>The fact that removing unnecessary white space is a commonly-used practice in speeding-up page loading is not mentioned, even in passing.
You can still provide a link to the full, unobfuscated source code. That isn't difficult to do. Just put the link in an HTML comment where the source is loaded, or at the top of the source file.
You're another one of those so-called pragmatists who only thinks about the short-term, ja?
Just think, 20+ years ago there wasn't very much free software (nor very much open source software). Now look how much there is! It is now expected that developers release the source code of their projects. True that they are mostly side-projects but there are many serious businesses that are built using Free Software.
>It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place.
That was tried a number of years ago with the Open Source movement. Their philosophy is to never really talk about freedom, just talk about the benefits, mainly economic. Has it succeeded? Yes, but only as a marketing slogan, with companies co-opting it and the consumer never really knowing exactly what it means for software to be free.
>We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis).
You're allowed to charge money for any Free Software. The only catch is that you can't keep the source code closed or forbid the user from re-distributing it. Which basically means that when you charge money for Free Software, you're a redistribution fee, not a license-to-use fee.
You can still provide a link to the full, unobfuscated source code. That isn't difficult to do. Just put the link in an HTML comment where the source is loaded, or at the top of the source file.
You're another one of those so-called pragmatists who only thinks about the short-term, ja?
Just think, 20+ years ago there wasn't very much free software (nor very much open source software). Now look how much there is! It is now expected that developers release the source code of their projects. True that they are mostly side-projects but there are many serious businesses that are built using Free Software.
>It's time for revolution's founders to retire gracefully, and for a more realistic (though still ethical) guard to take its place.
That was tried a number of years ago with the Open Source movement. Their philosophy is to never really talk about freedom, just talk about the benefits, mainly economic. Has it succeeded? Yes, but only as a marketing slogan, with companies co-opting it and the consumer never really knowing exactly what it means for software to be free.
>We've got to move away from this notion that software should be free (gratis).
You're allowed to charge money for any Free Software. The only catch is that you can't keep the source code closed or forbid the user from re-distributing it. Which basically means that when you charge money for Free Software, you're a redistribution fee, not a license-to-use fee.