by Blender Dumbass Aka: J.Y. Amihud. A Jewish by blood, multifaceted artist with experience in film-making, visual effects, programming, game development, music and more. A philosopher at heart. An activist for freedom and privacy. Anti-Paternalist. A user of Libre Software. Speaking at least 3 human languages. The writer and director of the 2023 film "Moria's Race" and the lead developer of it's game sequel "Dani's Race".
On the Fireside Fedi interview with Jerry ( the admin of Infosec.Exchange Mastodon instance ) a scary truth was suddenly revealed ( on 34:11 ): Just to keep the instance up and running he needs to spend up to $5000 a month, pretty much out of his pocket. Donations to the instance barely cover any of that. And if he will ask people to pay to use it, they will, rightfully so, switch to a different instance.
If you are running a Libre project and / or know somebody who does. And that Libre project has a way for donations to come in. Please make the data about your financials accessible in a machine readable way.
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?
Both "open source" and "free software" mean, in terms of software itself, largely the same thing. The source code is published. The project is developed by a community of people. The project is forkable. Many pieces of software are both "free software" and "open source" in the same time. But when you dig into the details of their definitions, you start to see differences.
I don't consider freedom binary, for me some things are inherently more free than others. Here I define freedom as the capacity to do a task unhindered. With such definition, it comes to be clear, what I mean by freedom not being binary and existing on an axis. For instance, repairing a standard PC is easier than the newest model of iPhone. This ease of repairability exists on a gradient, with the PC and iPhone being on different sides. The same applies to the actual binary, software world as well. It is easier to modify a program written in Python than the same one written in C. In Python there is no need to keep recompiling and seeing the changes, all alterations can be done on the fly.
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.