the modern web
           development community.  And if we look at the composition, we can
           see why:}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item<2-5> Contributions by large corporations (e.g. Google, Facebook,
          Twitter, GitHub)
        %% TODO: Examples
      \lecture{It's no question that life today is largely online, and there
               are many major corporations that play a big role in
               that.  Many of the popular free libraries for the web are
               written by those corporations and used within their own
               proprietary software as well.}

    \item<3-5> Startups (e.g. YCombinator-funded)
      \lecture{Most new software startups today are going to have some sort
               of online component---if even just for the social
               aspect.  But as has already been discussed, the web is an
               attractive platform, and an easy way to create vendor
               lock-in---something that many misguided startups will
               consider to be a very important thing for their long-term
               success.  For this to happen---for these young startups to be
               able to get software out cheaply and quickly with limited
               resources---they need free software.  So there is immense
               community pressure to create permissively licensed software;
               it's more difficult to distribute proprietary software for
               the web when the client libraries carry a copyleft.}

    \item<4-5> New programmers, new culture
      \lecture{And speaking of that community pressure---the web development
               community is home to many new or inexperienced
               programmers.  Those programmers are immersed in a culture that
               talks about ``rockstar'' and ``10x'' programmers; about
               ``brogrammers'' and ``hipster'' languages---these are very
               different terms than hackers are used to, and highlight very
               different concepts.  Importantly, they focus on
               \emph{methodology}---performance, producing something that is
               cool and will be accepted by your peers.  This is not a focus
               on freedom at all.  ``Copyleft'' is a dirty word: if you want
               to be accepted by your peers---\emph{especially} in the
               startup community, which you might want to be a part of
               yourself---you'd better license your libraries
               permissively.  If you don't, someone's going to ask you to
               relicense so that they can use it in their own proprietary
               software, and lecture you on how copyleft restricts their
               freedom as a developer.  But that's assuming that you've even
               been introduced to the concept of copyleft to begin
               with.  And besides, all your friends are doing it, and
               they're all 10x rockstars!}

    \item<5> Peer pressure
      \lecture{So there is immense peer pressure---pressure to ignore
               talking about the awkward politics and philosophy of freedom
               entirely and just stick to the brogramming, man.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
  \begin{center}
    Unconscious propagation and consciously manipulative leaders
      \lecture{Anti-copyleft activists have the benefit of being able to
               focus on the practical arguments---which are easy---and
               avoiding or even trying to degrade philosophical
               arguments---which are hard, because they involve
               confrontation.  It's therefore trivial to push ``open
               source'' and permissive licensing with the end goal of
               fighting copyleft, without actually bringing up the issue
               most of the time, thereby creating a large community that
               works against copyleft without actually \emph{thinking} about
               copyleft.  This is very dangerous.  As I know many others
               here have witnessed when trying to defend copyleft, it can be
               very hard to explain these issues to someone who isn't aware
               that issues even exist.  It's an army of ignorance; an army
               of non-enemies that we can't just tear down, because they
               might not know better, and we'd do best to try to convince
               them that their freedoms are important, and that users'
               freedoms are too.  And when we go after the leaders---the
               mentors---the army swarms to their defense.}
  \end{center}

  \lecture{Well, having spoken of Bradley Kuhn: as of last month, we even
           have a term describing broad issue.  And, no, it's not a hipster
           word.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
  \lecture{Kuhn's paradox!}

  \begin{center}
    Kuhn's Paradox
  \end{center}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Kuhn's Paradox}
  \begin{quote}
  \hangleft{``}For some time now, this paradoxical principle appears to
    hold: each day, more lines of freely licensed code exist than ever
    before in human history; yet, it also becomes increasingly more
    difficult each day for users to successfully avoid proprietary software
    while completing their necessary work on a computer.''
  \end{quote}

  \lecture{(Read Kuhn's Paradox)}

  \lecture{Bradley Kuhn has talked a lot about some of these issues---and I
          thank him for doing so.  I didn't see his talks
          until---coincidentally---after I started preparing \emph{this}
          talk, and I was pleasantly surprised to hear him discussing many
          of these same issues.  I recommend his talks.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Culture of ``Open Source''}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> The licensing problem is a cultural problem
      \lecture{This is the culture of ``Open Source''.  And this is not
               intended as an insult toward that community---it's simply a
               truth that the ``Open Source'' movement was created to avoid
               talking about freedom.}

    \item ``Open Source'' devalues freedom
      \lecture{And by avoiding that discussion, it devalues it.  If we were
               talking about freedom, then these issues get raised and
               considered more frequently.}

      \begin{itemize}
        \item When freedom is inessential, proprietary ``features'' or
              derivatives aren't bad
          \lecture{So when freedom isn't valued, then these extra
               proprietary features or derivatives on top of all the
               excellent free software and libraries isn't seen as a bad
               thing.}

        \item ``Open Core'' (Microsoft)
          \lecture{And this model of having a free base with proprietary
               extensions is often called ``Open Core'', coined by
               Microsoft.  We thought ``Open Source'' was dangerous---this
               ``Open Core'' philosophy not only devlaues freedom, but it
               deligitimizes it through some twisted logic!}
      \end{itemize}

    \item I'll take my Web partially free, hold the free
      \lecture{The ``open core'' it describes doesn't exist for freedom---it
               exists for the benefits of the ``Open Source'' development
               model.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[c]
  \begin{center}
    Partial freedom isn't freedom!
  \end{center}

  \lecture{But partial freedom isn't freedom!  It doesn't matter if
           \emph{part} of your software is free---if even a byte of it robs
           me of any of my four freedoms, then I can't ethically use it!  I
           would have to concede that your website is worth surrendering my
           freedoms for.  It's probably not.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{No Such Thing As Neutral On Freedom}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Permissive (pushover) licenses are thought to appease multiple
          parties
      \lecture{Now remember---''Open Source'' was created to eliminate the
               discussion of freedom.  Freedom can be an uncomfortable
               topic, because it's philosophical.  And it's heavily
               controversial; some people don't believe in users'
               freedoms.  Imagine that.  This makes for uncomfortable
               conversation that most people want to avoid.  So they might
               try to remain neutral by using pushover licenses, and appease
               to every group:}

    \begin{itemize}
      \item<2-> Free software supporters
      \item<3-> Copyleft haters
      \item<4-> Businesses
      \item<5-> People who really don't know/care
    \end{itemize}

    \item<6-> But there's no such thing as neutrality!
      \lecture{But that is a flawed reasoning.  Because when you try to
               remain neutral on an important topic, you are remaining
               neutral on both the good and the bad.  Remaining neutral on
               the topic of freedom is like standing on the sidewalk
               watching someone being harassed, bullied, beaten.  And rather
               than step in, you just walk away.  Maybe peek back.  Because
               if you were to step in to stop the bullying, then you'd piss
               off the bullies, and you'd be a target.  But if you stepped
               in and bullied yourself, then you'd be called a bully!  So
               what's the end result?}

    \item<7-> Neutral on freedom $\equiv$ allowing erosion of freedoms
      \lecture{You let the bullies take over---they already have the upper
               hand, and they'll continue to exert their power as long as it
               benefits them.}

    \item<8-> Copyleft is \emph{essential} for a free Web
      \lecture{Standing up to the bullies means \emph{fighting} for freedom,
               not just talking about it.  If you are writing software, that
               means using copyleft by means of a license like the
               AGPL.  Otherwise, you're standing on the sidelines watching
               every user of the web being bullied.}

      \begin{itemize}
        \item<9-> If you use pushover licenses, you're helping to push over
                  everyone else (but perhaps not intentionally)
          \lecture{Or worse---if you write a library that uses a pushover
                   license, then you're not just watching: you're giving
                   \emph{power} to the bullies.  What would they do without
                   the tools you provide them?  Well, they'd have to make
                   their own.  Or maybe they'd see that you demand freedom,
                   and consider that maybe those they are bullying do
                   actually deserve some respect.}
      \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


%% TODO: move to end?
\begin{frame}[c]
  \begin{center}
    If you value freedom,
    \only<1>{talk about Free Software!}%
    \only<2>{choose copyleft!}
      \lecture{If you value freedom, \emph{talk about free software}!}%

      \lecture{If you value freedom, \emph{choose copyleft!}  Fight for what
               you believe in!  Now I understand---peer pressure is a hard
               thing to overcome.  But we're your peers too.}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}

%%%=== END TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================


%%%=== BEGIN TIMEBLOCK 6m ==============================================


\begin{frame}[c]
  \begin{center}
    Freedom is only as good as your ability to exercise it
  \end{center}

  \lecture{All this focus on copyleft is good and all---if only it were the
           solution to all of our problems.  But we have a whole Web of
           problems to deal with.  Freedom is only as good as your ability
           to exercise it.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Maybe free...?}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Almost always no license information or link to source code
      \lecture{One huge problem we have with software on the web is that it
               is almost always void of licensing information.  So software
               might be free, but we can't be sure of that without having a
               JavaScript expert review minified code and try to correlate
               it with the original sources.  I had to do with with Reddit
               when auditing it for the FSF's Free JavaScript
               campaign.  There's no reasonable expectation for \emph{users}
               to do that!  They wouldn't be able to!}


    \item But is all of it free?
      \begin{itemize}
        \item Certain things may look free, or have free components
                   (e.g. the ubiquitous jQuery)
          \lecture{But how do we know that a program is fully free?  Let's
                   draw a comparison with traditional binaries.  How do you
                   know it's fully free?  Well, you rely in part on
                   licensing information for the program.  If we hold JS to
                   the same standards, then we at least need licensing
                   information on distributed code.}

        \item Might also load non-free code as a separate program
              (e.g. Google Analytics spyware)
          \lecture{But the page might load other programs in \emph{addition}
                   to the free program, for example the Google Analytics
                   spyware.  This is like a free software package installing
                   proprietary software alongside of it; SourceForge used to
                   do that, for example.}
      \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Corresponding Source Code}
  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Where can I find the corresponding source?
      \lecture{The other requirement is the corresponding source code.  We
               should be able to build it ourselves, host it ourselves, and
               expect to have the same functionality.  And we should be able
               to audit the distributed code and correlate it with the
               original sources.  And guess what---I found a small amount of
               non-free code missing from the Reddit repository.  Very
               small, and it just screws with the user by moving elements
               around the page if they have some cursed flag set, but
               non-free nonetheless.}

    \item Minified code is not source code!
      \lecture{I have personally had people counter my argument in the past
               with a statement saying that all JavaScript code is
               quote-unquote ``open source'' because the source code is
               distributed to the browser.  No!}

    \item ``The 'source code' for a work means the preferred form of the
          work for making modifications to it.  'Object code' means any
          non-source form of a work.''
      \lecture{The GPL defines ``source code'' as (read above).  So minified
               sources are object code.  And let's see why:}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[fragile,plain]
\scriptsize
\begin{verbatim}
add:function(a,b,c,d,e){var
f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,o,p,q,r=N.get(a);if(r){c.handler&&(f=c,c=f.handler,
e=f.selector),c.guid||(c.guid=n.guid++),(i=r.events)||(i=r.events={}),
(g=r.handle)||(g=r.handle=function(b){return"undefined"!=typeof
n&&n.event.triggered!==b.type?n.event.dispatch.apply(a,arguments):void
0}),b=(b||"").match(G)||[""],j=b.length;while(j--)h=fa.exec(b[j])||[],
o=q=h[1],p=(h[2]||"").split(".").sort(),o&&(l=n.event.special[o]||{},
o=(e?l.delegateType:l.bindType)||o,l=n.event.special[o]||{},k=n.extend(
{type:o,origType:q,data:d,handler:c,guid:c.guid,selector:e,needsContext:
e&&n.expr.match.needsContext.test(e),namespace:p.join(".")},f),(m=i[o])
||(m=i[o]=[],m.delegateCount=0,l.setup&&l.setup.call(a,d,p,g)!==!1||
a.addEventListener&&a.addEventListener(o,g)),l.add&&(l.add.call(a,k),
k.handler.guid||(k.handler.guid=c.guid)),e?m.splice(m.delegateCount++,0,k)
:m.push(k),n.event.global[o]=!0)}}
\end{verbatim}
  \lecture{This is a snippet of jQuery's minified sources for an 'add'
           method.  Real quick---what do each of those arguments mean?  What
           does this function do?}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics{images/librejs-logo.png}
  \end{center}
  \lecture{GNU has an addon for Firefox-based browsers like GNU IceCat that
           approaches this issue in a few different ways.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{LibreJS}
  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Blocks execution of non-free JavaScript
      \lecture{LibreJS blocks the execution of non-free JavaScript.  But how
               does it determine what is non-free?}

    \item JavaScript should ideally contain {\tt @license} tags
      \lecture{A couple ways.  Ideally, the JavaScript should be wrapped in
               license tags.  It can identify the license in a number of
               ways, including the full license header you'd see in source
               files, or a magnet link, which is much more ideal for
               minified sources.}

    \item Hashes of common libraries recognized as free
      \lecture{But the Web is full of \emph{existing} software like
               libraries that don't contain those labels.  So LibreJS also
               maintains a list of file hashes for popular libraries.  For
               example, the minified jQuery file containing the snippet I
               showed would be recognized as free, even though it doesn't
               contain licensing information.}

    \item Web Labels map scripts to corresponding source code
      \lecture{It then has a method called Web Labels---which is a simple
               HTML table---that is intended to be a machine-readable way to
               map scripts to their source code.}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{The LibreJS project needs help from JavaScript developers to
           develop and maintain the addon.  If you're interested, please
           visit gnu.org/software/librejs}.
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Submit Patches To Projects!}
  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Patch your own projects!
    \item Submit patches to add headers to projects
    \item Patches for minifiers (e.g. UglifyJS)
    \item Patches for programs that combine sources (e.g. Browserify)
    \item For Node.js programs: can pull license right out of {\tt package.json}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{You can help by adding licenses to your own projects and by
           submitting patches to other projects; this will not only help
           solve the licensing issue for that project, but also make others
           aware of the issue.  And one great way to help is to submit
           patches to minifiers like UglifyJS to automatically add that
           license information to sources, or retain it if it exists.  But
           that doesn't help when a minified file might contain code under
           various licenses, so it'd also be helpful to patch programs like
           Browserify---which packages Node.js modules for the client---to
           recognize licenses and add them as appropriate.  For node.js
           pull the license right out of the package.json file.}
\end{frame}

%%%=== END TIMEBLOCK 6m ==============================================



%%%=== BEGIN TIMEBLOCK 7m ==============================================

\begin{frame}{Replacing Programs}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> How do you replace a program (free or non-) on your computer?
      \lecture{Alright.  So back to your desktop for a moment.  If you want
               to replace a non-free program with a free one, or modify a
               free program, how do you do it?}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item<2-> You just do.
          \lecture{Well...you just do.}
      \end{itemize}

    \item<3-> How do you replace a program (free or non-) on the Web?
      \lecture{But what about on the web?}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[c]
  \begin{center}
    Ha!
  \end{center}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Replacing Programs---The Best Case}
  \only<1->{
    \begin{enumerate}
      \item The program is entirely packaged in its own JavaScript file(s)
      \item All dependencies are packaged with or alongside it
    \end{enumerate}
  }
    \lecture{The best situation we have for replacing programs is when the
             program is packaged entirely in its own JavaScript files, and
             so are its dependencies.}

  Solution:

  \only<2->{
    \begin{enumerate}
      \item Block program scripts
      \item Block undesirable dependencies
      \item Inject replacement program
    \end{enumerate}
  }
    \lecture{The solution isn't all that complicated then.  Block those
             undesirable scripts from loading and inject a replacement
             program.  I'll get into how to do that shortly.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Replacing Programs---The Realistic Case}
  \lecture{But if only we were so lucky!}

  \begin{enumerate}
    \item<1-> The program is actually a number of independent programs
              (scripts) doing different things
      \lecture{But let's be realistic; a web page often contains what can
               be considered a bunch of independent programs doing distinct
               things, like validating forms, populating a real-time search,
               a shopping cart, animating part of the page, etc.}
          %% add web page screenshot as an example

    \item<2-> Some scripts are packaged in one or more JavaScript files
      \lecture{Some of those scripts might be packaged in one or more
               JavaScript files.  Okay, that's good.}

    \item<3-> Some are inline {\tt <script>} tags scattered throughout
      \lecture{But some are inline script tags mixed with the HTML.}
      %% example

    \item<4-> Some are inline JavaScript fragments in HTML attributes
      \lecture{And others still might be fragments of JavaScript in HTML
               attributes.  Not everyone knows how to write proper
               JavaScript, and others who do simply don't care that they're
               writing a mess of spaghetti code.  Or something might be
               auto-generating that code for them.}
      %% example
  \end{enumerate}

  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{images/code_quality.png}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[c]
  \begin{center}
    \only<1>{Solution?}
      \lecture{So what's the solution?}

    \only<2>{Write a presentation complaining about it.}
      \lecture{Well my first step was to write a rant about it.  Because not
               everyone thinks about these issues.}
  \end{center}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Blocking Scripts---Entirely}
  \lecture{One option is to turn of JavaScript in your browser,
           entirely.  And that feature does exit, hidden within the bowels
           of your browser's configuration.  But if you disable JavaScript,
           then you can't run any replacements.}

  \begin{itemize}
    \item Can disable JavaScript entirely
    \item But then you can't run replacements
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Blocking Scripts---NoScript}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item NoScript is effective at blocking scripts per (sub-)domain
      \lecture{I consider NoScript to be a necessity for the web.  And
               consequently, I can't recommend using Chromium or its
               proprietary derivative, because it doesn't provide the
               necessary APIs to do what NoScript does.  And what it does is
               block scripts entirely, but allows you to create a whitelist
               for specific domains or sub-domains.}

    \item Careful---some domains serve lots of scripts (e.g. CDNs)
      \lecture{But you have to be careful when you do this, because some
               domains serve a lot of different scripts, and some of them
               might be non-free.  CDNs are popular today.}

    \item Some sites require you to trust many different domains
      \lecture{It's also not uncommon to see a site referencing scripts from
               a dozen different domains.  That's a bad practice---you
               shouldn't do that, even if only for performance.  But do you
               really want to trust a dozen third parties to run software
               for a single website?}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Blocking Scripts---LibreJS}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Blocks non-free JS with a high level of granularity
      \lecture{LibreJS takes a much more granular approach---it blocks
               individual scripts.}

    \item Recognizes JavaScript files (or parts of), script tags, inline
          scripts in attributes, etc.
      \lecture{So rather than domain, it recognizes individual source files,
               \emph{sections} of source files if they provide licensing
               information, and some of those less desirable practices like
               script tags and fragments in HTML attributes.}

    \item But doesn't block scripts recognized as free
      \lecture{But one feature I'd like to see is the ability to block all
               scripts by default, even if free.}
      \begin{itemize}
        \item So that we can replace specific programs
          \lecture{Why?  Firstly, we'd be able to replace specific programs
                   on the page; we can't do that with NoScript.}

        \item Free software can do bad things too
          \lecture{Free software can still do all the bad things that I
                   talked about; you just have the ability to remove those
                   anti-features and replace it.  Well, you should, anyway,
                   if you can find a \emph{way} to replace it.}
      \end{itemize}

    \item Doesn't play well with NoScript
      \lecture{It also doesn't play well with NoScript---even if NoScript
               would block scripts on a page, LibreJS will process them.  I
               don't know how difficult this would be to fix, but ideally it
               would so that we can have the benefits of both.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Injecting Scripts---Greasemonkey}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item Expat / Modified BSD / MPL 1.1

    \item Inject user-defined scripts into web pages

    \item \url{http://openuserjs.org}, \url{http://greasyfork.org},
          \url{http://userscripts-mirror.org}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{After blocking scripts, the second step is replacing
           them.  Greasemonkey is a popular browser addon for running
           arbitrary ``user scripts'' on pages.  Since the scripts can be
           anything, you can inject your modified program.  There are a few
           sites hosting scripts written by users that demonstrates the
           practical utility of modifying programs on the web, or augmenting
           them.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Injecting Styles---Stylish}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item GPLv3

    \item Inject user-defined CSS into web pages

    \item \url{http://userstyles.org}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{When modifying software, you often need to modify the style
           associated with certain elements on the page.  Or maybe you're
           only interested in changing the stylesheet---you can do a lot of
           things that way.  You can do this with JavaScript, or even inject
           CSS with JavaScript, but there's also an addon dedicated to it if
           you'd prefer---Stylish.  Like greasemonkey, it has a repository
           of user-define stylesheets for websites.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Injecting Scripts/Styles---dotjs}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item MPL 1.1

    \item Inject user-defined scripts from {\tt \~{}/.js}

    \item Inject user-defined styles from {\tt \~{}/.css}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{There's also dotjs, which is like a Greasemonkey and Stylish in
           one.  It takes a much simpler approach---place scripts and
           stylesheets for specific domains in your home directory and it
           will automatically run them.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Replacing Scripts---What We Need}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> Something your grandparents can use!

    \lecture{So that's the existing state of affairs.  But as a user---not a
             hacker---do you find this intuitive?  You can ask your
             grandparents to install GNU IceCat on their computer just fine,
             but you can't ask them to go through all of this to replace a
             non-free program on the web.  We need an easier solution.}

    \item<2-> Package changes:
      \lecture{I challenge someone to create an addon that allows you to:}

      \begin{itemize}
        \item<2-> Install replacement software like you'd install an addon

        \item<3-> Automatically block scripts with granularity of LibreJS

        \item<4-> Automatically inject scripts

        \item<5-> Verify package signatures

        \item<6-> Update mechanism
      \end{itemize}

    \item<7-> Add support to LibreJS
      \lecture{And ideally you'd add that support to GNU LibreJS.}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{But let's be honest.}
\end{frame}

%%%=== END TIMEBLOCK 7m ==============================================



%%%=== BEGIN TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================

\begin{frame}
  \begin{center}
    But all this is just a kluge.
  \end{center}

  \lecture{While all of this would be great, it's ultimately just a
           kluge---we're trying to work around an architecture that was not
           intended to promote exercising the four freedoms.}

  \lecture{So I have a stronger proposal.  I'm going to illustrate with an
           even more disastrous problem.}
\end{frame}


%% TODO: What to do with "Shackles as a Service" above?


\begin{frame}{Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS)}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> Also called ``Software as a Service'' (SaaS)
    \item<1-> ``Who Does That Server Really Serve?'' essay by rms

    \lecture{Services as software substitutes.  Most people refer to it as
             ``Software as a Service'', but many of us use the term
             ``Service as a Software Substitute''---as coined by rms---to
             emphasize that you're sacrificing something.}

    \item You simply cannot modify a program running on someone else's
           server
      \lecture{This poses an entirely different problem than software
             freedom---you simply cannot modify software on someone else's
             computer; nor should you be able to.}
  \end{itemize}

  \lecture{Now let's be clear---you'll often hear that these services are
             hosted quote ``in the cloud''.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}[plain]
  \begin{center}
    There is no cloud.
  \end{center}

  \lecture{But let's not fool ourselves.}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{There Is No Cloud}
  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Talking about the ``cloud'' leads to cloudy judgment
      \lecture{The ``cloud'' is a popular term that is more of an
               advertising ploy than anything at this point, as it deeply
               confounds the situation and insults users' intelligence by
               making it seem like this is all some sort of mysterious
               magic, providing no explanation of what is \emph{actually}
               going on.}

    \item It's just someone else's computer---lots of them
      \lecture{There is no cloud---it's just someone else's computer.  Lots
               of them; on demand.}

    \item Difference: elasticity---servers/resources brought online only
          when needed
      \lecture{The difference between the quote-unquote ``cloud'' versus
               normal servers is that they are what is called ``elastic'',
               in that you bring new servers and resources online as needed,
               and get rid of them when they're not.  But otherwise---it's
               the same damn thing!}

    \item We can't talk about freedoms using terms that cloud understanding
      \begin{itemize}
        \item Better term---the ``fog''
      \end{itemize}

      \lecture{Don't talk about the ``cloud'', because if you speak in such
               confusing and mysterious terms, then we can't even
               \emph{begin} to explain how you might exercise your freedoms
               on the web, because we first have to explain our way
               \emph{out} of the cloud.  We may as well call it the
               ``fog''!}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{\{Desktop,Web\} Software}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> To regain control, must host it yourself

    \item<1-> This means running the entire stack (server and client) on
               your own computer

      \lecture{Regaining control of our computing online means being able to
               run the entire software stack---both server and client---on
               our own computers.}

    \item<2-> ``Unweb''
      \lecture{I call this ``unwebbing'', because you are eliminating your
               reliance on the Web to run the software, and treating it more
               like a desktop application.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Unwebbing}
  \begin{itemize}[<+->]
    \item Cannot unweb proprietary services without replacements
      \lecture{We first need to recognize that we're not going to be able to
               unweb proprietary services without a lot of effort.  Even
               though we might be able to run the client ourselves---because
               it's served to us---the server software will need to be
               written by us, because they're not going to give it to us.}

    \item Cannot unweb a partially free stack
      \begin{itemize}
        \item Webserver
        \item Programs/scripts that it runs to generate output
        \item Script dependencies
        \item Client
      \end{itemize}

      \lecture{We also can't unweb a \emph{partially free} stack---for
               example, if the client JavaScript is free, that doesn't help
               us, because we still can't host the server ourselves, which
               robs us of our freedom to do our own computing.  We need the
               whole stack to be free---that means the webserver, any
               output-generating software that it might run, any
               \emph{dependencies} for those programs, and then finally the
               client.  So if your server runs an external program like
               Imagemagick to process images, then that program must too be
               free so that we can run it.  Fortunately, Imagemagick is.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{The Affero GPL Doesn't Solve All Problems}
  \begin{itemize}
    \item<1-> Requires that, if users can access a \emph{modified} version
              of the program over a network, that they must have access to
              the corresponding source code

    \item<1-> But this only helps a little bit---even if you have the source
              code, you can't modify it on the server that's using it

      \lecture{Some point the AGPL as a solution---but it's not.  Even if
              you have the changes that they made to the server software,
              you still can't change the code running on their servers---you
              need to host it yourself, and to do so, you need a full
              stack.  And it's not unethical to write software for your
              personal use that you don't distribute, so that full stack
              might not be available.}

    \item<2-> The AGPL can be circumvented using a pipeline (where
              practical)

    \item<2-> Doesn't cover works that the AGPL'd program might invoke
              externally

      \lecture{The AGPL also doesn't cover other programs invoked
               externally, or as part of a pipeline.}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\begin{frame}{Truly Unwebbed}
  \begin{enumerate}
    \item Download unwebbed package
    \item Invoke unwebbed program {\tt ./foo}
    \item Package creates an isolated environment (possibly with no network
          access)
    \item Package mounts persistent storage
    \item Package starts all necessary services
    \item Package invokes client (e.g. web browser, possibly in ``app''
          mode)
    \item Program terminates
    \item All services are stopped
    \item Environment is destroyed (but not persistent storage)
  \end{enumerate}

  \lecture{If this concept sounds familiar, that's because it is---I'm
           essentially describing what's called a ``container'', which is a
           common virtualization technique.  In fact, this is one that would
           go well with Qubes OS, since it handles persistent storage and
           X11 programs in precisely this scenario.  But even if we didn't
           go the route of virtualization---even if the unwebbed package
           just ran services in the same environment like a normal
           program---we would still benefit greatly.}
\end{frame}

%% section on the client?

\begin{frame}
  \begin{center}
    \only<1>{Web software works just as desktop software}
    \only<2>{End Goal: Just Run {\tt ./foo}}
  \end{center}

  \lecture{That web software works just like software on the desktop.  The
           end goal?  Just run foo.}
\end{frame}

%%%=== END TIMEBLOCK Nm ==============================================


\begin{frame}
  \begin{center}
    Mike Gerwitz

    {\url mtg@gnu.org}

    \medskip

    Interested in submitting your project to GNU?

    {\url gnueval@gnu.org}

    \medskip

    Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0
    International License
  \end{center}
\end{frame}

\closeout\lecturenotes

\end{document}