Using Talmudic Techniques To Understand Free Software
👁 21
https://blenderdumbass.org/do_login : 👁 1
https://mastodon.online/ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/search?author=on&text=blenderdumbass : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/ : 👁 3
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles : 👁 1
https://strangeminds.social/ : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
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".
In the Wikipedia article about Talmud it says that: ↩ Reply
It records the teachings, opinions and disagreements of thousands of rabbis and Torah scholars.
↩ Reply
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. ↩ Reply
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? Apart from the obvious thing that Wikipedia with its intensive linking resembles the intensive linking found in Talmud. c:0 ↩ Reply
Based on the Wikipedia article about the FSF's Free Software Awards the 2005 Social benefit award was given to Wikipedia itself. Yet if we look at the website of FSF themselves you would see that the Award was indeed given to Wikipedia, but not in 2005. It was given to Wikipedia on "Mar 29, 2006 12:00 AM". This is weird. And even weirder is the fact that the Wikipedia is not sighting anything to prove that it indeed got the Award. ↩ Reply
Then if you dig even deeper, the article about this specific award on FSF is not from 2005 and not from 2006 but instead is from 2011. Something here does not add up. ↩ Reply
For the sake of clarity, lets set this one conundrum aside for a little and focus on what seems to be a slightly more pressing issue. Which is the question of: why did Wikipedia even received a Free Software Award in the first place? ↩ Reply
The article about this award ( the one from 2011 ) states the following: ↩ Reply
This award is presented to the project or team responsible for applying free software, or the ideas of the free software movement, in a project that intentionally and significantly benefits society in other aspects of life.
↩ Reply
Does Wikipedia apply Free Software? Does Wikipedia apply the ideas of Free Software? And does Wikipedia intentionally and significantly benefits society? c:8 ↩ Reply
To answer this we need to first answer what Free Software even is. ↩ Reply
In the Wikipedia article about the Definition of Free Software it links to a GNU Bulletin Issue number 1 from which it references this piece of text: ↩ Reply
The word "free" in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you.
↩ Reply
For this text to make sense we need an agreeable definition of what "freedom", "program" and "source code" mean. In the original bulletin the word "freedom" appears just 3 times and all of them in the same piece quoted by Wikipedia, which is also quoted above this paragraph by this article. This does define the "free" in "free software" to be more related to "freedom" and less related to the absence of price. But it does not define the word "freedom" itself. ↩ Reply
The word "program" appears 7 times. The first use is in the section about GNU Emacs, where it says: ↩ Reply
It is a fairly large program, around 525k on vaxes or 68000s, to which must be added space for the files you are editing, undo buffers, Lisp libraries loaded, and Lisp data such as recently killed text, etc.
↩ Reply
There appears to be no definition of what "vaxes" means, but it seems to be something related to size in kilobytes. Probably a way to store the program in Random Access Memory, since the paragraph later continues with: ↩ Reply
This is not really a problem on a timeshared machine because most of that 525k is shared, but on a personal computer there may be nobody to share with. Thus, GNU Emacs probably could not be used on an IBM PC clone for lack of memory, unless you want to implement virtual memory in software within Emacs itself. Perhaps on an 80286 with 1 meg of memory you can win using their memory management.
↩ Reply
Based on Wikipedia Time sharing means: c:1 ↩ Reply
In computing, time-sharing is the concurrent sharing of a computing resource among many tasks or users by giving each task or user a small slice of processing time. This quick switch between tasks or users gives the illusion of simultaneous execution. It enables multi-tasking by a single user or enables multiple-user sessions.
↩ Reply
I removed the references from this quote. Please refer to the original article for further references. c:2 ↩ Reply
So it seems like on an old type time-sharing mainframe computer ( which were the size of buildings, and offered terminals to the users ) Emacs would not be a problem. Since those computers had at least 525k bytes of random access memory at any given point. And all users were effectively using the same memory. But on more modern "micro-computers" which were smaller and had only 1 terminal, this could be a waste, unless you have something like a "1 meg" ( which probably means 1 megabyte of RAM ). ↩ Reply
Yet it seems like this discussion about the size of Emacs ( while interesting in the context of various people calling Emacs bloated ) is not helping us much with understanding the meaning of the word "program". Apart from maybe the fact that a program takes memory. ↩ Reply
Then we have the 2 uses of the word "program" that the Wikipedia article about the definition of Free Software quotes. We have another mention of a program being large with a C compiler, ( probably some early version of GCC ). Finally under the section titled "Some Arguments for Gnu's Goals ↩ Reply
" Richard M. Stallman writes this: ↩ Reply
Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs.
↩ Reply
This might be a clue to the whole definition of Free Software. And this also might be a clue to the definitions of "program" and "source code". For instance the fact that it says "no program could be installed on the system if its sources were not on public display" suggests that "sources" or "source code" ( which we know from the short discussion about memory, could mean the same things, one being a short version of another ), must be a quality, or something related to a "program". ↩ Reply
If instead we will look at the Wikipedia definition of a Computer Program we will find this description: ↩ Reply
A computer program is a sequence or set of instructions in a programming language for a computer to execute.
↩ Reply
As we know in the English language the word "sequence" is a fancy way to mean a list. We could argue that a "program" is a list of instructions. A check-list of sorts. And what a computer does, when running said program, is executing those instructions one by one in a sequence. But most importantly, a program is apparently implemented in a "programming language". ↩ Reply
If we look what Wikipedia has to say about "programming language" we find out that it is: ↩ Reply
an engineered language for expressing computer programs.
↩ Reply
And that it: ↩ Reply
typically allow software to be written in a human readable manner.
↩ Reply
"Typically", but apparently not always. If we look back at the article about Programming Languages we have a clue to try to describer it a bit more. ↩ Reply
Execution of a program requires an implementation. There are two main approaches for implementing a programming language – compilation, where programs are compiled ahead-of-time to machine code, and interpretation, where programs are directly executed.
↩ Reply
"Machine code", "Directly Executed"? So we have one way to make a program that requires "compilation" and another way that doesn't not require it. That apparently is "human readable" all the way through. ↩ Reply
If we look at the definition of "Source Code" specifically, because that is what we want to know, to define Free Software, on Wikipedia, we find this explanation: ↩ Reply
In computing, source code, or simply code or source, is human readable plain text that can eventually result in controlling the behavior of a computer.
↩ Reply
First of all this confirms the theory we had earlier about "source" being a shortened way to say "source code". Then we see something interesting. This source code is a "human readable" text. Presumably source code and the human readable program is the same thing. ↩ Reply
So is the following true: There are two types of software. Human Readable, source code, software, that is executed directly. And there is non-human readable machine code software. But how did machine code software was made if it isn't human readable? ↩ Reply
If we look at a definition of a Compiler which is linked to on Wikipedia, at the word "compilation". We find the following definition: ↩ Reply
In computing, a compiler is software that translates computer code written in one programming language (the source language) into another language (the target language). The name "compiler" is primarily used for programs that translate source code from a high-level programming language to a low-level programming language (e.g. assembly language, object code, or machine code) to create an executable program.
↩ Reply
So we can simplify it, and say that all machine code, at least when it comes to software made by humans, must have been compiled from human readable source code. The end result is this machine code that the computer can run, but that a human cannot read. That the human cannot understand. And that would be hard for the human to make changes to. But there is always this other form of the same program. Same list of instructions. The source form. The form with which this program was made. The one that the human can read. The one that the human can understand. And the one that the human can change. ↩ Reply
Let's use this new understanding of ours to decipher the meaning of the paragraph we looked at earlier: ↩ Reply
The word "free" in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you.
↩ Reply
The idea here suddenly is much clearer. In order to have this "freedom" you must have the source code. Because without this source code you cannot see what the program does. You don't see the list of instructions. And you cannot edit said list of instructions so the program does what you want it to do. If you want to have freedom you must be able to "control it instead of it controlling you". From which we can also interpret a meaning of the word "freedom". ↩ Reply
Freedom is when you control yourself instead of somebody else ( or something else ) controlling you. ↩ Reply
From the same bulletin, this following quote seems to enforce this idea of freedom. And also clarify the idea of Free Software: ↩ Reply
Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.
↩ Reply
If we look at the modern definition of Free Software on GNU's website we would see the following 4 requirements for the program to be free: ↩ Reply
- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). ↩ Reply
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. ↩ Reply
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). ↩ Reply
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. ↩ Reply
Except not everything is clear. Some of those rules seem redundant. In the definition of Free Software on Wikipedia ( again ) we see this quote: ↩ Reply
A fourth freedom was later introduced to explicitly affirm the user's right to run the program. Because it was seen as more fundamental than the others, it was placed first. Since the existing freedoms were numbered one through three, this new one was designated "freedom zero".
↩ Reply
Okay. This explains why we count from zero. But why add this freedom in the first place? Isn't source code all you need to get the program under user's control? ↩ Reply
The mention of this on Wikipedia links to a footnote in the definition of Free Software on GNU's website. The one we took the list of the four freedoms from. Said footnote reads differently. c:5 ↩ Reply
The reason they are numbered 0, 1, 2 and 3 is historical. Around 1990 there were three freedoms, numbered 1, 2 and 3. Then we realized that the freedom to run the program needed to be mentioned explicitly. It was clearly more basic than the other three, so it properly should precede them. Rather than renumber the others, we made it freedom 0.
↩ Reply
Why did they need to mention it explicitly? ↩ Reply
If you dig through the definition on the GNU's website, it provides clarifications for all 4 freedoms on the list. The clarification for freedom zero is this: ↩ Reply
The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. This has nothing to do with what functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any particular computing activity.
↩ Reply
From this statement alone, we can reason that not all programs allow the user to run the program as the user wishes. Not all programs allow the user to execute the list of instructions it has for the computer, for any purpose the user wants to execute these instructions? This sounds silly... Why would this be true? ↩ Reply
If we look further, under the title "Legal considerations" we find the following text: ↩ Reply
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free.
↩ Reply
Okay. Now we need a definition of the word "License". On Wikipedia the article for License states: ↩ Reply
A license is granted by a party (licensor) to another party (licensee) as an element of an agreement between those parties.
↩ Reply
So a license is a fancy way to say "agreement" or "consent". ↩ Reply
Under "Mass licensing of software" in the same article, the following text clarifies the use of licenses when it comes to software ( computer programs ) in particular: ↩ Reply
Mass distributed software is used by individuals on personal computers under license from the developer of that software. Such license is typically included in a more extensive end-user license agreement (EULA) entered into upon the installation of that software on a computer. Typically, a license is associated with a unique code, that when approved grants the end user access to the software in question.
↩ Reply
From this whole thing we can deduce that the software is not "accessible" to the user, apparently even if the user had a copy, automatically. And that the user, legally speaking, must have the consent of the developer to use the program. ↩ Reply
If look at the designated article on Wikipedia about software licenses. We see that: ↩ Reply
Since the 1970s, software copyright has been recognized in the United States. Despite the copyright being recognized, most companies prefer to sell licenses rather than copies of the software because it enables them to enforce stricter terms on redistribution.
↩ Reply
Let's quickly define "copyright" to understand it correctly. In the Wikipedia article about copyright we can read this: c:6 ↩ Reply
A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.
↩ Reply
So, if software has copyright, the author of the software, the developer who holds the copyright, has the exclusive legal right to do anything meaningful with this program. Including running it. Which means that the developer is the one in control and therefor the developer controls the user. So the user has no freedom, unless the developer gives up his control over the software. Which is done by consenting to giving it up. Or in other words, by licensing the software such that it grants the 4 freedoms to the user legally. ↩ Reply
From this we learn that "Free Software" is not just a practical matter. It is both practical and legal matter. For the practical matter you must have source code. So you could practically, meaningfully control your software. And for the legal matter you have to have a good license that comes with the software, so when you are controlling your software, when you are exercising your freedom, you would not be punishable by law. ↩ Reply
This, by the way, explains why on GNU's website in the article called Words to avoid they pledge people to avoid saying "Intellectual Property": ↩ Reply
The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.
↩ Reply
If people think of copyright as "freedom" because copyright gives the authors the control over the work they made, as if to say, this work is author's property of some kind, it by default defeats the whole idea of being able to control your software. If the software developer's control comes over the control of the user, we concentrate power at the developer level and practically have no freedom at the user level. ↩ Reply
Having power over somebody is distinct, in this case from having freedom. Freedom is when you control your copy. Power is when you control other people's copy. Therefor thinking of copyright as "freedom" does not make sense. Thinking of work as "intellectual property" does not make sense. Those are not instruments for freedom. Those are instruments for power. And instruments for power need to be defeated in order to have freedom. In a way thinking about a license as "consent" here does not make sense either. The consent should be the other way around. Using a piece of software without source code and a proper Free Software license should require a consent by the user, because that's who's freedom is at stake here. Not providing source code and a Free Software license to a user that does not consent to be restricted like this, is therefor a form on an injustice. c:7 ↩ Reply
That in my opinion gives us a satisfactory idea of the meaning of Free Software. So now we can finally answer the question from the beginning of this article. ↩ Reply
Does Wikipedia apply Free Software? Does Wikipedia apply the ideas of Free Software? And does Wikipedia intentionally and significantly benefits society? c:8 ↩ Reply
Based on how much we can learn from just Wikipedia ( and things it links to ) about complex topics such as Free Software ( as exemplified by this very article ) we can conclude that it indeed significantly benefits society. ↩ Reply
Based on the fact that every article on Wikipedia is under a proper Free Software license we can conclude that it does apply the ideas of Free Software. ↩ Reply
And based upon the fact that Wikipedia runs on MediaWiki software that has its source code available and that includes a Free Software license with it ( making the software Free ), we can conclude that Wikipedia applies Free Software as well. c:9 ↩ Reply
All 3 categories are checked in. Granting Wikipedia the Free Software Award. ↩ Reply
But because Wikipedia is so Talmudic at its core ( as you probably realized by now ), and because it it Talmudic probably by applying the ideas of Free Software. We can suggest a theory: ↩ Reply
Richard Stallman is not thorough because of some neuro-divergence or syndrome. Richard Stallman is thorough because he is Jewish. c:11 ↩ Reply
Happy Hacking!!! ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
Troler
c:0 March 07, 2026 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? Apart from the obvious thing that Wikipedia with its intensive linking resembles the intensive linking found in Talmud.
⤴ ViewWas that a rhetorical question? If so, then why did you half answer it?
Troler
c:1 March 07, 2026 Based on Wikipedia Time sharing means:
⤴ ViewAre you talking about software freedom, Emacs or Time Sharing?
... replies ( 2 )
Blender Dumbass
c:3 March 07, 2026@Troler This is a Talmudic technique. I must try to understand everything to get to the ultimate truth.
Troler
c:2 March 07, 2026 I removed the references from this quote. Please refer to the original article for further references.
⤴ ViewI would you to actually go this rabbit hole ad nauseam
Blender Dumbass
c:3 March 07, 2026... c:1
@Troler This is a Talmudic technique. I must try to understand everything to get to the ultimate truth.
Troler
c:5 March 07, 2026 The mention of this on Wikipedia links to a footnote in the definition of Free Software on GNU's website. The one we took the list of the four freedoms from. Said footnote reads differently.
⤴ ViewYou say Footnote?!
Troler
c:6 March 07, 2026 Let's quickly define "copyright" to understand it correctly. In the Wikipedia article about copyright we can read this:
⤴ ViewMy head is spinning, it feels like I am reading a law where the most rudimentary words are defined.
Troler
c:7 March 07, 2026 Freedom is when you control your copy. Power is when you control other people's copy
⤴ ViewAll freedom is related to property. I have freedom to do what I want with my body, my corporeal property. No one has the right to sexual property without my consent -- rape. No one has the right to take anyone's property of life -- murder.
Troler
c:8 March 07, 2026 Does Wikipedia apply Free Software? Does Wikipedia apply the ideas of Free Software? And does Wikipedia intentionally and significantly benefits society?
⤴ ViewWait... the whole article was about whether Wikipedia utilized principles of Free Software? I seemed to have blacked out by reading all those definitions of words I know.
Troler
c:9 March 07, 2026 And based upon the fact that Wikipedia runs on MediaWiki software that has its source code available and that includes a Free Software license with it ( making the software Free ), we can conclude that Wikipedia applies Free Software as well.
⤴ ViewAnd anyone can fork and modify all Wikipedia articles
- some are restricted, to prevent vandalism.
Troler
c:11 March 07, 2026 Richard Stallman is not thorough because of some neuro-divergence or syndrome. Richard Stallman is thorough because he is Jewish.
⤴ ViewHe is an autistic Jew.
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/windows_lock.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/freedom_vs_security.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/minifree_gaming.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/hope.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://peer.madiator.cloud/lazy-static/thumbnails/38a01a44-7857-4664-80bd-f076dd4e6142.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://peer.madiator.cloud/lazy-static/thumbnails/e0d0e17f-84bb-4d51-b44f-b113b97c517f.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/rms_too_extreme.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/dogwalk.png)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/want_it_dont_need_it.png)