From 8a3622130131b4511c6590a0b1bc0845c77a1c89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mike Gerwitz Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 22:00:33 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] :githubbub: minor wording update --- docs/about/githubbub.md | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/about/githubbub.md b/docs/about/githubbub.md index 63c6df6..e2c1016 100644 --- a/docs/about/githubbub.md +++ b/docs/about/githubbub.md @@ -1,36 +1,43 @@ ### GitHubbub! GitHub Does Not Value Software Freedom. -
![GitHub](/images/octoright-large.png "GitHubbub!")
+
+ ![GitHub](/images/octoright-large.png "GitHub logo rotated 270° to resemble a Copyright symbol") +
-If you hit this page expecting to have been taken to my GitHub profile, then -this is probably not what you were looking for. But let me tell you why -you're here. +If you hit this page expecting to have been taken to my GitHub profile, + then this is probably not what you were looking for; + but let me tell you why you're here. -Before providing a link to something hosted on a service, it is wise to -consider whether doing so is a good idea---whether the service or website -is antithetical to the message you are trying to send to your -readers/visitors, or whether it deserves clarification. There's a little -bit of both here. +Before providing a link to something hosted on a service, + it is important to consider whether the service or website is antithetical + to the message you are trying to convey to your readers/visitors, + and whether it deserves clarification; + there's a little bit of both here. -If you're looking for a host friendly toward free software, take a look at -the [GNU ethical repository criteria][gnu-repo], which sets standards for -acceptable hosts of parts of the [GNU operating system][gnu]. +If you're looking for a host friendly toward free software, + take a look at the [GNU ethical repository criteria][gnu-repo], + which sets standards for acceptable hosts to parts of the + [GNU operating system][gnu]. #### Non-Free JavaScript -[Free software][freesw] guarantees your freedom to study, modify, and share -the software that you use. We value these freedoms on the desktop, so why -should we compromise when websites serve proprietary JavaScript -[just because it creates the illusion of remote execution][whyfreejs]? When -you visit a website that serves JavaScript to the client, your web browser -is automatically [downloading and executing (often without your permission) -untrusted software][jstrap]. If that JavaScript is not -[freely licensed][librejs], then the software running in your web browser -is proprietary. +[Free software][freesw] guarantees your freedom to study, + modify, + and share the software that you use. +We value these freedoms on the desktop, + so why should we compromise when websites serve proprietary JavaScript + [just because it creates the illusion of remote execution][whyfreejs]? +When you visit a website that serves JavaScript to the client, + your web browser is automatically [downloading and executing][jstrap] + (often without your permission) ephemeral, unsigned, untrusted software. +If that JavaScript is not [freely licensed][librejs], + then the software running in your web browser is proprietary. -**When you visit `github.com`, you download over 200kB of obfuscated code, -much of which is proprietary.** This code provides many website features -that are fairly essential, and *do not work with JavaScript disabled*: +**When you visit `github.com`, + you download over 200kB of obfuscated code, + much of which is proprietary.** +This code provides many website features that are fairly essential, + and *do not work with JavaScript disabled*: - Change repository names or descriptions; - Delete repositories; @@ -43,40 +50,46 @@ that are fairly essential, and *do not work with JavaScript disabled*: - And others. That is---GitHub forces you to run proprietary software in order to use much -of their website. This is unethical. + of their website. +This is a bit startling for a host that owes its very existence to the + success and development of free software. #### Desire To Remain Non-Free -I contacted GitHub back in April 2014, pointing out these concerns and -asking if they would be able to either liberate their JavaScript, or make -GitHub's essential functionality work without JavaScript enabled. The first -response I received was from one of their "JavaScript Developers": +I contacted GitHub back in April 2014 pointing out these concerns and + asking if they would be able to either liberate their JavaScript or make + GitHub's essential functionality work without JavaScript enabled. +The first response I received was from one of their "JavaScript Developers": > Hi Mike, -> +> > Thanks for getting in touch with us here. Some of our internal projects are > specific to running GitHub, and as such will probably remain closed. We do > make an effort to open source projects that we create that we think would be > beneficial to the community, some of which is JavaScript. -> +> > You can see a list of some of the open source projects that power GitHub > here: -> +> > https://github.com/showcases/projects-that-power-github -This response is unfortunately misguided: yes, it is good that GitHub -produces free software, but it is a false assumption that their proprietary -code would serve no benefit to the community: the very existence of -their proprietary software -[gives them unjust control over their users][unjust]. Relinquishing that -control is of benefit to the community. +This response is unfortunately misguided---yes, + it is good that GitHub produces free software, + but it is a false assumption that their proprietary code would serve no + benefit to the community: + the very existence of their proprietary software [gives them unjust + control over their users][unjust]; + relinquishing that control is of benefit to the community. -I replied to the above message, clarifying my point. After receiving no -response, I forwarded the e-mail to GitHub's original founders: [Tom -Preston-Werner][tom], [Chris Wanstrath][chris], and [PJ Hyett][pj]. The -response I received from Chris was blunt and discouraging: +I replied to the above message to clarify my point. +After receiving no response, + I forwarded the e-mail to GitHub's original founders: + [Tom Preston-Werner][tom], + [Chris Wanstrath][chris], + and [PJ Hyett][pj]. +The response I received from Chris was blunt and discouraging: > Hey Mike, -> +> > We have no plans to release github.com's JavaScript as free software at > this time, nor do we have plans to remove the site's dependence on > JavaScript. Thanks for the interest.