[Iv]

> Implement an anonymous internet sales platform that doesn't require Javascript, using GNU Taler (taler.net).

That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15274110

[AdmiralAsshat]

I would've preferred he phrase it something like "using something like GNU Taler," so that it doesn't look like he's shilling for his own product.

[yebyen]

I've been in the too-awkward position of suggesting a solution "like" one that I have made, knowing already that there is some specific reason why my solution won't ultimately be the one that is accepted. Arguing this way results in a stunted discussion, giving away the foregone conclusion that my specific solution is obviously unsuitable for some reason or other, and is therefore not worthy of our consideration at all. (But we have a lot to learn from it, and we should have this discussion before putting it aside.)

It's better to not go down that rhetorical road. If they haven't heard of your solution, let them evaluate it and come to their own conclusions about whether this specific solution doesn't meet their needs for some reason or other. Don't plant that seed, especially if you would consider it a favorable outcome for your particular solution to be used.

I don't know anything about Taler, but I assume he didn't say "something like GNU Taler" on purpose, for just the same reason that he doesn't work on some other project like Taler, because there's no specific alternative that he can recommend which is at least as good in all ways, from at least his own perspective.

Writing "something like GNU Taler" is almost a suggestion to fork the project, when we haven't even talked about what particular characteristics of Taler would make it a favorable choice, and what benefits. If, in the end, it's better or cheaper for them to build their own whatever it is, better than it would be to work with you on your project, they'll have no trouble coming to that conclusion on their own.

[Iv]

GNU Taler is not a product. It is a GNU project. You can use it full-features for free.

[yebyen]

It can be both. This is an important point though, nonetheless, as if you are looking for a "product" and you choose an open source "project" without considering what it means, you may have a bad time.

This tweet[1] struck a chord with me when I saw it the other day, I almost couldn't find it when this thread reminded me:

>> I just don't buy the "many eyes make all bugs shallow" thing. It takes so much time to build the context to understand wtf some code is doing that the "many eyes" get whittled down to "very few" very quickly

> This is not just a technical problem, it's a social one too. In practice, 99.999% of users of open source software engage with and expect to be treated as customers of open source, not as collaborators in a communal endeavor to build and maintain it.

To these people, it is a product. For a healthy community, we may need to find a way to get them to see it as a project. And perhaps not just one (eg. how many open source projects are in your team's product stack, and how often do you all think about that?)

[1]: https://twitter.com/searls/status/1174955330582695938

[humanrebar]

A product is something produced. It doesn't need to be for sale. That's merchandise.

[tzs]

Anonymous for and to whom?

Suppose I sell a digital good to a customer in the EU and use Taler to handle this. I need to know which country's VAT to collect, and I need to justify my choice to the tax authorities of any EU country that asks.

That seems to rule out using a platform that makes my customer anonymous to me.

[warkdarrior]

How would a privacy-preserving payment system (like GNU Taler) obviate the need for Javascript?

[pavon]

RMS and the FSF oppose any proprietary software, and refuse to use it. From a practical point of view, this means having to block javascript by default and at best whitelist it just on sites that are known to use only Free Software on their website. Furthermore, since that browsers and web standards don't provide an automated way to check javascript license before execution, and a site can change what javascript they use at any time (on every page load even), some Free Software advocates find it safer and easier to abstain from any javascript at all.

Payment processing software like Taler is most useful when integrated/embedded in as many websites as possible, including sites that use proprietary javascript. Even if the Taler implementation used only javascript with a Free license, using it on that site would require enabling both Free and non-Free javascript. Thus it would be preferable to Free Software advocates if Taler implementations were written to work without requiring javascript.

[lordlimecat]

I'm not clear why javascript is the Boogeyman but html and css get a pass here. With javascript you can always see the source, and their license cannot obligate you as it's not-even-a-shrinkwrap license.

Html and css can also have licenses, and they are frequently generated by server-side code running what is almost certainly a proprietary license, one that is opaque to the user.

[teh_klev]

See:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.en.html

[lordlimecat]

That article addresses essentially none of my points.

He remarks on the obfuscated nature of much JS as violating the principle of user interaction with the code; but HTML5 is very frequently generated in highly-convoluted form from server-side scripts that the user has no access to.

He remarks on the uncertain license of JS, but that applies just as much to HTML5 code.

He's concerned with tracking, but there are a number of ways to track a user using HTML5 alone. Cookies, canvas, webrtc, user agent, tracking images...

And he refers to HTML as mere markup, but the reality is that with no JS you can create a web application using HTML5 and server-side software as complex as any you can do in JS.

If i make a storefront based on Tomcat that relies on no JS, does the user have the freedom to inspect the software? Do they know the license, if I don't explicitly post it?