by Troler Free Software fundamentally misses the point. It fails on a practical, ideological, economic, and political level. Letβs examine precisely how (in a slightly different order for the purposes of presentation).
In physical stores it is okay to take and and taste one wraps of candy before buying it. This way the person can be sure that they won't regret buying it. In same vein, there are software demos, such as that of Ardour, where they provide a version at no monetary cost with less functionality than the paid release. Being freedom software, the person can set up the full version without paying, but that requires expertise. Unfortunately, not all developers are so nice.
Or being on GNU / Linux with Ardour in the repository.
Artificial Fucking Intelligence! The brain-rot born out of a different brain-rot, called "capitalism" causing literal brain-rot of a society. A thing so rotten and so utterly despicable that calling it "slop" is to give it a compliment.
An article by Troler about Libre Software made me remember an email conversation I had with Richard Stallman the other day. I suggested to have a sort of freedom ladder analogue, to encourage non-libre software developers to, at least, move closer towards user-freedom. I thought ranking software based on how close they are at achieving user-freedom. How close they are to being Libre. If they have source code published, but no license. This is still better than having no source code published at all. Stallman firmly stood his ground against my idea, claiming that anything less than Libre, anything less than software that grants all 4 essential freedoms to the user, is automatically not good enough. But then in that article by @Troler I saw something interesting. Maybe merely granting the 4 essential freedoms, might be not good enough, either.
It records the teachings, opinions and disagreements of thousands of rabbis and Torah scholars.
And if you know from books like Tanya which references the book of Nida on the first page, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, you know that Talmud likes to link things Wikipedia style, and then argue those things, trying to find patterns.
What could be the pattern in linking a Wikipedia article and then talking about Wikipedia in an article about using Talmudic Techniques to understand Free Software?