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".
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?
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.
I'm the stupidest man alive. Back in 2021 or so I wrote an article on Odysee where I basically outlined my plan to do Dani's Race, my libre open world game. Yet while the idea is descent and the game turned out to be quite fun, I completely disregarded any considerations when it comes to the market. I didn't think about who might want to play it.
With today's seeming apocalypse it is easy to give up all hope, to feel hopeless. Age-Verification, Chat Control and other ( usually ageist ) attempts at attacking our freedom seem to be overwhelming at their might. And while it is true that they are terrible things and that they are bad for our freedom, still they are not the end of the world. There is still hope.
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.
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.