My understanding is that the proposals being bandied about to do source code protection involve compiling the JS code into binary, so it's analogous to the protection offered by writing native code rather than mere minification/obfuscation or JIT bytecode stuff.
Obviously no compilation process offers 100% protection, but it would be enough for most people's purposes if it occupied a space that was more secure (or more obfuscated) than Java, but less so than, say, C++.
Disclaimer: I started that github issue for source code protection with Electron.
To add to this since other people will come commenting, yes I know that if somebody REALLY wants to they can get to the code (although I'd argue that Denuvo worked for a while).
However there is a huge difference between having hard to read code that needs to be decompiled and unobfuscated to code that is in plain text! Any script kiddy can modify any electron application (The code is in freaking text files!).
> Any script kiddy can modify any electron application (The code is in freaking text files!).
And what's so bad about that?
The copyright law of the EU even was written with the intention that someday everyone would have the source code to everything, and everyone — even your grandparents — could modify any application, because the source would be in freaking text files!
So, you’re advocating that you should be able to sell products that are impossible to repair, impossible to modify, with 0 days warranty period, and then expect people to accept that?
I’m sorry, but there’s a reason we don’t allow that for physical things either.
> Every project has different requirements.
That might be. But that doesn’t change the problem I mentioned above.
Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law. You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem. It's certainly debatable and far from settled, contrary to the definitive character of your indignation. And it's far more nuanced than your ungenerous characterization of it - this is part product, part intellectual property.
What's great is you are free to exercise your philosophy in your products, and if you're right, then that will make your products superior.
I don't feel the need to utterly destroy my ideological "enemies" to the point that I need closed source software to die, just because I believe in open source. Nor can I claim to have an indisputable moral high ground that just goes without saying.
In isolation I agree with you, but software does not exist in isolation. It exists in market places, on pacemakers, in airplanes, on voting machines and everywhere else.
Right now the default way to release "of the shelf" products is without source code. It is not a real business decision for many, so they default to what everyone else does. For no real reason, then they defend this with lobbyist and lawyers. This includes airplanes, pacemakers, etc...
I really do think closed source software should be illegal, because I think that is the only way that I will be able to verify there are no issues something I use, like a medical device. I cannot verify my grandmother's pacemaker and if there is a bug she dies. Currently, the source code doesn't need to be shared with her or me, just because its a trade secret. Why should a trade secret be more important than the lives of users of a product.
But its not just the one life threatening extreme. Look at the Vizio TV news for the past few weeks. These entertainment should be about as innocuous as possible. Vizio has enough data to know the political leanings of 90% of Vizio TV owners. How would you feel if they sold that to people in a political party that opposes you? This is software on entertainment devices, and it has this kind of power. To make it worse, they got away with it for 18 months before anyone figured it out. They might have gotten away with entirely if they used a bit of encryption.
Forget the virtues of open source, I firmly believe closed source software is not compatible with the basic freedoms required the long term for any democracy.
You've picked some pretty dangerous subjects in healthcare and privacy. It's no coincidence that these areas are focal points for regulatory legislation - this is serious stuff, but that's why we have laws and other mechanisms in place to deal with these things. The regulatory environment is precisely what addresses the fact that software does not exist in isolation.
It's ludicrous though to suggest that all closed source software become illegal. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater! You'll be hard pressed to find any regulatory justification for such a blanket measure.
This is overreaching, entitled ideological authoritarianism. The danger is that you don't see it because it all sounds so ethical on the surface, especially when framed through the dramatic lens of your grandmother's pacemaker. Maybe I do think there needs to be more transparency in healthcare products, and I think that what Vizio did is despicable - but we can't just knee-jerk all the way to the other extreme of outright banning all closed source.
What you're essentially advocating for is the application of absolute power on everyone in order to prevent some from abusing their power. Do you not see the dangerous escalation of the stakes once you take this approach? I'm almost more afraid of you than I am of Vizio.
I wrote some code yesterday and didn't share it - are you going to justify forcibly prying it from me?
> I wrote some code yesterday and didn't share it - are you going to justify forcibly prying it from me?
No, but some realistic proposals include forcing developers to release their source as soon as they stop providing fixes for bugs to all people who bought a license.
I’m not sure where you see the problem? With patents we already require you to publish the entire process to get protection – as algorithms are not protected by copyright, and most not by patents, a possible solution for software protection that’s discussed is providing copyright protection for software under the restriction that the source is published after a few years (and until then held by a trustee)
The scenarios you're presenting obfuscate the simplicity of my point: you shouldn't blanket ban something because it's at odds with your philosophy. Exceptions will certainly exist, but that's beside the point and I don't see the value in descending into the minutiae of the exceptions and consequently not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Your view of your ideological opponents is very ungenerous. You accord it absolutely no merit, as it seems you deem it completely wrong and advocate for its banning outright.
Instead I would urge you to understand why some people and organizations have un-nefarious reasons for making closed-source software. To put the burden of justification on them so that they can be allowed to do their own thing is, well, pretty unfair. You seem to operate with the assumption that your ideological opponents are objectively guilty.
And I write this as an advocate for open source (a 100% personal and debatable belief, not an absolute moral claim): you are not being fair when you act like anyone making closed-source software has some obligation to prove to society that they're not being nefarious.
You're seriously willing to punish everyone either legislatively or through a stigma because Vizio did something unethical? The presumption of innocence is fundamental in our society, and your arguments just casually trample all over it, as if it's settled and you're right by default.
> Yes, you should be able to create any kind of product you want as long as it's within the law.
Exactly. And what if the law says "anyone has the right to repair or modify any software product they have a license to"?
And what if the law says that makers may "not try to discourage users with technical or legal means from using their rights"?
That’s the point where we’re at, and intentionally making it hard for users to modify the software just for that purpose is something you only do to prevent users from using their rights.
> You're not the authority on what constitutes a problem
No, but the people who wrote above laws are.
> this is part product, part intellectual property.
Which, luckily, EU law has settled even more definitely than anything else: If you can buy a license for something, then you own that product for which you bought the license in the same way as if you had bought a physical product. And you can create private copies for yourself, you can modify it like you can repaint your IKEA table, you can return it within of 14 days and get all the money back, and you can resell it to others.
Morality is arbitrary, neither point of view is more valid than the other one.
Take your text, and replace FOSS with berries and closed source with banana, and you'll feel even more right. Do it with freedom and slavery, you'll feel so wrong.
Wow, I think you just articulated something that I've definitely felt, but have a hard time explaining – I feel like I am some kind of traitor to open source software for feeling this way.
Obviously no compilation process offers 100% protection, but it would be enough for most people's purposes if it occupied a space that was more secure (or more obfuscated) than Java, but less so than, say, C++.