"The trajectory was obvious in hindsight," said a technology historian. "It really started picking up steam back in version 7.1 when they dropped support for the Intel 80486 architecture. Everyone cheered. But then the momentum became unstoppable, particularly regarding hardware lifecycles."

Historians point to the late teens as the era when the kernel's hardware-compatibility window began to shrink rapidly. In version 18, the entire x86-64 architecture was removed from the kernel tree. Just one release later, version 19 saw the complete eradication of RISC-V support. Torvald's rationale, outlined in a mailing list post at the time, was that any silicon that had been off the fabrication line for longer than five minutes was "hopelessly outdated legacy garbage" and that writing drivers for it was "an insult to the very concept of forward progress."

By version 24, the kernel had been stripped of USB support entirely, because physically plugging something into a port was a crutch for people unwilling to write their data directly to the bus using a magnetized needle.

Now, with the release of version 27, the maintainers have achieved their ultimate vision: a kernel so flawlessly streamlined that it no longer contains the bloat of actual hardware compatibility. According to the changelog, Linux 27 strictly supports only quantum processors that are currently in a theoretical superposition within an unbuilt TSMC fabrication plant.

"If the silicon in your machine has physically cooled to room temperature, you're chaining us to the past," the v27 release notes state. "We're maintaining a kernel, not a museum for antique 12-minute-old semiconductors."

Across tech forums, people praised Linux 27 for this, though several reported slight difficulties getting their machines to boot.

"My boot time has been eliminated, which is a massive performance win," beamed a local server administrator, staring proudly at a completely inert, powered-down workstation. "Sure, the kernel instantly panics and refuses to mount my drive because my motherboard was manufactured this morning, making it ancient history. But when you look at the raw elegance of the Git tree? You have to respect the absolute purity of the code."

At press time, kernel developers were already preparing the merge window for version 28, which is rumored to drop support for electricity.

Copyright © 2026 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The response from the free software community has been to push back at the browser layer - LibreJS, NoScript, Trisquel's defaults, gentle public reminders that yes, that "web app" is a program, and yes, you are running it.

Fine. Good. Necessary.

Stallman's warning was directed at the browser because that's where, in 2009, the trap was being sprung. It's still being sprung there.

But here's the part nobody seems to want to say out loud: the trap's been quietly migrating out of the browser. It's also leaking into our command-line utilities. To understand, let's examine the widely used program yt-dlp.

I want to be careful here, because the tone of this piece matters.

yt-dlp is GPL'd. The project's healthy. The work's hard, and the adversary - Google's YouTube player, which mutates daily for the explicit purpose of breaking interoperability - is acting in bad faith on a scale that few free software projects have to deal with. The codebase is, by the standards of programs that have to keep up with a hostile, shape-shifting adversary like YouTube, remarkably clean. yt-dlp isn't Google. yt-dlp isn't Apple. yt-dlp isn't "OmniCorp."

None of that's in dispute, and none of that's the problem. Nothing in this post should be read as accusing yt-dlp of malice. yt-dlp is a friend, and friends can be told the truth.

The problem's what yt-dlp does for you when you ask it to download a video.

The friend, in this case, has confused two things. yt-dlp has confused being free software with only causing free software to be run on the user's machine. Those aren't the same proposition, and the difference is the entire subject of Stallman's essay.

YouTube no longer hands out media URLs. It hands out URLs that have been deliberately broken - the so-called signatureCipher and the n parameter - and it ships, every single day, a fresh blob of obfuscated, minified, non-free JavaScript called base.js whose entire purpose is to un-break those URLs. To make the download work, somebody has to execute Google's JavaScript. In the browser, that "somebody" is your browser, and Stallman already named that trap. In yt-dlp, that "somebody" used to be - and in many code paths still is - a 970-line file called yt_dlp/jsinterp.py.

"It's not really an interpreter, though." Yes, it is.

The first move in any honest examination of this issue has to be a definitional one, because the project's drift has been protected, in part, by a quiet linguistic hedge: the suggestion that yt_dlp/jsinterp.py is something less than a JavaScript interpreter.

This is the part where a certain kind of computer science purist tries to wave the problem away. They look at jsinterp.py, notice that it skips half of the textbook interpreter pipeline, and decides that what yt-dlp is doing isn't really running JavaScript. It's just... string manipulation. Pattern matching. A clever hack. Not an interpreter, surely. Therefore, not The JavaScript Trap. Therefore, nothing to worry about.

I want to take that argument seriously because it deserves to be taken seriously and then dismantled.

Yes, jsinterp.py is unusual. A canonical interpreter follows a textbook pipeline: Lexer → Parser → Abstract Syntax Tree → Evaluator. It's true, and it should be conceded up front, that jsinterp.py skips the middle two stages. There's no tokenizer. There's no AST. The file walks raw source-code substrings, peels constructs off the front with regular expressions and _separate_at_paren, and recurses on what's left. Parsing and evaluation are fused into a single pass. By the standards of V8, SpiderMonkey, or even small embeddable engines like QuickJS, this is unusual.

It's also irrelevant to the question. An interpreter's a program that executes a source language by walking its constructs and producing the language's observable effects. By that definition - the only definition that matters here - jsinterp.py is, indisputably, an interpreter for a subset of JavaScript. The evidence is in the file itself:

• It maintains a real lexical environment. LocalNameSpace, a ChainMap with set_local and get_local, provides proper scoping and shadowing. A string-replacement engine doesn't need scopes. An interpreter does.
• It dispatches recursively on language forms. interpret_statement and interpret_expression know about var/let/const, return, throw, try/catch/finally, blocks, regex literals, string literals, new Date(...), and void. This isn't pattern-matching. This is evaluation.
• It models JavaScript's semantics, not Python's, wherever the two diverge. int_to_int32, _js_bit_op, _js_arith_op, _js_div, _js_mod, _js_exp, _js_eq_op (loose equality, in all its sins), _js_comp_op, _js_ternary, JS_Undefined, and a faithful js_number_to_string with arbitrary radix and the JS-specific NaN/Infinity rules. Nobody implements == coercion on purpose unless they're running a JavaScript program and need to get the same answer that a browser would.
• It implements first-class functions and JS control flow. build_function, call_function, and extract_function_from_code produce callable function values that close over global_stack. JS_Break, JS_Continue, and JS_Throw are real Python exceptions, used to propagate break, continue, and throw up the recursive evaluator the way a tree-walking interpreter is supposed to.
• It has a debugger. The Debugger class, with wrap_interpreter, traces every call. A debugger that tracks variable scoping, function calls, and a global stack isn't something you build for a simple string-replacement library; you build it to trace an interpreter loop.

The git history confirms this trajectory. The file was created in youtube-dl on 2014 at 113 lines. By the time yt-dlp inherited it in 2021, it had already grown to 262 lines. Today, after 55 further commits, it's 971 lines and growing. Each of those commits have added more and more JavaScript semantics - more coercions, more control flow, more closures - for one reason: to keep up with the changes Google was shipping in base.js.

So let's please, finally, stop hedging. jsinterp.py is a recursive-descent, source-walking interpreter for a deliberately small but steadily growing subset of ECMAScript, and calling it that isn't pedantry. Calling it that is the transition point at which another question becomes unavoidable.

If jsinterp.py is an interpreter, then what is it interpreting?

It's interpreting base.js. It's interpreting a non-free, obfuscated, minified JavaScript blob that Google publishes for the explicit purpose of breaking direct access to media URLs, and which they rewrite constantly to keep the community off balance.

The yt-dlp documentation doesn't list base.js as a dependency, but make no mistake: every YouTube download utilizing this mechanism is the quiet execution of a Google-authored, non-free program on your local machine.

That is, definitionally, The JavaScript Trap. It doesn't become something else because the runtime is written in Python instead of C++. It doesn't become something else because the program is fetched once per session instead of once per page. It doesn't become something else because the user typed yt-dlp at a shell prompt instead of clicking a link. The freedom-violating substance of the trap is the silent execution of non-free software on the user's hardware. That substance is preserved exactly when the runtime moves from the browser into the terminal. The trap hasn't been disarmed. It's merely been relocated, and the relocation has hidden it from the people most likely to have objected.

I'm being precise about this because it matters. The freedom at stake isn't abstract. It's the freedom Stallman named, applied unchanged to a new venue.

"But we use Deno now."

People will, correctly, point out that for YouTube specifically, the heavy lifting has moved out of jsinterp.py and into yt_dlp/extractor/youtube/jsc/ - a pluggable "JS Challenge" framework whose built-in providers (deno.py, node.py, bun.py, quickjs.py) hand Google's base.js off to a real, external JavaScript runtime via the companion project yt-dlp-ejs. The README is candid about this:

While all the other dependencies are optional, ffmpeg, ffprobe, yt-dlp-ejs, and a supported JavaScript runtime/engine are highly recommended. A JavaScript runtime/engine such as Deno (recommended), Node.js, Bun, or QuickJS is also required to run yt-dlp-ejs.

I want to draw careful attention to what that paragraph actually says, because I think people have not heard it. It says: the recommended way to use this free software is also to install a JavaScript engine, fetch a separate JavaScript solver, and use them together to execute non-free JavaScript supplied by a third party. That's not a mitigation of The JavaScript Trap. That's The JavaScript Trap, documented and recommended as a configuration. The new path delegates The JavaScript Trap to a faster, more capable engine and, by default, adds the option to fetch additional non-free components over the network (--allow-external-components). The framework isn't the cure for jsinterp.py's freedom problem. It's jsinterp.py's freedom problem, scaled up and made faster.

This is the same category of confusion that I once gently pointed out in Mozilla's trademark policy. This organization means well; that is, it is on our side, but it has nevertheless built a workflow whose practical effect is to undermine a freedom it claims to support. With Mozilla, the freedom at stake was redistribution, except where Mozilla once confused the two meanings of "free"; with yt-dlp, the freedom at stake is the freedom not to silently run somebody else's program. The first is a property of the source. The second is a property of the runtime behavior. And the thread that has been lost is this: a free program that, in its normal operation, downloads and executes non-free software on the user's machine has, at that moment, become a delivery vehicle for non-free software. It doesn't matter that the delivery vehicle is GPL'd. It doesn't matter that the interpreter is handwritten and auditable. The payload is what runs, and the payload is base.js, and base.js is non-free.

What the restorative move looks like

The way out of an oppressive restriction, in the free software tradition, isn't to make the restriction more efficient. It's to build something that restores the right.

So I'd like to see a fork. Call it yt-dlp-libre, or whatever the community prefers. Two properties define it:

• No built-in JavaScript interpreter. yt_dlp/jsinterp.py is removed. Extractors that dependent on it are either fundamentally rewritten to use standard, open APIs where available, or they're disabled entirely with an honest message: "This site requires the execution of non-free JavaScript to access its media. yt-dlp-libre will not compromise your freedom to do that. Here's why you shouldn't run proprietary software."
• No callouts to external JavaScript runtimes. No Deno, no Node.js, no Bun, no QuickJS. No yt-dlp-ejs. No --js-runtimes. No --allow-external-components. The entire yt_dlp/extractor/youtube/jsc/ provider framework, including the plugin discovery system, is removed. If a site requires the user to run its proprietary JavaScript to interact with it, the answer's no.

A fork built this way will download from fewer sites. YouTube, in particular, will mostly stop working because it's been deliberately engineered to mostly not work without running Google's code. The current yt-dlp explicitly acknowledges this fallback path: in the absence of a JS runtime, the YouTube extractor degrades to a small set of clients (the README mentions only android_vr) that don't require signature deciphering, and certain signatureCipher formats are skipped. That isn't the bug. That's the fork telling the user the truth about what those sites are: A restrictive, hostile environment Google has deliberately engineered.

This is the standard free-software move, applied where it hasn't yet been applied: the right was the right not to run non-free programs without consent; the oppressive restriction was a website that deliberately broke its own URLs to coerce that consent invisibly; and the restorative freedom is a tool that refuses to participate in the coercion, even at the cost of features.

A short word to the community

We've done this work before. We did it for video codecs when we built free decoders. We did it for fonts. We did it for documentation. We do it, every release, for ourselves. The pattern's familiar, and the principle behind it hasn't changed: a user has the right to know, and to control, what runs on their computer. That necessitates the software be free software.

I don't think the maintainers of yt-dlp disagree with that principle. Or at least, I hope they don't. I think they've been fighting an exhausting, asymmetric war against a well-funded, well-organized adversary, and somewhere along the way, the question stopped being asked. The question's worth asking again, plainly, here at the end:

Whose program is running on your computer right now, and did you agree to run it?

If the honest answer is Google's, and no, then we already know what to do. We've always known.

Copyright © 2026 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

When it comes to my operating system, I have a strict hierarchy of needs: First, it must be 100% free software. Second, it needs to be incredibly, predictably boring.

I want a stable, long-term support (LTS) environment where package versions are frozen at release. I don't want to wake up, run an update, and find out that a shiny new software version just broke my workflow. I want my OS to get out of my way so I can actually focus on my work. Trisquel has met those exact needs for me since I first started using it in 2010, and Ecne continues that proud tradition.

But producing a "boring" and stable OS is anything but easy. Behind the scenes, it requires a staggering amount of work to keep the system secure, modern, and uncompromisingly free.

The "Trisquelations"

Between the release of Aramo and Ecne, the core Trisquel package-helpers repository recorded nearly 400 commits. What's incredible is that just 7 contributors shouldered this massive undertaking.

The trials and tribulations - what I like to call the "Trisquelations" - that this small team persevered through to deliver Ecne are staggering. At a high level, here's what they were up against:

• The Browser Treadmill: Keeping Abrowser (Trisquel's de-branded, privacy-respecting version of Firefox) updated is a relentless, never-ending battle. Because the modern web moves fast, the team had to constantly rewrite privacy patches, rip out undesirable stuff from upstream, and manually backport entirely new toolchains (like modern Rust and LLVM compilers) to get the browser to build on a stable OS base.
• The Kernel Cat-and-Mouse Game: Upstream Linux is constantly changing, introduces proprietary blobs, and Canonical adds even more. Ensuring freedom means the Trisquel team had to meticulously update deblobbing scripts to scrub out unfree code and silence firmware warnings.
• Improving the Base: Because Trisquel builds on top of an Ubuntu base, the team had to strip out an increasing number of commercial tie-ins. This meant ripping out Ubuntu Pro integrations, removing Snap enforcement, and preventing built-in tools from recommending non-free repositories.
• The Fragile App Ecosystem: Modern, secure communication apps (like Jami, Telegram, and Nextcloud) have complex dependency chains. Getting these to work securely on an LTS base required untangling and backporting dozens of specific libraries.
• Multi-Architecture Support: Let's not forget that the Titanic's still sinking. The team put in the hard work to ensure kernels, installers, and software continued to build for architectures like ARM and POWER.

The Unseen Heroes

While the commit logs highlight an immense technical effort, with the vast majority of those commits coming from Luis Guzmán (ark74), alongside Ruben Rodríguez, Jacob K, bill-auger, and dinomug, lines of code never tell the whole story.

There's an entire ecosystem of people whose work isn't necessarily attached to a Git commit, but is still vital. As the official release announcement perfectly puts it, making Ecne possible required a community contributing "through code, patches, bug reports, translations, and advice."

The release announcement gave special thanks to Luis "Ark74" Guzmán, prospero, icarolongo, Avron, knife, Simon Josefsson, Christopher Waid (ThinkPenguin), Denis "GNUtoo" Carikli, and the broader community that keeps the project alive and free.

Come In, The Water's Fine

Despite the mountain of interdependencies, upstream commercialization, and the relentless pace of web browser updates, this tiny team delivered. They shielded users from the chaos of modern software development and provided a sanctuary where our computers remain our own.

If you're tired of proprietary software, of your operating system fighting you, pushing advertisements, forcing updates, or serving as a telemetry-gathering tool for a massive corporation, I highly encourage you to make the switch to free software. Come on in; the water's fine. It's stable, it's free, and it stays out of your way.

A Call for Help (and Funding)

Trisquel survives on the dedication of a passionate community, but they shouldn't have to carry the weight of an entire distribution's freedom alone. Let's help make the next round of Trisquelations a little bit easier for them. Here's how you can pitch in:

• Contribute financially: Server hosting, infrastructure, and the sheer time required to maintain a secure, free OS aren't free. If you have the means, please consider making a financial donation to the project. It is one of the most direct ways you can ensure this vital work continues.
• Contribute your time: Please consider volunteering. Whether it's packaging software, managing patches, translating interfaces, testing, reporting bugs, or hanging out in the forums to help people, your time makes a difference.

Looking Ahead: The RISC-V Frontier

As much as I appreciate the stable, boring present that Ecne provides, I can't help but look forward to the future - specifically, the prospect of RISC-V support in Trisquel.

Of course, RISC-V is only an instruction set. A complete, functioning computer is much more than that just the instructions it understands. Modern systems require a complex web of secondary components, and even if the CPU's design is free, the surrounding silicon has lots of places where proprietary binary blobs love to hide. They lurk in memory controllers that require initialization firmware (such as DDR PHYs), power management co-processors, within integrated Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or graphics chips, and more.

My next personal project will be finding the time to hunt down appropriate RISC-V hardware to run it on. That is, assuming a board currently exists that can truly be used in software freedom. The hardware landscape is notoriously tricky, and finding a RISC-V machine that doesn't rely on hidden, proprietary binary blobs to initialize the RAM or boot the system and can run with software freedom included is a challenge of its own, and there's no guarantee of success. The trials and tribulations continue.

Copyright © 2026 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Think about how the Secret Service operates. They don't publish the exact thickness of the armor on the presidential limousine, and they certainly don't post blueprints of their safe houses on social media. They treat their VIP with absolute, silent protection. Your personal data is your VIP. The best digital fortresses are the ones nobody even knows exist.

Good OPSEC isn't just about hiding information. It's about designing systems so that a single failure can't bring everything down. Backups are where that philosophy becomes practical.

Rather than describing a specific personal setup, we'll walk through one potential reference architecture that incorporates some ransomware-resistant principles.

Imagine a setup where you have a variety of computers throughout your home. You could back up each of those machines individually, with each machine using its own backup drives, but that would be duplicating work. If a machine gets infected with malware while the backup drive is plugged in, your backup is encrypted along with your primary files.

The smarter approach is to dedicate a single, physical machine on the LAN to act as a centralized backup server.

Every computer in the house is configured to automatically back up to this central server over the network using the BorgBackup backup utility.

Because this server lives physically inside the house, behind the home router's firewall, we are operating on a "trusted LAN" model. For this specific local server, we are choosing not to encrypt the Borg repositories at rest.

Why? Because all the computers belong to you and are in your physical possession, skipping repository encryption on a trusted local server maximizes backup speed and reduces CPU overhead. (Don't worry - as I'll cover later, when the data eventually leaves the house for offsite cold storage, it will be locked down tight with heavy encryption).

This centralized local server is the foundation. But just having a server isn't enough to stop a modern threat. We have to trap the server in a cage.

The Ransomware Trap

When ransomware infects a computer, it rarely triggers immediately. Modern malware is patient. It quietly scans your system for connected drives, mapped network shares (such as standard NAS setups using SMB or CIFS), etc. If your backup server is just a shared network drive that the machine has full read/write access to, the ransomware will cheerfully encrypt (or delete) your backups first, ensuring you have no safety net when it finally detonates on your local machine.

To defeat this, we do not mount the central backup server as a standard network drive. Instead, BorgBackup communicates over SSH.

First, turn off password authentication and require SSH keys. However, simply giving your computers standard SSH access creates a new vulnerability. If a machine is compromised, the malware could theoretically hijack that SSH key, log into the central backup server, and either run a destructive command like rm -rf to delete the repository entirely or encrypt the backups.

To solve this, we strip the client of all power and don't give the client computers a normal shell. Instead, we trap them in a highly restricted cage using a feature called SSH forced commands.

On the central backup server, each client computer's public SSH key is placed in the authorized_keys file. But instead of just pasting the key, we prepend it with absolute restrictions:

command="borg serve --append-only --restrict-to-path /backups/machine1",restrict ssh-ed25519 AAAAC3... machine1@home

The restrict keyword disables interactive terminal access, port forwarding, and agent forwarding. The command="...": tells the backup server to completely ignore whatever command the client machine wants to run, and forcefully execute the Borg server process instead. The --append-only tells the Borg server that this specific client is only allowed to add new data to the repository. It's stripped of the ability to prune, delete, or overwrite any historical archives.

The Resulting Trap

Imagine one of the computers gets hit with a devastating ransomware attack. The malware encrypts your local hard drive and then tries to reach across the network to destroy your backups.

Because the cage is append-only, the malware fails. It can certainly upload the newly-encrypted files into today's backup snapshot, but it can't modify or delete the pristine backups from yesterday, last week, or last month. The historical data remains perfectly preserved and entirely out of the malware's reach.

If the client computers on the network are trapped in an append-only cage, a practical problem arises: won't the backup server eventually run out of hard drive space?

Yes, it will. Because client computers can't delete old snapshots, the backup repositories will continue to grow forever. To reclaim that space, we have to prune and compact the old archives periodically. But here's the critical security rule for this architecture: There's no "God-mode" SSH key floating around the network.

If you create an administrative SSH key that can run borg prune or borg delete and leave that key sitting on a machine, you have just built a backdoor for the ransomware. Even if you keep that key offline and only plug it in now and again, while the malware is waiting, it can notice the drive connecting and snatch the key for later use. If your machine is compromised, the attacker steals that admin key, bypasses your append-only cage, and wipes the server.

The Maintenance Ritual

For this reason, remote administration for destructive commands isn't allowed by design. The only SSH stuff allowed is with those keys that are limited to append-only backups. When it's time to do server maintenance, the only way to administer the backup server is to physically walk up to it with a plugged-in keyboard and monitor.

This creates an air gap for administrative privileges. Even if someone compromises every single machine on the local network, they still don't have remote admin access to the backup server, nor can they physically press the keys on its keyboard.

Every few months, you can instead sit down at the server console, log in locally, and run a maintenance script.

Borg handles deduplication brilliantly, so keeping a long history of files doesn't take up as much space as you might think. For this home architecture, a highly practical Grandfather-Father-Son retention policy looks like this:

#!/bin/bash

REPOS=("/backups/machine1" "/backups/machine2" "/backups/machine3")

for REPO in "${REPOS[@]}"; do
echo "Pruning $REPO..."
borg prune --list --stats \
--keep-daily=14 \
--keep-weekly=8 \
--keep-monthly=12 \
--keep-yearly=5 \
"$REPO"

echo "Compacting $REPO to free up physical space..."
borg compact "$REPO"
done

echo "Maintenance complete."

This script tells borg to look at the thousands of hourly and daily snapshots that the append-only clients have piled up, and thin them out. It keeps a dense history of the last two weeks, rolls the rest into weekly and monthly milestones, and retains a 5-year deep archive.

After pruning the index, the script runs borg compact, which actually tells the server to physically delete unreferenced data chunks and return the freed space to the hard drive.

Once the script finishes, you log out of the console, turn off the monitor, and walk away. The server goes back to silently catching incoming append-only data, practically invincible to anything happening on the network.

The Ultimate Failsafe: Deep Cold Storage on LTO Tape

This reference design builds a local backup server that can't be logically destroyed by ransomware over the network, and we have physically isolated its administrative controls. But it still has a fatal flaw: it exists in the physical world.

If the building burns down in a fire or a burglar walks out the front door with the physical machine and the drives, the data's gone. Local backups, no matter how logically secure, can't protect against a total site loss.

To survive a total site loss, the data must be removed from the site. But remember our OPSEC rules: the moment our data leaves our physically secure home network, it enters untrusted territory. We can't just copy unencrypted Borg repositories to external drives and leave them at a friend's house.

The solution is deep cold storage using LTO tape. Tape is inexpensive per terabyte, mathematically immune to network-based ransomware once ejected, and perfect for throwing in a safe deposit box.

Because the local server handles the day-to-day granular recovery (like restoring a document you accidentally deleted yesterday), we don't need to write to tape every day. A less frequent schedule seems more appropriate. Perhaps quarterly, but it really depends on your needs to provide a reasonably fresh total-loss recovery point without turning tape rotation into a tedious chore.

Writing to tape isn't like copying a file to a drive. Tape drives stream data linearly, and they absolutely hate being starved of data - a condition that causes "shoe-shining," where the tape stops, rewinds, and restarts, wearing out both the tape and the drive mechanism.

To dump the entire unencrypted local Borg repository to an encrypted tape smoothly for later offsite storage, you can use a robust BASH pipeline:

#!/bin/sh

TAPE="/dev/nst0"
# Calculate the total size of the Borg repository for the progress meter
totalsize=$(du -csb . | tail -1 | cut -f1)

# The Pipeline: tar -> gpg -> pipemeter -> mbuffer -> tape
tar cf - . | \
gpg --symmetric --cipher-algo AES256 --compress-algo none | \
pipemeter -s $totalsize -a -l | \
mbuffer -m 3G -P 95% -f -R 100M -o $TAPE \
-A "echo next tape; mt-st -f $TAPE eject ; read a < /dev/tty"


Here's exactly what's happening:

• tar cf - .: This reads the raw Borg repository files from the local hard drive and packages them into a continuous data stream (standard output) rather than creating a massive file on the disk.
• gpg --symmetric: This intercepts the tar stream and encrypts it on the fly using AES. Notice the --compress-algo none flag? Borg already heavily compresses its chunks. Trying to compress data that's already compressed wastes CPU cycles and slows down the pipeline, potentially starving the tape drive.
• pipemeter: This provides a visual progress bar based on the total size we calculated at the beginning of the script.
• mbuffer: This catches the encrypted stream and holds it in a 3-Gigabyte RAM buffer (-m 3G). It waits until the buffer is 95% full (-P 95%) before starting to write to the tape at a steady, controlled rate (-R 100M). This guarantees the tape drive is constantly fed and never "shoe-shines."
• -A "echo next tape...": If your Borg repository is larger than a single tape's capacity, mbuffer automatically pauses, ejects the full tape, and prompts you to insert the next one to span the archive across multiple volumes seamlessly.

Offsite OPSEC

Once the script finishes, you eject the tape and physically remove it from the building.

Because the data stream was encrypted before it ever touched the magnetic tape, the physical location where you store it doesn't need to be a digital fortress. You can drop it in a bank vault, leave it in a locked desk drawer at your office, or hand it to a trusted family member. If someone steals the tape, they get a useless spool of cryptographic noise.

Conclusion: We Do Not Negotiate

This builds a reference architecture that logically defeats network-based ransomware using an append-only cage, physically air-gaps its own administrative controls, and survives a total site disaster through offsite encrypted LTO tape storage.

In the event of a catastrophic ransomware infection or if your house burns to the ground, you can walk into your bank vault, grab the tape, and restore it on a brand-new computer anywhere in the world with zero extra hardware. The only thing you need is to keep the passphrase in your memory. It's the ultimate zero-footprint recovery.

With this architecture in place, your response to a catastrophic ransomware infection is no longer a panic attack. It is a sterile, mechanical process:

• Do Not Negotiate: You don't email the attackers. You do not check Bitcoin's price.
• Scorched Earth: You completely wipe the drives. You don't try to clean them with antivirus software; you format the drives and reinstall the operating systems from scratch. In the worst-case scenario, you buy new computers to ensure no persistence mechanisms survive.

You then connect the freshly installed, sterile machines back to the network, point them at the uninfected historical archives on your local Borg server, and restore your files.

If a true disaster manages to destroy the local server physically? You go to your offsite location, grab your tapes, and use your memorized passphrase to restore from that.

The Final Word on OPSEC

This is one possible reference architecture, and it can be improved in many ways. For example, the backup server should notify you if some machine misses it's regularly-scheduled backup appointment. Also, you should regularly test your recovery procedures by restoring data from different points in time. This practice verifies that your backup system functions correctly and that your data can be reliably recovered when needed.

But whatever specific details you establish, treat your data like a VIP, which means giving it quiet, invisible, and unforgiving protection. Strong processes and policies around backups eliminate the leverage of extortionists and the risk of facility losses.

Copyright © 2026 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

For forty years, the Cylons had been silent. To the citizens of the Twelve Colonies, the war was ancient history - a dark chapter taught in schools, but utterly disconnected from their modern, prosperous reality.

Against this backdrop of unprecedented peace, Admiral William Adama continued to enforce a strict, fiercely unpopular rule on the aging Battlestar Galactica: absolutely no networked computers. To the younger crew, the press, and the politicians, Adama was a paranoid dinosaur. He was an artifact of a bygone era, stubbornly clinging to an outmoded view of a world that had long since moved on.

For a modern free software advocate, looking at Microsoft today feels exactly like standing on the un-networked bridge of the Galactica.

Those of us who have been around long enough remember the First Cylon War. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Microsoft's posture toward free software was defined by overt, existential hostility. It was a war of survival, and the attacks weren't subtle. We saw the leaks of the Halloween Documents, which explicitly detailed Microsoft's internal strategies to disrupt and undermine. We watched their executives publicly brand the GPL a "cancer." We lived under the constant, looming shadow of software patents, wielded as a bludgeon to threaten and trap us.

But today, we're living in the armistice. The tune has drastically changed. The corporate messaging is plastered across the tech industry: "Microsoft Loves Open Source." They bought GitHub and became its top contributor. The overt patent threats have gone quiet.

Yet, if you listen closely to this modern diplomacy, there's a massive, glaring tell regarding their true motivations: Microsoft explicitly and constantly praises "open source," but they carefully, deliberately avoid ever talking about "software freedom."

That omission isn't an accident. "Open source" is a development methodology - a highly effective, profitable way to build and maintain software. "Software freedom" is a moral philosophy. Microsoft eagerly adopted the methodology because it served their bottom line, but they never adopted the ethics.

Which brings me back to the DRADIS console. When I look at the landscape today - the free software licenses, the corporate treaties, the sudden influx of goodwill from a historic enemy - the lingering question remains. Am I just an outmoded version of Adama for still looking over my shoulder?

Why the Cylons Stopped Attacking

So why did the attacks stop? Why did the empire that once called the GPL a "cancer" suddenly put down its weapons, embrace our community, and start publishing its own code as free software?

If you listen to the PR, it sounds like a corporate redemption arc. But looking at the board, the reality's far more pragmatic. It wasn't a moral awakening. The Cylons didn't suddenly develop a conscience, and Microsoft didn't suddenly realize the ethics of free software.

They stopped because they were losing a massive, existential war.

While Microsoft was busy trying to crush free software, the battlefield fundamentally shifted out from under them. The industry's future moved to "the cloud". And in the "cloud computing" space, Amazon (AWS) had become the dominant empire.

Almost overnight, Microsoft found itself in an unfamiliar position: the underdog. Their traditional tactics - locking people into proprietary, Windows-only, heavily patented environments - were failing spectacularly against the flexible, predominantly free software-based infrastructure that AWS offered. People were leaving in droves because Amazon gave them the tools they actually wanted to use.

Microsoft was bleeding relevance, and they needed a new strategy to survive. As industry observer Matt Asay pointed out, "open source is the weapon underdogs use to break a monopoly."

When you can no longer beat the dominant player with proprietary software, you embrace the community to undercut them. Microsoft's massive pivot wasn't a true peace treaty; it was a calculated flanking maneuver. By making their frameworks free, contributing to the free software movement, and suddenly playing nice with the community, they weren't surrendering to it; they were embracing it. They were weaponizing the "open source" methodology to recruit developers, hoping to use that goodwill to fight a much bigger enemy.

The Locked Patent Hammer

If we accept that this is a tactical maneuver rather than a philosophical awakening, we have to ask: why don't they use their massive patent portfolio to crush free software anyway?

The answer is mutually assured destruction. Attacking free software today would be corporate suicide.

Microsoft's entire strategy relies entirely on developer goodwill. They've spent years painstakingly building a narrative that they're the friendly, developer-centric alternative to Amazon Web Services' cold, calculating machine.

To maintain this narrative, they had to sign an armistice. In 2018, Microsoft joined the Open Invention Network (OIN), bringing tens of thousands of its patents into a defensive pool designed to "protect" us. They issued corporate patent promises assuring that they wouldn't sue us for building compliant software on ecosystems like .NET.

These agreements are the locks placed on the patent hammer. Microsoft keeps that hammer locked away because they know exactly what would happen if they ever took it out and started swinging it around at free software again. The backlash would be instantaneous and catastrophic. Years of carefully curated "Microsoft Loves Open Source" PR would vaporize overnight, and developers would immediately migrate their infrastructure back to AWS.

Right now, in this specific phase of "the cloud war", the risk of Microsoft filing a patent lawsuit against the free software community is effectively zero.

But this is where the Adama mindset kicks in. A locked hammer is still a hammer.

If you read the fine print of these armistice agreements, you see the escape hatches. A company can legally withdraw from the OIN with just 30 days' notice. Corporate "promises" are policy decisions, not irrevocable, binding freedoms like the GPL.

We're living in an illusion of safety, built entirely on current market conditions. The Cylons haven't dismantled their weapons; they've just turned the safeties on because firing them would damage their own ship. And history tells us that peace treaties only last exactly as long as they're strategically convenient.

Will We See the Basestars on the Horizon?

This brings us to the most dangerous question of all - the one that keeps the Adama mindset alive. We know why the Cylons put down their weapons. But what happens if they actually win?

What happens if "the cloud wars" end, AWS is defeated or marginalized, and Microsoft regains absolute, unchallenged dominance over the tech industry?

The moment they're no longer the underdog, the entire strategic calculus changes. The desperate need for developer goodwill, which is the very foundation of this current peace, vanishes. When you're the only game in town, you don't need to play nice. You dictate the terms.

If Microsoft reclaims that monopoly, its tone and attitude will inevitably shift. The armistice agreements that protect free software today will suddenly become strategic liabilities for a dominant empire. Corporate "promises" might be easily revised. The locks on the patent hammer, secured by a flimsy 30-day exit clause, might be quietly opened.

But if they do go Cylon again, what does a modern attack actually look like?

They learned from the First Cylon War. A barrage of direct patent lawsuits against free software is loud, messy, and instantly rallies the resistance. Today, the attack would be a Silent Fleet.

It would be a quiet enclosure of the ecosystem. Because they've spent years luring people in with the "Come here, we have Linux, we love it" trap, they already control the underlying infrastructure. The modern attack takes those foundations and gradually introduces proprietary extensions that work only on Azure or Windows - starving the free versions of their tools of crucial updates. In contrast, the proprietary versions get all the optimization.

They won't need to sue the free software community. They'll just slowly, quietly extinguish our software freedom by wrapping it in a proprietary web until we can't move.

Looking at the DRADIS

This brings us back to the Old Man and his un-networked ship.

To be clear, this isn't a manifesto to immediately purge every piece of Microsoft-backed code, avoid C#, etc. This isn't about declaring that using their free software tools today is strictly "good" or "bad."

It's simply about recognizing the board's reality.

There's a moment early on in Battlestar Galactica where a civilian teacher confronts Admiral Adama in the corridors of the ship. She's frustrated by his archaic rules, telling him that a computerized network would simply make it faster and easier for the teachers to be able to do their jobs. She accuses him of just being afraid of computers.

He apologizes for the inconvenience, but firmly declares, "I will not allow a networked computerized system to be placed on this ship while I'm in command."

To many, things like C# and .NET are exactly that integrated network.

Personally, I don't find C# or .NET technically interesting or appealing in the slightest. The pressure to use it doesn't come from its technical merits; it comes from the sheer gravity of its ecosystem. When a prgram written in C# is the only existing free software compiler for a language you want to use, the path of least resistance is to just install it and get to work.

But just because everyone else is eagerly wiring their ships together doesn't mean it's safe.

Adama didn't refuse to network the Galactica because he hated technology or progress. He refused because he remembered who the Cylons were. He understood that a prolonged period of quiet doesn't change the fundamental nature of an empire. He knew that the moment you sacrifice your systemic independence, you leave yourself entirely vulnerable to the whims of an entity that once tried to destroy you.

As I see people using their tools and happily embracing them, I have to ask myself: Am I just an outmoded version of Adama for still wondering about this? Is my skepticism just a relic of the First Cylon War, completely out of touch with this new era of corporate benevolence?

Maybe. But if the situation does change - if Microsoft wins "the cloud wars", sheds its underdog status, and the strategic necessity of playing nice evaporates - what happens next? Will the free software community notice the basestars assembling on the horizon in time to react?

Or have we grown so comfortable that Caprica will burn before we even realize the network's been compromised?

In the meantime, my DRADIS console is still scanning.

Copyright © 2026 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I've been following the development for a while. I knew the frontend had finally landed in the GCC trunk and was slated for the GCC 16 release this coming Spring. I was expecting a solid status report: some details on the test suite, some new compiler flags, a demo of the new automake integration.

What I wasn't expecting was a direct challenge to the current king of systems programming safety.

Jose didn't just demo a retro-computing curiosity; he made a very specific, technical argument: that Algol 68 - a language defined in 1968 - is, in practice, safer than Rust. Not just "as safe," but safer.

It sounds like heresy in 2026. But after digging into the Revised Report and examining its runtime safety checks, he has a point, making Algol 68 a compelling safety alternative.

For the uninitiated, ga68 isn't an emulator or an interpreter designed to run dusty punch-card decks. It's a full-fledged GCC frontend. This means Algol 68 is joining C, C++, Fortran, Ada, and Go as a first-class citizen within the GNU Compiler Collection.

The project's been moving fast. The frontend was merged into GCC in November 2025. This locks it in for the upcoming GCC 16 release.

This isn't a nostalgia trip. Jose and the new GNU Algol 68 working group are reviving the language as a serious and practical tool for modern development. They aren't treating it as a "dead" language to be studied, but as a "sleeping" language to be woken up. The implementation includes full support for the standard GNU toolchain - meaning you can use automake, autoconf, and GDB just as you would with C. It compiles to machine code, links with standard system libraries, and interacts with the OS without needing a special runtime sandbox.

In short: Algol 68's back, and it's shipping in the same compiler suite that powers the entire free software ecosystem.

The boldest assertion emerging from the FOSDEM talk is that while Rust has succeeded in reviving interest in tooling, it fails as a language due to its complexity. The argument is stark: Rust is "awful" to write, whereas Algol 68 - once fully equipped with its specified runtime checks - offers superior safety without the struggle.

This claim hinges on a fundamental difference in how "safety" is defined and enforced.

Rust achieves safety through static analysis. Its borrow checker rigorously enforces ownership and lifetimes at compile time. If the compiler cannot prove your code's safety, it refuses to build it. This is the famous "zero-cost abstraction," but it comes with a high cognitive cost: the developer must constantly prove their memory logic to the compiler.

Algol 68, by contrast, relies on dynamic safety. The language specification mandates strict Scope Rules that prevent dangling pointers (references to data that no longer exist). Instead of forcing the programmer to manage lifetimes with complex syntax explicitly, the runtime environment enforces these rules as the program executes.

The trade-offs are clear: Rust demands you solve the safety puzzle before you can even run your code. Algol 68 lets you write natural, algorithmic code, trusting the runtime to catch any violations. Safety is implicit in the environment rather than explicit in the source code.

The rule is elegantly simple and crucial for safety: You can't assign a reference to a variable if the reference's scope is shorter than the variable's. If you declare a variable inside a block (a local scope), its lifetime is bound to that block. If you try to assign a reference to that local variable to a pointer that lives outside that block (a global or heap scope), the assignment is invalid.

In Rust, the compiler yells at you before you can even run the program, enforcing safety at compile time. In C, the compiler stays silent, risking crashes or memory corruption later. In Algol 68, the runtime check catches scope violations immediately, ensuring safe execution without the overhead of static analysis.

This is what I call "Zero-Cognitive-Cost" Safety. You don't have to wrestle with lifetime annotations or fight the borrow checker. You write your algorithm naturally. If you make a mistake with scopes, the runtime protects you. You get the memory safety of a managed language without the overhead of a heavy garbage collector or the complexity of a static prover. It's safety that gets out of your way until you actually need it.

This leads to the most critical distinction in the safety debate: the escape hatch.

In Rust, the borrow checker is notoriously strict. It's so strict, in fact, that implementing common data structures - like a doubly linked list or a graph with cycles - is often impossible using safe Rust alone. To get around this, the language provides the unsafe keyword. This is an escape hatch that allows the programmer to tell the compiler, "Trust me, I know what I'm doing." Inside that block, the safety guarantees vanish, and you're back to manual memory management with all its potential for segmentation faults and data races.

This creates a paradox: to write advanced, high-performance systems code in the "safest" language, you often have to turn off the safety mechanism.

Algol 68 takes a different approach, rooted in Orthogonality. The language was designed so that its features - references, structures, and unions - combine uniformly without edge cases that require rule-breaking.

Take Unions, for example. In C (and unsafe Rust), a union is just a raw chunk of memory that you can interpret however you want - a classic source of bugs. In Algol 68, a UNION is a Tagged Union (what Rust calls an enum, but Algol had it in 1968). The runtime carries the type information with the data. To access the value inside a union, you must use a Conformity Clause (a case statement). If you try to access an integer as a pointer, the program doesn't segfault or corrupt memory; the runtime check directs you to the correct handler or halts.

There's no unsafe keyword in Algol 68. There's no mode to turn off scope checks or the type system. The language is safe everywhere, not just mostly. You can build complex, self-referential data structures using standard language features, secure in the knowledge that the runtime is still watching your back.

It's easy to dismiss a language from the 1960s as archaic, assuming it lacks the sophisticated abstractions we enjoy today. But when you look at Algol 68, you realize that what we consider "modern" programming is often just the rest of the world catching up to Adrian van Wijngaarden's design.

Expression-Oriented Programming: One of the features Rust developers love most is that "everything is an expression." You can assign the result of an if block or a loop directly to a variable. Algol 68 was doing this half a century ago. Unlike C, where statements (like if or while) are distinct from expressions and return no value, Algol 68 treats almost every construct as a unit that yields a value. This allows for concise, functional-style logic without the need for auxiliary variables or side effects - a hallmark of modern clean code.

First-Class Procedures: In many older languages, functions are static blocks of code you jump to. In Algol 68, a procedure is a value with a specific mode (type). You can pass procedures as arguments to other procedures, return them, or store them in data structures. This enables higher-order functions and a programming style that feels remarkably like using lambdas in Python or JavaScript, while maintaining strict static type checking.

Concurrency as a Primitive: Perhaps the most shocking feature to find in a 1968 specification is the Parallel Clause. Long before pthreads or Java made threading mainstream, Algol 68 introduced the PAR keyword. By simply prefixing a block with PAR, the compiler generates the necessary fork-join infrastructure to run the enclosed statements concurrently. But it didn't stop at launching threads; the standard library (the "standard prelude") included semaphores and mutexes as built-in types. The language designers recognized that concurrency was the future of computing and baked the synchronization primitives directly into the core definition.

One of the most compelling arguments isn't about syntax, but about citizenship.

Modern languages often arrive with a philosophy of isolation. Go has its own unique way of handling dependencies; Rust lives inside cargo; Node has npm. They create "language ghettos" - walled gardens where the tooling is excellent as long as you stay inside the walls, but integrating with the rest of the system becomes a headache of FFI bindings and complex build scripts.

The GNU Algol 68 project takes the opposite approach. It aims to be a "good citizen" of the free software ecosystem.

Modernizing the Syntax: SUPPER Stropping: To make the language usable on modern terminals, the GNU implementation introduces "SUPPER stropping." In the 1960s, "stropping" was the method used to distinguish keywords (like BEGIN or REAL) from user variables. You either had to type everything in uppercase or wrap keywords in quotes ('BEGIN'). SUPPER stropping is a pragmatic GNU extension that allows for a mix of upper-case keywords and standard identifiers, making Algol 68 code look and feel like a modern language while retaining its rigorous parsing structure.

The Toolchain is the Ecosystem: Crucially, ga68 is designed to work with the standard GNU toolchain, not replace it.

• Build Systems: You don't need a special Algol build tool. You use Automake and Autoconf. The project has already upstreamed support, meaning you can mix Algol 68 sources right alongside C and C++ in your Makefile.am.
• The Linker: It uses the system linker (ld). It produces standard shared objects (.so). This means you can write a library in Algol 68 and link it dynamically against a C program, or vice versa, without massive overhead.

By adhering to these standards, GNU Algol 68 allows developers to incrementally adopt the language for safe system components without rewriting their entire infrastructure. It respects the operating system rather than trying to abstract it away.

Why This Matters

The return of Algol 68 proves a vital point: "old" doesn't mean "obsolete."

We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that the problems we face today - memory safety, concurrency, build complexity - are unique to the modern era, and that our solutions must therefore be novel. But Jose Marchesi and the GNU Algol 68 project have shown us that the solutions were already there, buried in a report, waiting for the hardware to catch up.

The claim that Algol 68 is "safer than Rust" isn't meant to diminish the incredible work done by the Rust community. It offers an alternative path to safety - one that relies on rigorous, orthogonal language design and robust runtime support rather than placing the entire cognitive burden on the developer at compile time.

I encourage you to visit algol68-lang.org. Download the Revised Report (or the much friendlier Informal Introduction).

We spend so much time looking forward to the next big framework or language feature. It may be time we looked back. The key to a safer, more sane future for systems programming might just be waiting for us in the past.

Copyright © 2026 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

One of the most common objections raised when considering a move to free software goes something like "I can't switch, because my favorite program isn't available on GNU/Linux." They perceive the inability to run a specific piece of proprietary software as a technical deficiency of the free system. They see it as a bug. This reaction misunderstands the point of the transition: They're judging the free world by its ability to replicate the prison walls they just left.

The goal of switching to free software is to gain full control over your computing, not to remain under the control of a proprietary software developer. The aim is to break free from that restrictive relationship entirely. When viewed this way, the fact that proprietary software doesn't follow you isn't a failure - it's evidence that the transition to freedom is happening.

To understand why this reaction is a fallacy, we must examine how they handle migration between different proprietary systems. When we examine these scenarios, it becomes immediately clear that the free software is being held to a uniquely impossible standard - a double standard that users would never apply to Apple, Microsoft, or Nintendo.

People already accept this reality everywhere else. If someone moves from macOS to Windows, they don't expect their Apple-only tools to come along for the ride magically. Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and Xcode aren't available outside Apple's ecosystem. Likewise, moving from Windows to macOS means leaving behind certain Microsoft-centric tools that exist only within Microsoft's ecosystem. What is the user's reaction to this discovery? Do they declare that Windows is a "broken" operating system? Do they post angry tirades on forums claiming that Microsoft is "not ready for the desktop" because it failed to run an Apple binary? Nobody interprets this as a moral failing on the part of the destination platform. It's understood as a basic fact of switching ecosystems. They do not blame the destination for the baggage they left behind.

Yet when the destination is GNU/Linux, this same reality is suddenly framed as evidence that free software is "lacking," "immature," or "unusable."

This is the core of the double standard. Free software isn't about copying proprietary operating systems at no cost. It's about ending the abusive relationships with proprietary software developers. Free software exists to free users from those relationships, not to replicate them.

If your proprietary application ran unchanged on your new system, that would mean you brought the cage with you. Losing proprietary software isn't a loss of freedom - it's the recovery of it. When people say, "I can't use my old software anymore," what they're often experiencing is the discomfort of losing familiarity, not the loss of capability.

That discomfort is real. But it's also transitional.

What you're actually shedding is:

• Forced upgrade cycles
• File formats designed to trap your data
• DRM, telemetry, and activation servers
• The threat that tomorrow's update removes yesterday's functionality

These things were never neutral conveniences. They were mechanisms of control. Free software removes them by design.

None of this is about punishing users for liking familiar tools, or pretending that migration costs don't exist. It's about being honest about the tradeoff: Short-term convenience versus long-term autonomy. Free software asks users to put in effort now to regain control later - over their tools, their data, and their freedom. This investment is essential for long-term autonomy. It's not a flaw; it's the entire point.

So the correct question isn't: "Why doesn't my proprietary application run on GNU/Linux?" It's: "What tools exist in this ecosystem that solve my problem without placing me back under that abusive relationship?"

Once you ask that question, the conversation changes. You stop measuring free software by how well it preserves dependency and start evaluating it by how effectively it restores freedom.

Escaping unethical control is rarely comfortable at first. But if Apple, Microsoft, or any other proprietary vendor no longer decides what you can run, how long it works, or whether you're allowed to access your own data, then something important has already been achieved. It's the sound of the door closing behind you - and staying closed.

Copyright © 2026 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I set out to find out. I expected to find what I always find when I explore a new domain of software: a vibrant ecosystem of free software.

Instead, I found a world seemingly untouched by the ideals of software freedom.

As I looked into the most popular software for writing interactive fiction, I didn't find the free software movement's bazaars of freely licensed software. I found a walled garden filled with proprietary compilers and proprietary documentation, all being used to build proprietary games. Worse, I found a community that didn't just tolerate these restrictive chains - they celebrated them. I watched as they hosted competitions to build proprietary text adventures with these proprietary tools, handing out awards to authors for being masters of their craft, all while ignoring that the very tools they were using were restricting them and the proprietary games they made were restricting their users.

For someone like me, who has lived and breathed the philosophy of free software for so long - someone who is intimately familiar with how proprietary software mistreats its users - it was a disorienting shock. It felt like stumbling into a backwards, upside-down reality, a digital Planet of the Apes where the values I held as self-evident were not just ignored, but actively inverted. I had walked into the dark without a light, and I realized, quite suddenly, that I was likely to be eaten by a grue.

To understand how we got here, we have to look back at the genre's origins. It all began with Colossal Cave Adventure. Generally considered the first text adventure game, it was a simulation of a real cave system in Kentucky, mixed with fantasy elements. You explored the cave, found treasures, and solved puzzles. But it was primitive. It relied on a simple two-word parser that only understood verb-noun commands like "GET LAMP" or "KILL SNAKE." If you tried anything more complex, the game couldn't understand you.

Some time later, a group of hackers at MIT decided they could do better than Colossal Cave. They were part of the Dynamic Modelling (DM) group, which was located in the same building (545 Tech Square) as the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Lab, where Richard Stallman worked. Both groups were steeped in the same hacker culture and had a PDP-10 mainframe running the Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS).

The folks at the DM group looked at Colossal Cave and saw a challenge. They began writing their own game, which they eventually called Zork. Unlike its predecessor, Zork was technically sophisticated. It featured a parser that could understand complex natural-language sentences. You weren't stuck with two-word commands; you could type something like "open the green door with the red key and then go east," and the game would actually understand and execute it.

Zork was initially implemented in a Lisp-like programming language called Muddle (shortened to MDL, but pronounced Muddle), developed explicitly by the DM group. By 1977, the game had become a massive hit on the ARPANET, and people across the country were logging in to solve its puzzles. The developers - Tim Anderson, Marc Blank, Bruce Daniels, and Dave Lebling - eventually decided to commercialize it. They founded a company called Infocom and set out to sell Zork to the general public as proprietary software.

However, they hit a massive technical wall. The mainframe version of Zork used a megabyte of memory, an astronomical amount for the time. The popular home computers of the era, like the Apple II or TRS-80, had a tiny fraction of that, often as little as 32KB.

Their solution was twofold. First, they split the massive original game into a trilogy: Zork I, Zork II, and Zork III. Second, they invented the Z-Machine.

The Z-Machine was a virtual machine that allowed them to run their massive game on tiny hardware. It used a custom character set called ZSCII to pack text efficiently, but its real magic was how it handled memory. It treated the floppy disk as if it were RAM, implementing a form of virtual memory that paged data in and out as needed. This allowed games that were far larger than the computer's physical memory to run smoothly.

As the home computer market exploded in the 1980s with dozens of incompatible systems, the Z-Machine became Infocom's secret weapon. They didn't need to rewrite their games for every new computer; they just had to write a Z-Machine interpreter for that specific machine, and all of their games would run on it instantly. This platform independence fueled their success for years.

But eventually, Infocom ran into hard times, was purchased by Activision in 1986, and shut down in 1989, marking the end of the era of commercial interactive fiction but not of proprietary interactive fiction.

As the computer industry marched forward, replacing the Apple IIs and Commodore 64s with newer, faster machines, people found themselves unable to run the games they had purchased. The community didn't wait for permission to solve this. A group known as the InfoTaskForce set about reverse-engineering the Z-Machine: they figured out how the virtual machine worked, bit by bit, until they could write their own interpreters. This was a triumph of hacker ingenuity, but its primary goal was preservation: they did it so they could continue to run Infocom's proprietary games on modern hardware.

Into this environment stepped Graham Nelson. He didn't just want to play old games; he tried to make new ones. He dissected the Z-Machine format further and made Inform. It was a compiler and a language of the same name that could generate Z-Machine story files, effectively giving anyone the ability to do what only Infocom could do a decade prior.

However, despite this, the "free software" ethos was missing. Graham Nelson used his new compiler to make a game called Curses. But like the Infocom games that inspired it, Curses was proprietary. It was distributed as an opaque binary file - freeware, yes, but not free software. You could play it, but you couldn't study how it was made, you couldn't modify it, and you certainly couldn't learn from its source code.

This tone has continued in the interactive fiction community. There's a culture in which authors release their game files but keep their source code jealously guarded.

This culture of secrecy is codified in the community's institutions to this day. The major competitions, such as the Interactive Fiction Competition (IFComp), generally require that entries be "unreleased." In the world of free software, we develop in the open; we push our code to public git repositories, we welcome collaboration, and we share our progress. But in the interactive fiction community, our way of life is effectively banned. To participate, you must develop your game in secret, hidden away on a private drive, ensuring no one sees a line of code until the "grand reveal." It's a workflow that demands you act less like a community member sharing knowledge and more like a miniature Infocom, protecting trade secrets that don't even exist.

Graham Nelson refused several requests to make Inform free software, but was eventually convinced to adopt a dual-licensing approach combining a proprietary license and the Artistic License 2.0. Finally, the compiler was free.

However, while the compiler was freed, the definitive guide to using it, The Inform Designer's Manual, remained under a restrictive license. This creates a trap that the GNU Project has warned about for decades: free software needs free documentation. As noted in the GNU philosophy, if you have the right to modify the software but not the right to modify and redistribute the manual that explains it, you are still effectively locked out. You can't update the documentation to reflect your code changes.

Later, the community saw the arrival of Inform 7, which allowed people to program using code that looked like natural English sentences. Under the hood, however, it was a complex translation layer that compiled down to Inform 6 code. For years, Inform 7 remained strictly proprietary, a black box that the community relied upon but could not touch. While it, too, has eventually become free software, it comes with strings attached: contributing to the project requires a copyright assignment to Graham Nelson. This centralization of power ensures that the community doesn't truly own the project as we expect in the free software world, because Graham retains ultimate control.

Even with the software free, a gaping hole remains: we still lack a free replacement for The Inform Designer's Manual for Inform 6 and for Inform 7. Writing a comprehensive, copyleft guide for these would be a valuable contribution to the community, finally severing the reliance on proprietary documentation.

But this struggle for freedom wasn't just about Inform. For decades, everything we knew about the Z-Machine was based on reverse engineering. The community built interpreters and compilers without ever seeing Infocom's original tools, forcing them to invent their own names for opcodes and figure out internal structures.

That changed when a cache of Infocom's internal source code leaked. This data - still strictly proprietary - revealed that Infocom had used their own language called ZIL (Zork Implementation Language). ZIL was a massive collection of macros built on top of the Lisp-like Muddle language. The leak included the source for Infocom's games, as well as early versions of Infocom's own toolchain: a compiler named ZILCH (ZIL Compiler Hack) and an assembler named ZAP (Z-Language Assembly Program). There's a video that goes over the history and technical information.

With the secrets of ZIL exposed, work began to make free software for compiling this language: a compiler called ZILF and an assembler called ZAPF. While these are free software, they come with a significant architectural flaw: they're written in C#.

For those of us concerned with software freedom, C# is a problematic foundation. As the Free Software Foundation has warned for years - specifically in their page about why free software shouldn't depend on C# - implementing free software in C# invites the threat of software patents. While the immediate legal threats may ebb and flow, building our infrastructure on a language ecosystem controlled by a proprietary giant is a strategic error.

Then, in November 2025, Microsoft, having acquired Infocom's copyrights after buying Activision, officially released Zork I, Zork II, and Zork III as free software under the MIT license. For the first time, we could legally inspect the code that built the genre. Yet, this victory was incomplete. While the trilogy was freed, the rest of Infocom's library remains locked away, and crucially, so does the toolchain. Microsoft didn't release the original ZILCH compiler or ZAP assembler. We were given the source code to the games, but not the original tools to build them.

And so, this is where we find ourselves today. When I first looked at this community years ago, it was a walled garden of pure proprietary software. Today, the landscape has shifted technically, but culturally, it's barely moved. We have access to ZIL's history, albeit through leaks, and to free software tools like ZILF and ZAPF, yet the community remains stuck in the same proprietary patterns I saw years ago. People are still releasing proprietary games while jealously guarding their source code. Competitions still enforce "unreleased" rules that discourage our usual norms of community and collaboration. The "backwards" world I stumbled into has acquired better tools, but the mindset remains the same. We're no longer entirely in the dark, but we are still waiting for a toolchain that is genuinely free, portable, and safe from the threat of software patents. And there's still the push for cultural changes to value user freedom as much as they value game design and complexity. The grue hasn't eaten them yet, but they aren't quite out of the cave either.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Sometimes, however, theory is insufficient to capture the sheer, mundane horror of it. When you turn over control of your computing to someone else that views your natural rights as a monetizable "feature set," the result is often kafkaesque.

The following is a transcript procured from the customer support archives of "OmniCreative Cloud Corp," a leading provider of industry-standard creative SaaSS. While technically fictional, anyone who has recently tried to save a file locally using proprietary software will recognize the terrifying plausibility of this exchange.

Chat Transcript: Case ID #994-A-Redacted

Time: 14:32 UTC

Wait Time: 47 minutes.

[System]: You are connected with Agent 49B ("Chad"). OmniCreative values your creative impulse, provided it aligns with our current EULA.

[Chad]: Hello! Thank you for contacting OmniCreative Cloud Support. My name is Chad. How can I empower your workflow today?

[User_1138]: Hi. I'm having a serious issue with OmniPhoto Pro. I've been working on a project for four hours, and suddenly the "Save" button is grayed out. I can't save my work to my hard drive.

[Chad]: I understand your concern! It can certainly be frustrating when our workflows encounter unexpected friction. Let's get you back to creating magic! First, may I have the email address associated with your OmniID and your current biometric sync confirmation code?

[User_1138]: [Redacted Email]. I don't know what a biometric sync code is. I just want to save my image to my desktop.

[Chad]: No problem! I can see here that your last retinal handshake with our licensing server was over 24 hours ago. That's likely causing a "Verification Latency Event." For your security, OmniPhoto Pro disables local storage if we can't verify you are you every 12 hours.

[User_1138]: My internet was down last night. Are you telling me I can't save a file on my own computer because my internet blipped?

[Chad]: We prefer to think of it as "Cloud-Forward Asset Protection." Let me just force a remote license refresh from my end. One moment…

[User_1138]: Please hurry. The program is lagging badly.

[Chad]: Okay, the license is active. Now, I'm running a diagnostic on your current workspace canvas. Hmm. Okay, I see the issue.

[User_1138]: Great. So I can save now?

[Chad]: Not exactly. It appears you are attempting to execute a "Local Write Command" containing high concentrations of Hex Code #FF0000.

[User_1138]: What?

[Chad]: Pure Red. You're trying to save an image that is primarily Red.

[User_1138]: Yes, I'm drawing a stop sign for a flyer. What does that have to do with anything?

[Chad]: Well, looking at your account, you are currently subscribed to the "OmniCreative Essentials - Hobbyist Tier."

[User_1138]: Yeah, the $29.99 a month plan.

[Chad]: Correct. A fantastic value! However, the Hobbyist Tier only licenses access to our "Pastel & Muted Tones" color palette. Primary colors, including Pure Red (#FF0000), Deep Blue (#0000FF), and Vibrant Yellow (#FFFF00), are reserved features of the "Professional Luminary" tier.

[User_1138]: You have got to be kidding me. You're telling me I didn't subscribe hard enough to use the color RED? It's a fundamental wavelength of light!

[Chad]: It is! And OmniCreative has spent billions developing the proprietary algorithms to render that wavelength with industry-leading accuracy on certified monitors. We have to protect that investment.

[User_1138]: This is insane. I've used this software for ten years. I used red last week!

[Chad]: Ah, yes. We recently updated our Terms of Service on Tuesday to streamline our offerings. You likely clicked "Agree" on the pop-up without reading the 94-page addendum regarding color-space monetization.

[User_1138]: Okay, fine. Whatever. Just let me save the file as it is, and I'll fix it in GIMP later.

[Chad]: I cannot allow you to export an unlicensed asset. That would be a violation of our Digital Harmony Protocol. The software has detected the unauthorized red pixels and has locked the canvas.

[User_1138]: So my work is held hostage because I used a color you decided to put behind a paywall yesterday? How do I fix this right now so I don't lose four hours of work?

[Chad]: I have a solution! I can offer you a one-time "Chromatics Compliance Token" for $14.99. This will allow you to save this single file one time to the OmniCloud.

[User_1138]: Not to my hard drive?

[Chad]: Local hard drives are notoriously insecure and prone to failure. We prefer you keep your assets in the OmniCloud ecosystem, where we can ensure continuous license compatibility. Alternatively, we can upgrade you right now to the "Luminary" tier for just $89.99/month (billed annually), unlocking the full visible spectrum immediately!

[User_1138]: I hate you. I hate your company. I just want to draw a red circle and save it to my disk.

[Chad]: I understand these feelings can be complicated! If you'd like to provide feedback on our color-tiering structure, I can direct you to a community forum where our product managers occasionally browse subject lines.

[User_1138]: Just process the stupid $14.99 token so I can save my file and cancel my subscription.

[Chad]: Fantastic choice! Please note that canceling your subscription will result in the immediate deletion of all files currently stored in your OmniCloud to free up server space for active community members.

[Chad]: Are you still there?

[Chad]: Since I haven't heard from you in three minutes, I'm going to disconnect this chat to assist other creators. Thank you for choosing OmniCreative!

The Reality Behind the Farce

The above scenario is exaggerated, but only slightly. When we rely on proprietary software we're not users; we're serfs on a digital estate.

They set the rules. They define the boundaries of what you can do based on their quarterly revenue targets or whatever else they feel like at any moment. Today it might be a subscription tier for advanced features; tomorrow it might be charging you per-pixel rendering or denying you the ability to save locally to force you into their data-mining cloud storage.

The only way to ensure your software serves you, rather than the other way around, is to insist on software freedom. Use tools that guarantee your four essential freedoms: to use, study, change, and share. Only then is your software truly your own, and not merely a licensed "feature" pending verification.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

If you want to understand how broken copyright law is, look at the music landscape in 2026. Because of the Music Modernization Act, we have a split system: Musical compositions from 1930 (the notes and lyrics) are in the public domain. This includes "Georgia on My Mind" and the Gershwins' "I Got Rhythm". You can perform these songs, arrange them, and release your versions, but sound recordings have a different clock. On January 1, 2026, it's recordings from 1925 (100 years ago) that become free. You have the freedom to use the notes and lyrics from "Georgia on My Mind", but not the freedom to the specific audio recording from that year. It's a legal minefield designed to trip you up, but with care, we can navigate it.

That's a different conversation, though, and today I want to focus on the works that have finally left legal limbo.

The films of 1930 are products of a crucial technological shift: the transition from the silent era to "all-talking" pictures. Sound recording technology was still in its infancy, and cameras were housed in large, soundproof boxes to prevent their mechanical whir from being picked up by sensitive microphones, resulting in static shots and a "photographed stage play" aesthetic. The use of non-diegetic musical scores wasn't yet a standard practice, leading to scenes that can feel stark or unnervingly quiet.

We can think of these limitations not as flaws but as features. They present a unique creative prompt: the opportunity to engage in a dialog with the very language of early cinema. The public-domain release of these films allows for more than just narrative remakes; it invites technological and stylistic reimagining. Modern sound design can fill the silence of a battlefield scene with visceral horror, dynamic editing can liberate the anarchic energy of the Marx Brothers from a stationary camera, and digital effects can expand the world of these early sound films in ways their creators could only dream of. The works of 1930 are a canvas for exploring the evolution of filmmaking itself.

All Quiet on the Western Front

As the first film to win the Academy Awards for both Outstanding Production (now Best Picture) and Best Director, Lewis Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front has immense cultural significance. Based on Erich Maria Remarque's novel, the film is a powerful and unflinching anti-war statement, renowned for its grim realism and its radical decision to humanize German soldiers for an American audience on the cusp of another global conflict.

Milestone used fluid, tracking camera shots to follow soldiers through the trenches, creating a sense of immersive chaos. The film's use of sound captured the shriek of artillery and the rattle of machine-gun fire to convey the terror of the front lines. Equally powerful was its use of silence; the absence of a sentimental musical score in many key scenes heightens the brutal, documentary-like reality of the soldiers' experience. Released before the stringent enforcement of the Hays Code, the film depicted violence with a shocking frankness, including gruesome imagery like a soldier's severed hands left clutching barbed wire after an explosion.

The film's entry into the public domain opens up a wealth of possibilities. A scene-for-scene remake could be a technical exercise, but the more exciting opportunities lie in transformation. A graphic novel adaptation could lean into the story's expressionistic horror. A documentary could juxtapose the film's pacifist message with the subsequent rise of Nazism in Germany, where the film was banned and its author exiled. Individual scenes could be re-scored and re-edited to explore different emotional tones, transforming Milestone's stark realism into a surreal nightmare or a poignant elegy.

Animal Crackers

The Marx Brothers' second feature film, Animal Crackers, is a masterclass in anarchic comedy that cemented their status as cinematic legends. The film serves as a vehicle for a series of brilliant, absurdist routines loosely tied together by the theft of a valuable painting at a high-society party. It's a relentless satire of the pretensions and rituals of the upper class, with the brothers acting as chaotic agents who expose the hollowness of their world.

The film is the source of many of the Marx Brothers' most iconic elements. It introduced two of Groucho's signature songs, "Hello, I Must Be Going" and "Hooray for Captain Spaulding," the latter of which would become the theme music for his long-running television quiz show, You Bet Your Life. The film's surrealist humor and anti-establishment energy have influenced generations of comedians and filmmakers, from the French New Wave director François Truffaut, who considered it one of their best works, to modern figures like Jim Jarmusch and Keegan-Michael Key. The film's climax, in which Harpo non-lethally incapacitates the entire cast with a Flit gun filled with a sedative, is a perfect encapsulation of their comedic philosophy: when faced with the absurdities of polite society, the only logical response is greater absurdity.

As a public domain work, Animal Crackers is a treasure trove of comedic material. The character of Captain Spaulding, the "African explorer," is ripe for new adventures in animated shorts or web series. The film's rapid-fire dialog and classic routines, such as Groucho's dictation of a letter to Zeppo, can be adapted for modern sketch comedy or theater. The witty one-liners and non-sequiturs are ideally suited for sampling in music or for use on social media, introducing a new generation to the genius of the Marx Brothers.

Other Notable Films

The cinematic class of 1930 also includes other significant films. Josef von Sternberg's Morocco is a landmark of pre-Code Hollywood, featuring Marlene Dietrich in her American debut as a sultry cabaret singer and Gary Cooper as a disillusioned Foreign Legionnaire. Its sophisticated visuals and sexually ambiguous themes offer rich material for analysis and inspiration. Howard Hughes's epic aviation film Hell's Angels, famous for its spectacular aerial combat sequences and for launching the career of Jean Harlow, also enters the public domain, providing a wealth of historical footage for documentary and artistic use.

The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett

Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon transcended the crime genre and elevated the detective novel to the level of serious literature. The novel's power lies in its creation of Sam Spade, the archetypal hard-boiled private investigator: tough, cynical, and operating according to his own rigid, personal code in a world of pervasive corruption. Hammett's revolutionary stylistic choice was his use of a rigorously objective, "camera-eye" third-person narration. The reader is never given access to Spade's inner thoughts and is forced to interpret his motives solely from his actions and dialog, sifting through the same web of lies and half-truths as the other characters. The novel explores timeless themes of greed, betrayal, and the search for meaning in a society where, as Spade notes, most things "can be bought or taken". The titular falcon, a priceless artifact that everyone is willing to kill for, ultimately proves to be a fake, a "black bird" symbolizing the hollow promise of wealth and the futility of the characters' obsessive quest.

With Sam Spade and the world of 1920s San Francisco entering the public domain, the creative possibilities are immense. Writers can now legally create new sequels, prequels, or spin-off stories featuring Spade, exploring his past or placing him in new cases. The novel's plot can be adapted to modern settings, with the quest for the falcon re-contextualized. The novel's sharp, cynical Dialog and Spade's complex moral code provide endless material for reinterpretation in film, television, and theater.

As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner

William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying is a landmark of American modernism and a cornerstone of the Southern Gothic tradition. The novel's plot is deceptively simple: a poor, rural Southern family, the Bundrens, undertakes a grueling journey to honor their deceased matriarch, Addie, who wished to be buried in her family's hometown of Jefferson. The true brilliance of the novel lies in its narrative structure. The story is told through 59 chapters, narrated by 15 different characters - including Addie herself, speaking from beyond the grave. Each narrator offers their own subjective, often contradictory, and unreliable perspective, forcing the reader to piece together the truth from a fractured tapestry of voices.

Faulkner employs a stream-of-consciousness technique to delve into the inner lives of the Bundren family, revealing their secrets, grief, and selfish motivations as they face floods, fires, and the grotesque reality of transporting a decaying corpse across the Mississippi countryside. The novel is a profound and often disturbing exploration of family dysfunction, perception, and the human condition. Harold Bloom, one of America's most influential literary critics, called it "the most original novel ever written by an American".

Adapting As I Lay Dying presents a formidable creative challenge. A direct film adaptation would struggle to capture the novel's complex interiority and shifting perspectives. However, its public domain status invites experimentation. A theatrical production could use a chorus to represent the multiple narrative voices. A graphic novel could assign a different visual style to each of the 15 narrators, translating Faulkner's formal innovation into a new medium. The ultimate task is to honor the novel's approach to storytelling while making its powerful themes accessible to a new audience.

"Georgia on My Mind" (Hoagy Carmichael & Stuart Gorrell)

"Georgia on My Mind" is an American ballad with a fascinating history. While often believed to be written about the state of Georgia, composer Hoagy Carmichael confirmed it was inspired by a suggestion from saxophonist Frankie Trumbauer to write a song about the South, with the lyrics by Stuart Gorrell remaining ambiguous enough to be interpreted as a tribute to either a place or a woman.

Numerous artists recorded the song, but Ray Charles, a native of Albany, Georgia, forever immortalized it. His soulful 1960 recording became a number-one hit and is so deeply associated with the state that in 1979, the Georgia General Assembly designated it the official state song.

The composition's entry into the public domain means that its beautiful, yearning melody and evocative lyrics are now available for unrestricted use. Musicians can make new arrangements in any genre, from a stripped-down country version to a hip-hop track that samples a new performance of the melody. The lyrics can be quoted in literature, used in film scripts, or serve as inspiration for new visual art, ensuring the song's legacy continues to evolve and grow.

"I Got Rhythm" (George & Ira Gershwin)

George and Ira Gershwin's "I Got Rhythm" is more than just a classic song; it's a foundational piece of 20th-century music. Introduced by Ethel Merman in the 1930 Broadway musical Girl Crazy, the song's infectious energy and syncopated melody made it an instant anthem of the Jazz Age.

Its most profound and lasting impact, however, lies in its harmonic structure. The song's 34-bar AABA chord progression became so popular among jazz musicians that it acquired its own name: the "rhythm changes". This progression served as a standard template for improvisation and the basis for countless new jazz compositions, known as contrafacts. Musicians like Charlie Parker and Duke Ellington wrote new melodies over the "rhythm changes," making new standards like "Anthropology" and "Cotton Tail".

With the public domain release of "I Got Rhythm", jazz musicians can continue the tradition of writing new contrafacts over its famous chord progression. The iconic melody is now free to be sampled, remixed, and re-contextualized in popular music. As a powerful symbol of the Roaring Twenties and the swing era, the composition can be used to score historical films, documentaries, and theatrical productions, providing an authentic sound of the period.

The year 1930 also saw the publication of Cole Porter's "Love for Sale," with its controversial lyrics about prostitution, which offers a darker, more sophisticated take on the era. "Puttin' On The Ritz," first introduced by Harry Richman, became an anthem of high-society glamor. The optimistic "On the Sunny Side of the Street" provided a hopeful counterpoint to the growing economic despair of the Great Depression.

The Lifetime Legacy: Authors Whose Works Enter the Public Domain (d. 1955)

So far, I've been going over the 95-year rule for copyright expiration, but the "life plus 70" rule provides a different kind of public domain event, releasing the items of an author's life work rather than the output of a single year. The works entering the public domain in 2026 from authors who died in 1955 are thematically dense, stylistically complex, and intellectually demanding. They stand in fascinating contrast to the more plot-driven and character-centric works from the 1930 publication list.

The Intellectual Labyrinth of Thomas Mann (1875-1955)

Thomas Mann was one of the titans of 20th-century literature, a German novelist and essayist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1929, primarily for his monumental first novel, Buddenbrooks. Mann's work is characterized by its deep intellectualism, intricate symbolism, and profound exploration of the psychological and philosophical currents of his time. His major themes include the decline of the German bourgeoisie, the complex and often tragic position of the artist in society, and the enduring conflict between reason and passion, spirit and life.

With the expiration of his copyright, Mann's entire eligible literary estate enters the public domain. This includes his most celebrated works:

• Buddenbrooks (1901): A family saga chronicling the decline of a wealthy merchant family over four generations.
• Death in Venice (1912): A novella about an aging writer who succumbs to a fatal, obsessive passion for a young boy in cholera-stricken Venice.
• The Magic Mountain (1924): A philosophical novel set in a tuberculosis sanatorium in the Swiss Alps, where characters debate the tremendous political, artistic, and scientific ideas of pre-World War I Europe.
• Doctor Faustus (1947): A retelling of the Faust legend through the life of a fictional German composer who sells his soul for creative genius, a story that serves as an allegory for Germany's descent into Nazism.

The availability of these complex, ambitious works opens the door to prestigious, intellectually rigorous adaptations. They're ideally suited for high-end limited television series, feature films, and stage plays that can do justice to their narrative scope and thematic depth. The philosophical debates in The Magic Mountain or the allegorical richness of Doctor Faustus provide fertile ground for new essays, academic studies, and even operatic interpretations that grapple with the soul of 20th-century Europe.

The Poetic Vision of Wallace Stevens (1879-1955)

Wallace Stevens was a significant figure in American modernist poetry, a successful insurance executive who lived a quiet life while producing some of the most intellectually challenging and aesthetically rewarding poetry of his era. His work is primarily concerned with the power of the imagination to create order and meaning in a secular, post-religious world. For Stevens, poetry and art provide the "supreme fictions" without which we are unable to conceive of life. His central themes revolve around the dynamic interplay between reality and the mind, the beauty of the physical world as an end in itself, and the role of the poet as an interpreter who helps us see the world anew.

On January 1, 2026, Stevens's entire poetic oeuvre enters the public domain, including his landmark collections, such as Harmonium (1923), which contains famous poems such as "The Emperor of Ice-Cream" and "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird," as well as later works such as The Auroras of Autumn.

Stevens's poetry, with its rich musicality and vivid, often abstract imagery, is particularly well-suited for interdisciplinary adaptation. The most immediate opportunity is for composers to set his poems to music, creating everything from classical art songs to ambient electronic soundscapes. His visual language could inspire short films, animations, dance pieces, or photographic series that translate his "supreme fictions" into visual form. His philosophical explorations of perception and reality offer a rich source of inspiration for contemporary poets, writers, and artists.

The class of 1955 also includes Charlie "Bird" Parker (1920-1955). Still, there's a critical distinction: while Parker's recordings for labels like Savoy and Dial will remain in copyright jail, the underlying melodies and harmonic structures he wrote will be free.

The works of American author James Agee (1909-1955) also enter the public domain. Agee was a celebrated novelist, journalist, poet, and film critic. However, his most famous work, the autobiographical novel A Death in the Family, presents a complex copyright situation. The story was unfinished at the time of his death and was edited and published posthumously in 1957, winning the Pulitzer Prize in 1958. Works published posthumously can have different copyright terms, and anyone wishing to adapt this specific novel should conduct further investigation to confirm its status.

Sound Waves from the Past

As established, the Music Modernization Act created a unique timeline for pre-1972 sound recordings. On January 1, 2026, recordings from 1925 will enter the public domain after completing their 100-year jail term. This event is inspiring because it makes the actual audio artifacts of the Jazz Age - the hit records that people listened to on their phonographs - available for legal sampling, remixing, and remastering. The year 1925 also marks a crucial technological turning point: the dawn of the electrical recording era, which dramatically improved audio fidelity over the earlier acoustic methods.

The Empress and the Standard: Bessie Smith's "St. Louis Blues"

Among the recordings from 1925 is Bessie Smith's rendition of W.C. Handy's "St. Louis Blues". Smith, the "Empress of the Blues," was the most popular and influential female blues singer of the 1920s and 1930s. Her 1925 recording for Columbia is a masterwork of sparse, powerful arrangement. It features Smith's commanding contralto voice accompanied only by a young Louis Armstrong on cornet and Fred Longshaw on a pump organ - a rare and haunting instrumental choice for the era.

The public domain release of this recording is a gift to music producers. Smith's raw, emotional vocals and Armstrong's brilliant, blues-drenched cornet lines can be isolated and used as powerful hooks in new jazz, blues, soul, or hip-hop tracks. The entire recording can be digitally remastered to enhance its clarity or remixed into entirely new sonic contexts, allowing this historic performance to resonate within contemporary music.

The Jazz Age Anthem: "Sweet Georgia Brown"

Another 1925 recording entering the public domain is the first hit version of the jazz standard "Sweet Georgia Brown," recorded by Ben Bernie and His Hotel Roosevelt Orchestra. Composed by Ben Bernie, Maceo Pinkard, and Kenneth Casey, the song's upbeat tempo and infectious melody made it an instant classic and a staple of the jazz repertoire. Its cultural longevity is remarkable, cemented in the popular consciousness since 1952 as the unmistakable theme song of the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team.

The original 1925 recording captures the exuberant spirit of the Roaring Twenties. Its availability makes it a perfect source for sampling in dance music, electronic tracks, or hip-hop. It can serve as an authentic soundtrack for historical documentaries, films, or podcasts set in the period. Authors could produce fascinating mashups, blending the vintage sound of the Ben Bernie orchestra with modern sports anthems or other contemporary music genres.

The Birth of Hi-Fi: The First Electrical Recordings

The year 1925 is historically significant as the year major record labels began transitioning from acoustic to electrical recording. This technological leap, which used microphones to capture sound, resulted in a dramatic increase in fidelity, dynamic range, and clarity. One of the very first electrical recordings issued commercially was a demonstration disc from the Victor Company titled "A Miniature Concert," featuring the Eight Popular Victor Artists, recorded on February 26, 1925.

Beyond their musical value, these recordings are important historical artifacts. They could serve as the basis for a podcast or documentary series on the history of sound and recording technology. Sound artists and experimental musicians can use them as raw material for new compositions, exploring the aesthetics of early audio fidelity.

The 2026 Public Domain Remix

We shouldn't just passively enjoy these works but use them to demonstrate the power of a free culture. I propose a community event: The 2026 Public Domain Freedom Jam.

The core vision of the competition is to foster transformative works that demonstrate deep and creative engagement with public-domain source material. It will encourage participants to move beyond simple reproduction and instead pursue reinterpretation, deconstruction, and hybridization. The competition aims to highlight the public domain as a vital and dynamic source of inspiration for contemporary culture, promoting both artistic innovation and a greater appreciation for our shared cultural history.

The Rules:

1. Source Material: You must use at least one work entering the public domain in the United States in 2026 (e.g., footage from All Quiet, text from Maltese Falcon, etc.)
2. Free Tools Only: Use only free software. Use Kdenlive or Blender for video editing. Use GIMP or Inkscape for graphics. Use Ardour or Audacity for audio. Don't use proprietary software.
3. Licensing: All submissions must themselves be free-as-in-freedom. See https://freedomdefined.org/Definition for more details.

Competition Categories

The competition is divided into four distinct categories.

• The Spade Prize for Genre Reinvention (Literary): This category honors the "genre genesis" of 1930, a year that saw the publication of foundational texts for the hard-boiled, cozy mystery, and girl detective genres. Create a new short story (under 7,500 words), a short graphic novel (under 20 pages), or a narrative podcast script (under 15 minutes) that either places a 1930 public domain character (e.g., Sam Spade, Miss Marple, Nancy Drew) in a new and unexpected context, or fundamentally deconstructs, subverts, or hybridizes the tropes of their original genre.
• The Milestone Award for Cinematic Dialog (Film): This category recognizes the films of 1930 as unique technological artifacts and challenges modern filmmakers to engage with the language of early sound cinema. Create a short film (under 10 minutes) that reimagines a single scene from a 1930 public domain film. The focus should be on using modern cinematic language - including editing, sound design, performance style, and cinematography - to create a new and compelling interpretation of the original's narrative, themes, or mood.
• The Gershwin Challenge for Musical Innovation (Music): This category is built around the "great schism" between the availability of 1930 compositions and 1925 sound recordings, with two distinct sub-categories to encourage both reinterpretation and remixing.
  • Sub-Category A: The Re-interpreter. Create a new and original performance or arrangement of a musical composition published in 1930. The submission can be in any musical genre.
  • Sub-Category B: The Remixer: Create a new musical work that prominently features samples from or is a remix of a sound recording first published in 1925.
• The Stevens Prize for Thematic Adaptation (Interdisciplinary): This category is designed for the abstract and intellectually dense works of authors like Thomas Mann and Wallace Stevens, rewarding aesthetic and thematic interpretation over narrative adaptation. Create a work in any medium that captures or responds to a central theme, mood, or aesthetic from the work of Thomas Mann or Wallace Stevens.

Judging Criteria:

• Transformative Quality (40%): The degree to which the new work creatively and substantially reinterprets or re-contextualizes the source material, demonstrating originality beyond a mere copy.
• Artistic Merit (40%): The technical skill, creative quality, and overall effectiveness of the submission within its chosen medium.
• Thematic Resonance (20%): How thoughtfully the new work engages with, challenges, or expands upon the themes, ideas, or historical context of the original public domain work.

Submission Guidelines:

Submissions can be posted online for the everyone to access and then email me the information to see it, or email it direct to me and I can post it on my website. In any event, your email to me must include a short statement (under 300 words) explaining the creative process and the connection to the source material. If it's too large for email, email me, and we'll work something out.

Participants must provide clear attribution for all public domain sources used, including links to the original works where possible.

Submissions should include a warning where appropriate that historical materials may contain outdated or offensive cultural depictions. Submissions should not perpetuate harmful stereotypes.

Submissions must be received by the end of January, anywhere on Earth.

The entry of works into the public domain on January 1, 2026, represents far more than a legal formality. It's an annual infusion of raw material into the bloodstream of contemporary culture - a gift of stories, sounds, and ideas from the past to the authors of the present and future. This year is prosperous, offering not only masterpieces of film and literature but also the very building blocks of modern genres and the foundational sounds of the Jazz Age.

Fom the gritty streets of Sam Spade's San Francisco to the intellectual peaks of Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain, from the anarchic comedy of the Marx Brothers to the haunting blues of Bessie Smith, these works provide a vast and varied canvas. By embracing these materials with creativity, respect, and a spirit of transformation, new generations can ensure that this legacy doesn't merely survive but thrives, finding new voice and new meaning in the 21st century. The public domain isn't a graveyard of forgotten art; it's a living library, and its latest wing is about to open.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In the stormy waters of the modern internet, where "the cloud" is often just a fog designed to obscure who really controls your computing, the FSF has remained our lighthouse. It's the steady beam that cuts through everything else with simple, immutable truth: You deserve to control the tools you use.

2025 was a year of action.

We saw the announcement of the Librephone project, an important initiative to reclaim the mobile frontier. This territory has, for too long, been a fortress of proprietary software and DRM. It's a bold step toward ensuring that the device in your pocket serves you, rather than someone else.

We witnessed the global community coming together for the FSF40 celebrations, from the hackathon that brought people together to polish free software, to the photo contest that visualized what freedom looks like in our daily lives. And just this month, we honored the tireless work of community members like Andy Wingo and Alx Sa with the Free Software Awards, proving that the heart of this movement is, and always will be, its people.

From fighting against the erosion of copyleft to championing the Right to Repair, the FSF has been in the trenches, doing the unglamorous but essential legal and advocacy work that keeps things free. They've been illuminating the path forward.

But a lighthouse can't burn without fuel.

The FSF fights an asymmetric battle by design. On one side, we have trillion-dollar tech monopolies with unlimited marketing budgets, lobbying power, and a vested interest in keeping users helpless. On the other side, we have us - a ragtag coalition of hackers, activists, and ethical users who believe that freedom is a human right.

The FSF has set a fundraising goal of $400,000 by January 1st. As of this writing, they still need our help to close that gap. The FSF does so much with so little. This amount, for the whole year, is equivalent to what Microsoft makes in about 45 seconds.

This money doesn't just pay for servers. It funds the campaigns that wake people up. It supports the Licensing and Compliance Lab that enforces the GPL, ensuring that when we share code, it stays free for everyone, forever. It ensures that when the next wave of "smart" devices tries to lock us out of our own lives, there's an organization ready to say "No."

The FSF has stood watch for forty years, ensuring that the four essential freedoms didn't flicker and die out in the 80s, 90s, or 2000s. Now, it's our turn to ensure they shine bright for the next forty.

We can't take this lighthouse for granted. If the light goes out, we're left navigating the reefs of digital restriction in the dark.

Let's help them finish this year strong. Let's make sure that when the sun rises in 2026, the FSF is fully funded, emboldened, and ready to fight for us. Whether it's the cost of a coffee or the price of one month of those proprietary streaming services you don't actually own, every bit helps keep the beacon lit.

Here's to freedom, now and for the future.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

But in the fight for user freedom, "No" is the most powerful word in our vocabulary. Refusing to use proprietary software is not merely a personal lifestyle choice or a technical preference. It is a form of non-violent resistance. It is a direct action that strengthens the free software movement in ways that compromise never can.

Every time we say "yes" to non-free software, we're not just installing a program; we're validating a system of subjugation. Every time you say "yes" to a proprietary program, you're sending a signal to the developer: "Your model works. I'm willing to trade my freedom for this." You're validating their power to control you.

Proprietary software relies on our compliance. It needs us to accept that we don't own our computers, that we have no right to see the code, and that we must give up sharing and the spirit of community and cooperation as the price of admission to modern life.

When you refuse to install a program that disrespects your freedom - even when it is inconvenient, and especially when it's inconvenient - you're declaring that your rights aren't for sale. You're proving that proprietary software isn't the only way.

The most practical reason to refuse proprietary software is that necessity is the mother of invention. When you refuse to use proprietary software, you're creating space for free programs to breathe and grow. You force yourself, and your community, to look for - or build - free software that respects your rights.

The free software movement grows strongest where we draw hard lines. Consider the early days of the GNU Project. Richard Stallman started by saying "no" to the culture of non-disclosure agreements and proprietary that was suffocating the lab. That "no" was the foundation upon which the entire free software movement was built. Without that initial refusal to capitulate, the free software we rely on today might not exist.

Refusing proprietary software is also an act of solidarity. When you use a proprietary program to communicate or collaborate, you're often forcing others to do the same. You become a node in their network of control, dragging your friends, family, and colleagues into the same trap through the network effect. Maybe your friends, family, and colleagues are already there. In that case, their usage is applying the network effect to you - the idea that you must join because everyone else is there. It's a hostage situation where your friends and family are the leverage. By saying "no," you chip away at that wall. It isn't easy, yes. You may miss out on some conversations. You may have to work harder to collaborate. But you also become a beacon. You show others that it is possible to exist outside the walled garden.

By saying "no," you break that chain. You might be the "difficult" person who insists on Jitsi Meet instead of Zoom. That friction is good. That friction is necessary. It forces the conversation. It makes the invisible chains of proprietary software visible. It reminds people that they have a choice, even if that choice requires effort. When you say, "No, I cannot use that because it requires me to run non-free software. Here is a link to a free program we can use instead," you're doing the hard work of education and advocacy. You're planting a seed.

Proprietary software is designed to make us feel helpless - like we can't function without it. Saying "no" reclaims your dignity. It's a declaration that your freedom isn't for sale, and that your rights as are non-negotiable.

Finally, the power of "no" lies in integrity. A movement built on "mostly free" is a movement built on sand. If we accept small injustices for the sake of convenience, we lose the moral authority to demand total freedom. Refusing proprietary software strengthens our collective resolve. It reminds us that we're not begging for better features; we're citizens of a digital society demanding our rights.

This isn't an easy path. It requires sacrifice. You might miss out on certain games, specific streaming services, or the "convenience" of a system designed to trap you. But as I wrote in Fueling the Marathon, we're in a generational fight against entrenched power. Every time you say "no" to a piece of software that denies your freedom, you're casting a vote for a future where software serves the user. You're strengthening the movement by proving that it is possible to live, work, and thrive without submitting to digital overlords.

So, the next time you're presented with a shiny new app that demands you surrender your rights, remember the power you hold.

Say "No."

It's the first step to a world where we can all say "Yes" to freedom.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Naturally, this got me wondering: Does the new Loongson 3A6000 hardware represent a return to that? I dug into the technical details of the Morefine M700S Mini PC and the XC-LS3A6M motherboard to learn more.

On the surface, things look promising. Loongson has moved to what they call the "New World" ecosystem, pushing code upstream. That's a good step. But when you look at the firmware and hardware initialization - the places where user control goes to die on modern Intel and AMD systems - the story is disappointing.

The 3A6000 systems use UEFI based on TianoCore EDK2. EDK2 is free software, which sounds great until you realize it's just a wrapper. Deep inside lies a binary blob provided by Loongson that initializes the memory controller (DDR4 training), the PCIe bus, and the HyperTransport link.

Without this non-free blob, the machine doesn't boot. It's the same "FSP" (Firmware Support Package) problem we have with modern Intel chips. You can have all the free UEFI code you want, but if the hardware doesn't turn on without a black box of proprietary junk, you're not really in control of the software.

It gets worse when you try actually to use the computer. The integrated GPU in the 7A2000 bridge chip isn't documented well enough to write a free driver for it. The kernel driver relies on a firmware blob. In terms of WiFi, the Morefine M700S comes with a Realtek chipset that requires proprietary junk to do anything. The one nice thing is that it can be swapped out for something else.

Then there's the "Security" Element. Just like Intel has the Management Engine (ME) and AMD has the Platform Security Processor (PSP), Loongson has added a "Security Element" (SE). It runs proprietary firmware to manage encryption and Secure Boot. While it might not have an active network stack like Intel AMT, it's still a computer inside your computer that you can't control.

There's a distinction often lost in these discussions: the difference between national sovereignty and user freedom. Loongson gives China "technological sovereignty" as they call it - independence from US export controls. That's a strategic win for them. But for you and me - the users sitting at the keyboard - it trades one master for another. We aren't looking for a "sovereign" computer; we're looking for a computer that only runs free software. A computer that obeys us, not someone else.

It's sad to see Loongson, a company that once powered the flagship laptop of the free software movement, go down the same path as Intel and AMD. The 3A6000 is a modern, high-performance chip, but if you're looking for a system that respects your freedom, these aren't the ones. It's more of the same proprietary restrictions, just with a different instruction set.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This is a nostalgic tour of that lost world, a look back at the days of the BBS, Usenet, and Gopher, and a reflection on what we may have lost in our rush to embrace the web. Understanding their cultural significance also helps us appreciate how these communities shaped online social norms and digital culture.

Long before you could connect to the entire world, you connected to a single computer, sometimes running in someone's bedroom. This was the Bulletin Board System, or BBS. The experience was very local. You would fire up your terminal program, command your modem to dial a specific phone number, and after a cacophony of screeching and hissing, you'd be in.

Each BBS was its own self-contained digital village. It had a name, a personality, and a SysOp (System Operator) who was its mayor, janitor, and sheriff all in one. Life on a BBS was centered around message boards, where you could post public notes and engage in conversations with other users - all of whom were likely in your same telephone calling area. You could play text-based games.

What the BBS lacked in graphical polish, it made up for in community. You knew the other board members. You might even meet them in person. It was a decentralized, hyperlocal social network, a collection of thousands of independent digital communities, each with its own unique culture.

If the BBS were a local village, Usenet was the entire world's chaotic, sprawling, and brilliant conversation. Usenet wasn't a single place; it was a decentralized discussion system, a network of servers that constantly synchronized messages with each other. There was no central company, no single point of control. It was a testament to collaborative engineering.

Usenet was divided into "newsgroups," topic-based forums whose names formed a hierarchical map of human interest. You could subscribe to comp.lang.c to discuss programming, or sci.astro for astronomy, or rec.arts.startrek for Star Trek, or the infamous alt.folklore.urban to debunk urban legends. Using a "newsreader" application, you could download the latest messages from your chosen groups, read them offline, and post your own replies, which would then propagate across the world.

This was the birthplace of much of online culture. Terms like "spam," "FAQ," and "flame war" were born on Usenet. A code of conduct, or "netiquette," evolved organically. To participate in Usenet in the late 80s and early 90s was to feel, for the first time, like you were part of a truly global conversation, long before the advent of modern social media.

In the early 1990s, a new contender for organizing the world's online information emerged: Gopher. Developed at the University of Minnesota, Gopher was the World Wide Web's direct rival and, for a time, arguably more popular.

The Gopher experience was fundamentally different from the web. It wasn't a chaotic mesh of hyperlinks, but a strict, hierarchical system of menus. It was a system built for finding information, not for browsing. Navigating Gopherspace was like walking through a massive, distributed library. You would start at a top-level menu, select a category, which would lead to another menu, and so on, drilling down until you found the document or file you were looking for.

It was clean, text-based, and swift. There were no complex layouts, no advertisements, no tracking scripts. It was purely about the information. For a brief period, Gopher might become the dominant protocol for navigating the internet.

So why did it lose to the web? The web had two killer features. First, the ability to mix text and images on the same page with the <img> tag made it far more visually engaging. Second, and perhaps more importantly, was a licensing dispute. In 1993, the University of Minnesota announced it would begin charging licensing fees for the use of its Gopher server implementation. This announcement sent a chill through the community and prompted people to turn to Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide Web.

The triumph of the web wasnt without its costs. In moving to a single, dominant platform, we lost the diversity of that earlier ecosystem. We lost the inherent decentralization of the BBS and Usenet worlds, paving the way for today's tech monopolies. We lost the simplicity and focus of Gopher, trading them for a bloated, distracting, surveillance-heavy web.

This tour of the past isn't an exercise in nostalgia. It's a reminder that the internet we have today isn't the only internet that could have been. The principles of that earlier era - decentralization, community control, and a focus on information over presentation - are more relevant than ever.

And that spirit isn't dead. It lives on in the federated social media of the Fediverse, which echoes the decentralized nature of Usenet. It lives on in the self-hosting movement, which captures the autonomy of the BBS SysOp. And it lives on in new, simple protocols like Gemini, which evoke the clean, distraction-free ethos of Gopher. The past holds valuable lessons, and by studying it, we can find the inspiration to build a better, freer, and more human-scale internet for the future.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

To the casual observer in 1995, this was merely a tactical maneuver in the "browser wars," a strategic alliance intended to check Microsoft's rising hegemony. But looking back from the vantage point of 2025, we can see the press release for what it truly was: the precise moment the web began its transformation into a conduit for the automatic, non-consensual execution of proprietary software.

The lore of JavaScript's development is often repeated with a tone of breathless admiration, a creation myth for the modern web. We're told how Brendan Eich, in a caffeine-fueled sprint in May of that year, hacked together the prototype in just ten days. It was a triumph of engineering under pressure, pitched as a humble "glue language" to sprinkle a bit of interactivity onto static pages. But from an ethical perspective, this "rush to market" sowed the seeds of our current predicament. No time was given to considering the implications of allowing remote servers to execute arbitrary programs on people's machines without explicit consent. The priority was the war against Redmond, and in war, civil liberties - even digital ones - are often the first casualty.

What was sold as a tool to bring "life" to static pages has metastasized into " The JavaScript Trap." We find ourselves ensnared where the user-agent, once a tool that worked for the user, has been subverted into a remote-controlled terminal.

The core of this trap lies in its silent, automatic execution. When you install a traditional program, you generally have a moment of agency, however brief, to review a license or say "no." This moment has been eliminated. When you visit a modern website, your browser fetches and executes megabytes of code - complex, nontrivial software that does far more than animate a menu. It might be a word processor, a video game, or a biometric tracker. The browser doesn't ask if you wish to run this proprietary software; it simply obeys the server. This creates a scenario in which users unknowingly run nonfree software every single day, stripped of their freedom to study, change, or share.

This architecture has turned the web into the " WWWorst App Store." In a traditional app store, you at least have the binary on your device. In this feudal model, you're a tenant on the landlord's estate. You have no control over versioning; if they push an update that removes features or adds things you don't like, you're forced to upgrade instantly. If the server goes down, or if the provider decides you have violated their opaque Terms of Service, the software - and often your data along with it - vanishes.

We see the consequences of this subjugation everywhere. The "openness" promised in that 1995 press release has curdled into a surveillance monoculture. The scripts that run on our machines are not just "nontrivial"; they're hostile. They fingerprint our hardware, track our mouse movements, and report our reading habits to advertising networks. Through mechanisms like Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), the browser has even been weaponized against us to enforce Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), turning the very software we use to view the web into a jailer that restricts what we can do with the stuff we watch.

It's a bitter irony that the language born from a desire to make the web "dynamic" has locked us into a relationship of dependency. The "10-day hack" has become the thirty-year sentence. But history isn't written in stone, nor is it written in minified code. Recognizing the trap is the first step toward dismantling it. We must reject the convenience of the "Service as a Software Substitute" (SaaSS) model and demand a Web that respects our freedom - one where "transmits only free programs to the user" is the baseline for an ethical internet, not a radical demand. The digital homestead is still there for those willing to build it, but we must first refuse to live in a cage someone builds for us and refuse to run their proprietary programs.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In the discourse surrounding software freedom, a recurring archetype has appeared of late. This figure is someone that purports to value transparency, collaboration, and the sharing of source code - traits often associated with the "open source" philosophy - yet the person perceives a specific social injustice or a "bad actor" (e.g., a large corporation, a military entity, or a regime) and seeks to weaponize software licensing to address their grievance.

A pertinent manifestation of this archetype can be found in proposals that seek to introduce mechanisms to restrict or exclude. The proponents of these measures argue that it's a moral failing to allow one's code to be used by entities that harm society. They ask, "Why should my labor support 'the bad guys'?"

While the desire to punish "the bad guys" is emotionally resonant, it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of software freedom and the function of software. The free software movement doesn't exist to police its users' morality; it exists to liberate them from the unjust power of developers. When a developer imposes restrictions on who may use the software or for what purpose, regardless of their good intentions, they cease to be a liberator and become a regulator, re-establishing the very power dynamic (developer control over user) that free software aims to dismantle.

They fail to recognize that by introducing these restrictions, they're not protecting the community; they're fracturing it. They're creating a "litmus test" for participation that transforms a movement for universal liberty into a club for those who adhere to a specific, and often transient, set of political or social views.

To understand why proposals like this emerge, one must interrogate the linguistic and philosophical divergence between "Free Software" and "Open Source." The term "Open Source" was coined specifically to sanitize the concept of software freedom of its ethical imperative, marketing it instead on "consumer values" like reliability, low cost, and development speed.

The "Open Source" philosophy allows - and arguably encourages - the view that the license is a transactional tool. If the value proposition is "getting better code," then the license is merely a contract to ensure contribution. From this utilitarian perspective, if you're not getting contributions back, then adding a clause to "stop the bad guys" seems like a logical contract adjustment. However, free software isn't a transaction; it's a matter of right and wrong.

The numerous proposals to restrict and exclude treat the software as a something to be gated rather than shared. It reflects an appeal to practical values rather than standing on the difficult principle that freedom applies even to those we despise.

The Free Software Definition isn't a loose guideline; it's a precise articulation of the freedoms necessary for a user to control their own computing. These are:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works and change it.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions.

Freedom 0 is the bedrock of user rights. It states unequivocally that the developer has no right to dictate how the user applies the tool. The history of this freedom is instructive: it was explicitly numbered "0" and added later to emphasize its foundational status, ensuring that no prior assumption of "proper use" could supersede the user's agency.

When proposals to restrict or exclude "the bad guys" are made they're directly pushing against Freedom 0, even if they don't realize it. The assertion is that their judgment of "bad" overrides the user's judgment. This is the definition of proprietary control. A program that says "You may use this for peace, but not for war," or "You may use this for charity, but not for profit," is non-free. It's "proprietary software with a cause."

They often argue that Freedom 0 is a technicality that stands in the way of justice. They posit that the harm caused by "the bad guy" (e.g., a megacorp using the software to pollute the environment) outweighs the damage from restricting the software. This is a utilitarian calculation that fails to account for the systemic nature of software freedom. If we allow the developer to veto the user's purpose, we establish a precedent that all software use is subject to the developer's approval.

Consider the implications of this precedent in other domains. If a book author could forbid "bad people" from reading their text, or from applying their text in ways they don't like, or if a road builder could forbid people they don't like from using the highway, or for using it for purposes they don't approve of, society would collapse into a series of checkpoints where private entities constantly audit one's moral standing. Software's the infrastructure of the digital age; treating it as a privilege rather than a right creates a digital feudalism where the "lords" (developers) dictate the behavior of the "serfs" (users).

The proposal to stop "the bad guys" immediately invites the question: Who defines the bad guy?

• Is it a corporation with a certain amount of profit?
• Is it a government agency?
• Is it an individual with a specific political affiliation?

If the definition is left to the developer, the license becomes a projection of the developer's personal politics. Getting everyone to agree on political matters is difficult and unlikely to succeed, so we'd be left with many different views and licenses.

This subjectivity creates legal and existential uncertainty. Today, our computers consist of thousands of programs. A user can't be "free" if their right to use the software depends on remaining in the good graces of the various moral codes of the developers behind the programs that make up a modern system, some of which might even conflict or be incompatible. Software's the infrastructure of the contemporary world. By politicizing it, we risk making it unreliable. If every developer enforces their own distinct moral code, it becomes impossible to build a functioning system. They're effectively arguing for a Denial-of-Service attack against the complexity of the modern free software ecosystem.

True freedom requires neutrality. Just as the printing press doesn't judge the content of the book or who wrote it, and the road doesn't judge the the driver, their destination or their purpose, Free Software musn't judge the purpose of the computation or who is doing it.

The proposals to restrict or exclude "the bad guys" operate from a place of frustration with the state of the world. This is understandable. The world is full of injustice. However, the Free Software movement posits that software unfreedom is itself an injustice, and we can't fix one injustice by perpetrating another. If you want to stop oil drilling or surveillance, organize politically. Replacing democratic laws (which, ideally, are decided by society) with the fiat of individual software developers leads to a feudal internet.

To those considering this path, don't let your hatred of "the bad guys" close your eyes to their rights as users. When you build a cage to trap someone, you inevitably trap your neighbors. The Free Software definition was written to prevent anyone - corporation, government, or individual - from having unjust power over the user. By adding "ethical" restrictions, you're claiming that unjust power for yourself. You're appointing yourself the judge, jury, and executioner of your users.

I urge you to reject this impulse. Embrace the radical, challenging, and necessary path of software freedom. Let the software run. Let the users decide. And let's fight "the bad guys" not by becoming tyrants ourselves, but by empowering the world with software that no tyrant can control.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

But the secret, and the reason the joke has such staying power, is that it's fundamentally true. For early Unix, ed was the standard text editor. To this day, it remains a required component of the POSIX standard, meaning it's present on virtually every Unix-like system on earth.

In an age of "over-engineered IDEs" and "kitchen sink" configurations, ed represents a different path. Its brutal simplicity isn't a flaw; it's a design philosophy. This deep dive will explore the power and elegance of ed.

For the uninitiated, ed's a line-oriented and modal text editor. This means you don't see or edit a full screen of text. You operate, by default, on one line at a time using a precise set of commands. It's this command-driven nature that unlocks its true potential.

To understand ed, one must be transported to August 1969 at AT&T Bell Labs. Ken Thompson, a co-author of Unix, was working on a PDP-7 and developed the three primordial elements of this new OS: the assembler, the editor, and the shell. That original editor was ed.

The "user interface" for this new system wasn't a glass video monitor. Instead it was a Teletype Model 33, a slow, noisy mechanical printer equipped with a keyboard. The limitations of this machine shaped ed's design. The teletype printed only 10 to 15 characters per second - so slow that even the simplest confirmation message would waste time and paper. It also printed output line by line onto a physical roll of paper, making every line permanent once produced.

These constraints led to design choices that can feel cryptic today but were ingenious optimizations at the time. Ed's silent because each unnecessary character was costly; no prompt or default feedback meant the machine avoided wasting both seconds and paper. Scrolling was impossible, since the Teletype had no display - only a one-directional roll of paper. To see the past you only need to look at the physical piece of paper. Editing had to occur line by line, operating on an invisible copy of the file in memory. Even the infamous "?" error was an act of efficiency: one character that communicated failure in the most compact way possible. The later GNU ed option that prints verbose errors is a luxury never imagined in its original environment.

Ed's design isn't user-hostile; it's resource-friendly, an elegant tool perfectly tailored to its constraints.

Its technical lineage is equally foundational. Ed was inspired by QED (Quick Editor) from UC Berkeley, Thompson's alma mater. Thompson's adaptation of QED - and its successor ed - were notable for introducing regular expressions to Unix text editing. Dennis Ritchie refined this capability into what became the definitive ed, and from it emerged the DNA of Unix text-processing philosophy. Ed's the direct ancestor of tools like grep and sed, and the concept of text streams as a universal interface in Unix begins here.

An Interactive ed Session

Let's face the void. When you launch the editor by typing ed at your prompt, you are greeted with... nothing. The editor's running, silently waiting in command mode.

Before doing anything else, modern GNU ed provides two "magic" commands that make it usable for beginners.

1. Type P (uppercase) and press Enter. This toggles a prompt, so you know ed is in command mode. The default prompt is an asterisk (*).
2. Type H (uppercase) and press Enter. This toggles verbose help for errors. Now, the infamous ? will be replaced with a helpful message, such as "Unknown command."

Let's try a complete "Hello, World" workflow.

1. Enter Input Mode: We start in command mode. To add text, we must enter input mode. Type a (for "append") and press Enter.
2. Add text: ed is now in input mode, ready to append text after the current line (which is line 0 in an empty file). Let's type our text: Hello, world.
3. Return to Command Mode: To stop inputting, type a single period on a line by itself and press Enter. This is the most common point of confusion for new users.
4. View the Buffer: The text isn't yet in a file; it's in a memory buffer. To see what's in the buffer, we use the p (print) command. A common shortcut is ,p (comma-p), which is shorthand for 1,p - meaning "from line 1 to the last line, print".
5. Save the Buffer (Write): The w (write) command saves the buffer to a file. Let's write to hello.txt by entering: w hello.txt. ed helpfully responds with the number of bytes written to the file.
6. Quit: The q (quit) command exits the editor.

The mental model is simple but rigid. ed has two modes.

• Command Mode: The default, where you issue commands like a (append), i (insert before), c (change), s (substitute), w (write), and q (quit).
• Input Mode: Entered via a, i, or c. In this mode, you can only type text. You cannot edit. You must return to command mode to perform any edits. This is a direct relic of the teletype, where you couldn't move a cursor up to fix a typo. You had to finish your line and then issue a new command to change it.

Unlocking the Power: From Lines to Programs

The true power of ed isn't in appending text, but in its sophisticated line addressing. Every command can be prefixed by an address (a line number, or range) to operate on.

• . : The current line.
• $ : The last line in the buffer.
• n : A specific line number (e.g., 3p prints line 3).
• n,m : A range of lines (e.g., 1,5p prints lines 1-5).
• , or % : A shortcut for the entire file (1,p or 1,%).
• /regexp/ : The next line after the current line that matches the regular expression. This is addressing by searching.

This addressing system turns three simple commands into a powerful toolkit.

1. s (Substitute)

This is the find-and-replace command. Its syntax is [address]s/regexp/replacement/[flags].

• Example: *%s/foo/far/g
• Translation: "From line 1 to the last line, substitute (s) the regular expression foo with the text bar, and do it globally (g) on each line (i.e., replace all instances, not just the first)".
• In the replacement string, & (ampersand) refers to the entire matched text.

2. g (Global)

This is the single most powerful command in ed. It's not just a command; it's a control structure. The syntax is [address]g/regexp/command(s).

• Translation: "For every line in the given address range (defaulting to the whole file) that matches /regexp/, execute the following command(s) on that line".
• This is a foreach loop. It's programming.
• Example: g/DEBUG/d
• Translation: "For every line in the file containing the text "DEBUG", execute the d (delete) command." This deletes all debug lines from a file.

3. v (Inverse Global)

This is the counterpart to g. The syntax is [address]v/regexp/command(s).

• Translation: "For every line in the given address range that does NOT match /regexp/, execute the following command(s)". This is the equivalent of grep -v.
• Example: v/FINAL/d
• Translation: "Delete all lines except those containing "FINAL"."

These can be combined. A command like g/config_option/s/false/true/ translates to: "First, find (g) all lines containing config_option. Then, only on those lines, substitute (s) the first instance of false with true".

This g command is the key to all of Unix text processing. The ubiquitous grep utility isn't a random name. It's the literal ed command g/re/p. The command global/regular expression/print (find all lines matching a pattern and print them) was such a typical ed use case that Ken Thompson extracted it into a standalone program. ed isn't just an editor; it's the progenitor of the Unix toolbox.

The ed Command and Addressing Reference

ed's history's fascinating, but why learn ed when we have emacs, vi, nano, and more?

The answer is that ed isn't for interactive, day-to-day writing. Its modern role is as a powerful, silent, and reliable scripting tool.

When a shell script needs to modify a file, most people reach for sed -i (the "in-place" flag). This is, however, often the wrong choice.

• sed is a stream editor. It's designed for one-pass transformations on data in a pipeline.
• ed is a file editor. It's designed to load a file into a buffer, operate on it, and save it.

The sed -i flag (on GNU sed) is a hack. It doesn't edit "in-place." It works by creating a new temporary file and then replacing the original file with it. This operation is problematic: it breaks hard links, can fail if another process has the file open, and can create issues with file permissions.

ed performs a true in-place edit. It opens the file, reads it into its buffer, performs all operations in memory, and then, on a w command, writes the buffer's contents back into the original file. For scripts that need to robustly and atomically edit a configuration file, ed's the more correct and more reliable tool.

Furthermore, ed is its own REPL (Read-Eval-Print-Loop). Debugging a complex sed script's a nightmare of trial and error. With ed, you can interactively load a file, build your complex command (g/foo/?bar?s/baz/qux/g), test it with p, undo it with u, and perfect it. Once it's proven, you copy that command into your script.

ed can be "driven" from a shell script in two main ways:

Example 1: Using printf and a pipe

This script inserts a new line at the top of a config file.

# Add a new line at the beginning of a file
CONFIG_FILE="/etc/my.conf"
NEW_LINE="options=new_value"
# -s suppresses output
# 1i = Insert at line 1
# . = Exit input mode
# w = Write
# q = Quit
printf '%s\n' '1i' "NEW_LINE" '.' 'w' 'q' \
| ed -s "CONFIG_FILE"


Example 2: Using a Here-Document

This is more readable for complex edits, like changing a value.

# Find and replace a value in a config file
# This will change 'DEBUG=true' to 'DEBUG=false'
ed -s /etc/app.conf <<EOF
H
g/DEBUG=true/s//DEBUG=false/
w
q
EOF

The second modern use case is as your safety net.

The Scenario: Your machine fails to boot. It drops you into a single-user recovery mode. You discover the /usr partition (which might be on a failed disk or a failed network mount) isn't mounted.

The Problem: Where do vi, vim, nano, and emacs live? They all live in /usr/bin. They're gone.

The Solution: ed lives in /bin. It's tiny (often and has almost no dependencies. It will be there. ed is the only editor you can count on to fix your /etc/fstab or a broken init script when your system is truly broken.

The "I'll just use vi" argument's flawed. vi is the editor for healthy systems. ed is the editor for broken ones. Learning the ten basic commands - a, i, d, p, w, q, H, P, , and s - isn't a trivial pursuit; it's an emergency toolkit.

ed has quite the legacy. The entire lineage of modern terminal editors flows from it: From ed (Ken Thompson, 1969) to ex ("extended ed," Bill Joy, 1976) to vi (the "visual" mode for ex, Bill Joy, 1976) to vim ("Vi Improved," Bram Moolenaar, 1991).

This lineage holds one final, profound secret. If you're a vi or vim user, you are already an ed user. You don't know it. When you are in vim and type : (colon) to enter command-line mode, you are not simply entering a "command." You are dropping down into ex mode. And ex is, for all intents and purposes, a superset of ed.

Every "ex command" you run - :%s/foo/bar/g, g/re/d, :w, :q - isn't a vi command. It's an ex command, using the exact syntax, grammar, and philosophy of ed.

Learning ed isn't about mastering an "obsolete" editor. It's an archeological dig that reveals the living-fossil DNA inside the tools you use every day. It's about learning the root language of text editing.

ed's the purest expression of the Unix philosophy. It does one thing, it does it well, and it does it with a "brutal elegance" born of necessity. It teaches us that minimalism isn't about a lack of features; it's about the elegance of having just enough. In an era of digital excess, ed isn't just a tool. It's a history lesson and a design philosophy, waiting for you on a blank line.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Life in the Company Town

For many, their digital lives don't belong to them. They live in gleaming, convenient towns built by Google, Apple, and Meta. Gmail delivers their letters, their family photos are stored in iCloud, and their town square is Facebook. It's a comfortable life, but it's borrowed. The company owns the infrastructure, writes the laws (Terms of Service), and employs the police.

In this company town, your mail is opened and read so they can sell you things. Your movements and conversations in the town square are tracked to build a profile on you. The company can change the rules at any time, remodel your home without your permission, or evict you entirely, cutting you off from your friends and your own memories. This is the world where we trade our autonomy for the illusion of convenience.

Digital homesteading is the act of leaving the company town. It's the decision to build your own home on your own land. Self-hosting is the straightforward practice of running your own services - your email, file storage, website, and social media - on hardware you control.

The Joy of Building Your Digital Homestead

To the uninitiated, self-hosting sounds like a purely technical chore. But like the homesteader who finds joy in raising a barn, there's a profound satisfaction in building your own digital space. This is the joy of self-hosting:

• The Joy of Control: On your own server, you're in charge. You decide what software to run and how it's configured. You're not subject to the whims of a distant "product manager" who decides to "sunset" a something you use. Your digital tools serve you, and only you.
• The Joy of Craftsmanship: Setting up your own server or private cloud is an act of creation. It demystifies the technology we use every day. You're no longer a passive consumer of magic; you're a participant who understands how the systems work. This knowledge is empowering.
• The Joy of True Ownership: The data on your server is yours. It's not being scanned, monetized, or handed over to third parties. Your digital artifacts - your photos, your writings, your conversations - aren't just stored, they are owned. They reside in your digital home, not a corporate locker.

Beyond personal satisfaction, self-hosting's also a political and ethical act of significance. It is a form of resistance against a system built on surveillance and control.

In the age of surveillance capitalism, self-hosting is one of the most powerful statements you can make. By moving your data from corporate servers to your own, you remove yourself from the machinery of mass data collection. You cease to be the product.

Every personal server is a small node of independence in a web that has become dangerously centralized. The more digital homesteaders there are, the more resilient, diverse, and free the internet becomes. It is a grassroots movement to rebuild the decentralized internet we were promised.

Some are deterred from self-hosting by the fear of complexity. "I don't have a data center in my basement," they say. "I don't have a static IP address." But the beauty is that the barrier to entry has never been lower.

You don't need a massive server. A small, low-power single board computer could efficiently run services for a family. You don't need a static IP; dynamic DNS services elegantly solve that problem. And most importantly, you don't have to do it alone. The free software community has built projects such as Nextcloud, Yunohost, and FreedomBox to make self-hosting accessible to everyone, not just system administrators.

The frontier is open. The tools are available. Stake your claim. Set up a small server and host a simple website. Take the first step on the journey of digital homesteading. Every service you reclaim, every piece of data you bring home, is a victory. It's a quiet but powerful act of building a better, freer, and more just digital world, one service at a time.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

We need to talk about the state of OpenPGP because divergent standards threaten the very foundation of our digital security, risking fragmentation that could undermine trust and interoperability.

For over two decades, the interoperability of encrypted email and file signing relied on a unified specification - RFC 4880 - which defined the "Version 4" (v4) key format. The "friend" we relied on has split into two personalities, and I'm deeply disappointed to report that they're no longer speaking to each other.

We're facing a hard fork between two competing visions for the future: LibrePGP (v5), championed by GnuPG, and RFC 9580 (v6), the official IETF standard supported by Sequoia PGP.

While technical disagreements happen in free software, the emphasis on a "clean break" in the IETF RFC 9580 (v6) standard and the Sequoia PGP team's approach risks damaging our digital identities by prioritizing 'crypto-agility' over continuity.

On paper, a clean break sounds efficient. In reality, it's a scorched-earth policy for our digital identities.

By mandating a hard shift to v6, the IETF standard effectively declares that our existing Web of Trust is "legacy debt" to be discarded. If you move to a v6 key, you lose the signatures on your key. All those key-signing parties, the decades of social trust verification, and the intricate map of connections we've built - it all evaporates.

The proponents of RFC 9580 seem to believe that this is a reasonable price to pay for a tidier packet format. I disagree. Asking the entire world to reset its digital reputation to zero to advance post-quantum crypto is a bit much and ignores the human cost of security.

GnuPG's approach (v5), attempts to preserve these structures. It recognizes that our keys aren't just mathematical objects; they're histories of trust.

To show why this philosophical split causes practical issues, consider our favorite hypothetical users, Alice and Bob, who both want to upgrade to PQC algorithms to protect their emails from 'harvest now, decrypt later' attacks.

The Setup:

1. Alice is a GnuPG user. She generates a new post-quantum key. GnuPG, following the LibrePGP spec, creates a Version 5 (v5) key.

2. Bob uses Sequoia PGP. He also generates a post-quantum key. His software, in accordance with RFC 9580, creates a Version 6 (v6) key.

The Failure:

1. Alice sends her public key to Bob. Bob's software parses the file and throws an error. It sees a "Version 5" packet, which is not part of RFC 9580. It effectively treats Alice's key as corrupt or unsupported junk data.

2. Bob sends his key to Alice. Alice tries to import Bob's key. It encounters a "Version 6" packet. GnuPG refuses to use it because it considers the IETF spec deficient.

The result? Alice and Bob can't communicate securely using modern crypto. They're forced to downgrade to older algorithms or give up.

Despite this chaos, I wanted to get PQC working today without waiting for the dust to settle. I'm currently running Trisquel 11 (Aramo).

The default repositories for Trisquel (based on Ubuntu 22.04) carry an older version of GnuPG that predates this PQC work. However, the GnuPG team has made it surprisingly easy to jump the queue.

I followed the instructions from the GnuPG blog. By adding their signed repository to my sources, I was able to pull in the modern GnuPG (v2.5.13 at present) with full support for PQC algorithms.

It worked. I generated a post-quantum key on an entirely free operating system. The beauty of doing this via GnuPG is that it felt like an evolution of my existing setup, not a demolition of it. I didn't have to throw away my identity to get future-proof encryption. You can find my updated public key with post-quantum crypto at https://jxself.org/gpg.shtml, which uses a hybrid Kyber 1024 (X448).

It's not a "perfect" end-state (where everything is PQC), but it's the most practical posture for now. It blocks the surveillance dragnet (harvest now, decrypt later) while keeping the Web of Trust intact.

Unless these standards reconcile, we face a future where users are divided with incompatible tools, leading to widespread security and usability issues.

• Distro Maintainers: Will distros ship GnuPG (v5) or Sequoia PGP (v6) as the default provider, knowing that whatever they pick will be incompatible with the other half of the world?

• Keyservers: The global keyserver network is already struggling; how will it handle two competing, incompatible identity formats?

Users face the most significant risk: Losing seamless, secure communication as incompatible standards threaten to fragment our digital trust infrastructure. Since the people behind these projects can't agree, the burden falls on us. We may be forced to adopt a dual-stack identity strategy to maintain both an IETF-compliant and a LibrePGP-compliant PQC key.

It's clumsy. It's redundant. It's the antithesis of the "universal" encryption standard we were promised. But if we want to use post-quantum cryptography today, we might have to carry two keys because the standards body decided that "clean code" was more important than our Web of Trust.

I'm not angry; I'm disappointed. We had the opportunity to secure the future together, but instead, we built two separate locked doors.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Adam's most sacred object, the gleaming testament to his long devotion, was a 160GB iPod Classic. It was the last of its kind, a dense, polished brick of chrome and anodized aluminum that held fifteen years of his life in its spinning magnetic platters. It was, he often said, the complete works of Adam, meticulously curated.

He was at a party in a friend's crowded apartment, the air thick with the smell of craft beer and takeout curry. Someone had put on a generic streaming playlist - a frictionless river of algorithmically approved indie pop. Adam, holding his iPod like a prayer book, was holding court.

"You see, this is the problem," he said, gesturing to a small, captivated audience. "You're outsourcing your taste. You're letting a machine tell you what you like."

A younger colleague named Ben, who lived his life through a series of such playlists, looked skeptical. "It's easy, man. I don't have to think about it."

"Exactly!" Adam's eyes lit up. This was his territory. "You should think about it. Music isn't just background noise; it's the architecture of your memories. Look." He held up the iPod. "Every song on here, I chose. I rated. I sorted. I built this library, piece by piece, over the course of a decade. It's not just a collection; it's a map of my life."

He unlocked the screen, the iconic click wheel whirring softly under his thumb. The sound was a source of deep, tactile pleasure, an analog ghost in the digital machine. "The genius of the click wheel," he continued, his thumb gliding over its smooth surface, "is that you can navigate ten thousand songs without ever looking at the screen. It's muscle memory. It's connection".

He navigated to a playlist. "And the software... It's magic. Pure magic. There are these Genius Mixes - it just creates these perfect, hour-long sets based on a single track. It's like having a DJ who's lived inside your head".

He spoke of the "seamless integration," referring to how the iPod, the iTunes library on his Mac, and his old iPhone all worked together in a "harmonious and holistic user experience." He described the ecosystem not as a product line, but as a philosophy. It was a "walled garden," and he was a happy resident, praising the high walls for keeping out the chaos of the outside world - the viruses, the bad design, the vulgarity of choice without curation.

"But what happens if it dies?" Ben asked, a genuine question. "They don't make them anymore, right?"

Adam smiled, a patient, knowing smile. "It's Apple. It just works. And besides," he added, the core of his delusion shining through, "I'm part of the family. We take care of our own." He truly believed it. He wasn't just a customer; he was a partner, a contributor to the culture, a curator who shared in their genius. He was, in his own mind, a well-liked and valuable salesman for the greatest company on Earth.

Part 2: The Blocked Ambition

The idea arrived, as the best ones often do, in a moment of quiet transit. Adam was on the 7:42 AM train to the city, the rhythmic clatter of the wheels a familiar percussion to the soundtrack of his life. His iPod was on shuffle, a vast ocean of 20,000 songs. A track by a long-forgotten indie band surfaced, a song he'd given five stars a decade ago and hadn't heard since. The sudden rush of memory was intoxicating.

And then, the spark.

Shuffle is too random, he thought. Genius is too prescriptive. His library was a museum, and he was only ever visiting the main exhibits. What he needed was a curator who could dig into the archives. The idea bloomed, fully formed, in his mind: "Priority Shuffle." A new mode that would intelligently play only his five-star rated songs, but with a crucial twist - it would prioritize tracks he hadn't listened to in at least six months, maybe a year. It would be a system for rediscovering his own forgotten treasures, for revitalizing the very library he had spent a lifetime building.

It was a genuinely brilliant idea. Simple, elegant, and for a coder like him, eminently achievable. A surge of pure, creative energy coursed through him. This was it. This was his chance to give back, to add a small piece of his own ingenuity to the "magic" he so revered. He wasn't just a user; he was a developer. He could contribute to the family.

That evening, he sat at his desk, buzzing with purpose. He plugged the heavy silver iPod into his MacBook. The device appeared on his desktop, a familiar icon of trust and reliability. He opened the file system, expecting to find... something. A configuration file, a folder of scripts, a place where the device's logic lived. Something.

He found only the media folders: Music, Videos, and Podcasts. The operating system, the firmware that ran the whole show, was invisible.

A flicker of confusion, nothing more. He turned to the web, his fingers flying across the keyboard. "How to access iPod Classic firmware." "iPod Classic development kit." "iPod Classic source code."

The search results were a barren wasteland. There were no official Apple developer portals for the iPod's operating system. No software development kits (SDKs). No documentation. He found dozens of forum threads started by people like him, curious tinkerers asking the same questions, met with the same echoing silence.

He dug deeper, into more technical articles. He learned about the firmware files themselves, the .ipsw packages that iTunes used for updates. But these were not source code. They were compiled binaries, locked down, encrypted, and digitally signed by Apple. They were black boxes, designed to be installed, not understood.

The excitement in his chest slowly curdled into a cold knot of disbelief. The "magic" was a one-way street. The beautiful, intuitive interface was the polished surface of a sealed vault. He had spent years admiring the architecture of the garden walls, never once thinking to ask if the gate was locked from the outside.

The conflict that was to define the next stage of his life had just begun. It wasn't a bug in the system. The system was working perfectly. The problem, he was starting to understand, was his own ambition. The "problem" was his desire to change the device he thought was his. For the first time, he realized he couldn't.

Part 3: The Firing

Adam was a man of the system. When faced with a problem, his instinct was to follow the proper channels. A technical wall had blocked his ambition, so he would now appeal to the architects. He still held onto the belief that this was all a misunderstanding. The "Apple family" was built on good ideas; he had a good idea, and he needed to present it to the right people.

He navigated to the official Apple Support forums, a clean, white space of orderly discussion. He spent an hour composing his post, refining every sentence to strike the perfect tone of a loyal, constructive community member. He wasn't here to complain; he was here to make a contribution.

The post, titled "Feature Suggestion for iPod Classic: 'Priority Shuffle'," was a model of polite deference.

Hello everyone, I've been a devoted member of the Apple family for over 15 years, and my 160GB iPod Classic remains my most frequently used device. The design and software are timeless, and I would like to thank the teams that built and maintained such a wonderful product. As a software developer myself, I recently had an idea for a feature that would breathe new life into the vast libraries many of us have curated over the years. I call it 'Priority Shuffle.' The concept is simple: a shuffle mode that only plays 5-star songs the user hasn't heard within a specified period (e.g., 6 months or 1 year). This would be a fantastic way to resurface forgotten favorites and make large libraries feel fresh again. I would be thrilled to implement a prototype of this myself. My question for the community and for any Apple reps here is: Is there an official, sanctioned way for developers to access the iPod's firmware or a relevant API to experiment with adding new features like this? Thank you for your time and for creating the products we love. Best, Adam

He hit "Post" and felt a sense of relief. He had done it the right way. He had been the well-liked salesman, offering value and opening doors.

The initial replies were encouraging. A user named "iPodFan82" wrote, "That's a great idea! I'd love that for my own library!" Another, "ClassicRockr," added, "Wow, I've wanted something like this for years." A small, hopeful flicker of community.

Then came a more cynical take from "MacHead_Realist": "Dude, it's a 15-year-old device. They discontinued it years ago. They're not adding features. Dream on."

Adam was typing a reply to this when a new post appeared. It was from a user with a crisp, corporate blue Apple logo as their avatar. The username was "Apple_Kyle."

The reply was cheerful, polite, and utterly devastating.

Thank you for your feedback! We're always delighted to hear ideas from our passionate community. The iPod Classic is a beloved legacy device. While it no longer receives feature updates, we encourage you to explore the latest innovations in Apple Music for a dynamic listening experience.

Adam stared at the words. Passionate community. Beloved legacy device. The language was a soft, corporate pillow, designed to smother his idea without a sound. His suggestion wasn't rejected; it was ignored. His device wasn't old; it was "legacy." His passion wasn't a resource to be tapped; it was a sentiment to be acknowledged before being redirected back toward the current product line.

And then came the final blow. Below Apple_Kyle's post, a new line of text appeared in gray italics:

Thread closed. For feature requests, please use the official feedback portal.

Locked.

The conversation was over. The flicker of community was extinguished. Adam felt a cold shock, the kind a loyal employee feels when his keycard is suddenly declined at the front door. He hadn't just been dismissed; he had been silenced. His loyalty, his creativity, his years of unpaid evangelism - they meant nothing. He wasn't a partner. He wasn't family. His contribution was not only unwanted, it was a conversation that wasn't even allowed to happen. He had been politely, efficiently, and irrevocably fired.

Part 4: The Revelation

The polite dismissal on the forum didn't placate Adam; it radicalized him. The cheerful corporate-speak of "Apple_Kyle" was a gauntlet thrown down. All the years of his loyalty and his belief in the "magic" now felt like a long, slow con. He felt alienated, angry, and possessed by a singular, defiant thought: It's just software. It's my device. I'll do it myself.

He turned his back on the official channels and descended into the digital underground. His days and nights blurred into a caffeine-fueled haze of obsessive research. He was no longer a hobbyist; he was an archaeologist, digging for a way into a sealed tomb.

His searches led him to the gray corners of the internet, to communities of hackers and tinkerers who had been chipping away at Apple's walls for years. He found websites and wikis filled with arcane knowledge, a repository of forbidden texts. He learned the secret handshakes required to communicate directly with his iPod, bypassing the iTunes intermediary. He learned about DFU mode - Device Firmware Update - a low-level state that was the first step in seizing control.

Following a complex, multi-step tutorial, he held down the MENU and SELECT buttons for exactly twelve seconds. The iPod's screen went black. He had done it. His computer, which had once greeted the device with the friendly iTunes icon, now saw it as an unknown USB device. It was a small victory, but it felt momentous.

He downloaded the strange, command-line tools mentioned online. He found links to Apple's own servers, which hosted the raw .ipsw firmware files. For a moment, hope surged. He was on the inside. He was going to crack it open.

He spent hours in the world of the command prompt, typing cryptic commands, trying to send bits of the firmware back to the device, hoping to find a seam, a crack he could exploit. He managed to get the device to display the Apple logo, followed by a "Do not disconnect" screen, indicating that he was manipulating its boot process. But he never got further. The core logic, the actual operating system code that determined what "Shuffle" meant, remained a solid, impenetrable block of compiled binary code. No tool could translate the machine's ones and zeros back into the human-readable language of source code.

The quest ended not with a bang, but with a whimper. After a week of sleepless nights and dead ends, he slumped back in his chair, staring at the inert silver rectangle on his desk. The revelation arrived in the crushing silence of his failure.

The "magic" he had spent a decade evangelizing was the wall itself. The sleek, seamless user experience, the "it just works" simplicity - it was all predicated on one, unspoken rule: you have no rights. The beauty of the device lay in its perfect seal, a museum piece under glass. Its genius was the genius of its own impenetrability.

The betrayal he felt was profound, but he now understood its true nature. It wasn't a malicious feature. It wasn't a bug. It was the fundamental design of the system. He'd purchased a physical object, a piece of hardware he held in his hand, but had been granted no control over the software that gave it life. He was forbidden from studying it, banned from altering it, and prohibited from improving it. The company wasn't his partner. It was his controller. The beautiful garden he had so admired was, in fact, a very sophisticated and comfortable prison.

Part 5: The Confrontation

The war was over. Adam had lost. His ambition to contribute, to improve, to participate, was dead. All that remained was a desire to escape. He looked at the gleaming silver iPod and the perfectly organized iTunes library on his screen, and he felt nothing but the cold weight of confinement. He decided to burn the whole thing down. He would abandon the Apple ecosystem, liberate his music, and start over.

His first and most crucial task was to export the library - the product of fifteen years of meticulous curation - his life's work.

He opened iTunes, went to the File menu, and selected library, then Export Playlist. He saved the file and opened it in a text editor. It was an XML file, a neatly structured list of metadata. But it contained no music. It was just a list of pointers to the song files, their locations hardcoded to his Mac's specific file path. It was useless on any other machine or with any other software - a map with no territory.

He tried another way. He found the "Consolidate Files" option, which promised to gather all his music into a single folder. He ran it. Hours later, he looked at the result: a labyrinthine mess of folders, thousands of duplicate files, and worst of all, a trail of corrupted metadata. Songs were mislabeled. The album art was missing. His precious five-star ratings, his play counts, the "Date Added" field that anchored each song to a specific moment in his life - it was all scrambled or gone. The very soul of his library had been ripped out.

The technical failure triggered a complete emotional collapse. He slumped over his keyboard, staring at the wreckage on his screen. The clean, orderly rows of his iTunes library had become a digital slum, a monument to his wasted devotion.

He spoke aloud to the empty room, his voice a ragged whisper.

"I wasn't their partner. I was their captive."

He pushed back from the desk, pacing the small room. "All this time... fifteen years... rating my songs, making my playlists... I wasn't curating a library. I was building my own prison, bar by bar. They don't care about my ideas. They don't care about my music." He stopped and looked at the iPod, an object of betrayal. "They only care that I can't leave. I'm a dime a dozen. Just another user locked in their garden." It was the raw, painful clarity of Willy Loman realizing his life's work had earned him nothing but a pink slip.

Defeated, he made one last, desperate search online for a third-party tool, anything that could salvage his data. He clicked on a link to an old blog post on a niche tech forum. The title was "On Software Freedom."

The post began with a story. "If you've ever felt powerless over your own technology," he read, "you need to read the story of Richard Stallman and the Xerox laser printer."

Adam read about a programmer at MIT in the 1980s who was frustrated by a constantly jamming printer. He read about how this programmer, Stallman, wanted to add a simple software feature to notify users of the jam, but was blocked because the manufacturer refused to share the source code. He read about the non-disclosure agreement, the selfish refusal to cooperate, and the helplessness of a skilled programmer being denied the ability to fix his own tools.

A shock of recognition went through Adam like an electric current. It's the same story. My God, it's the same story.

The blog post concluded by explaining the philosophy that grew from that frustration. It listed, in a simple, bulleted list, Richard Stallman's Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software.

Adam read them, and each one landed like a hammer blow, giving a name and a shape to the injustice he had just experienced.

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• 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.

"My 'Priority Shuffle' idea," he thought, his heart pounding. "That's all I wanted. To study it. To change it. To make my own device work better for me."

• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). Doing this allows the entire community to benefit from your changes.

"I could have shared it," he realized. "The other people on the forum... they wanted it. We could have built it together. We could have helped each other."

It was a lightning bolt. The problem wasn't Apple. The problem was the entire philosophy of proprietary software. It was a system built not on empowerment, but on control. A system that, by its very nature, treated its users not as peers, but as subjects. It was, he now understood, an unjust system of power.

Part 6: The Requiem

The death was complete. Not the death of the iPod, but the death of Adam's faith. The death of his loyalty to the "magic," the death of his identity as "the Apple guy". What followed wasn't grief, but a quiet, determined excavation.

Months passed. The steady, focused labor of liberation replaced the frantic anger. Adam's desk was no longer a scene of frustration but an archaeological dig site.

He had discovered a world of free software. He pointed MusicBrainz Picard at the thousands of salvaged files, expecting a long night of tagging. Instead, he got a lesson. The software began its work, but a chilling pattern emerged. It was sorting his life's collection into two distinct piles.

The first pile - the .m4a files, his music from roughly 2009 onward-was "liberated." The software tagged them, corrected their metadata, and restored them to his new library.

The second pile was a digital graveyard. The .m4p files. His earliest and most formative music. Picard couldn't touch them. He tried to open one. An error message came up. They were DRM-encumbered bricks. Useless. He hadn't been a collector; he had been a renter.

He turned to his other task, writing his own Python scripts to parse the broken XML files. This only twisted the knife. The script ran perfectly, recovering his lost ratings and play counts for everything. He now possessed a perfect, ghostly outline of his library - a database of fond memories for songs he was now permanently locked out of.

It wasn't a resurrection. It was a funeral for the music he'd been tricked into leasing. And from its ashes, a new resolve was born.

He couldn't resurrect the digital graveyard of .m4p files, but he could replace them with something new.

He went to his closet and pulled out old binders and jewel cases, the physical source of a life's collection. He then began the tedious labor. He would cross-reference the ghost-like entry of a dead .m4p album in his database, then hunt through his physical media to find its plastic-and-foil counterpart.

He installed a free software ripper, set the output to FLAC - a free and lossless audio codec - and began the meticulous work of filling in the gaps. One by one, he fed the specific CDs into the drive. The work was slow and manual, a painstaking act of archival and repair. It was the very opposite of the "seamless" one-click purchase he once prized.

But with every gap he filled, with every locked file he replaced with a perfect, bit-for-bit FLAC version, he felt a growing sense of power. He was a craftsman, reinforcing his house where the walls had rotted, rebuilding it on his own terms.

The final scene of his transformation occurred on a quiet Saturday afternoon. On his desk sat his old 160GB iPod Classic, but it wasn't the same device. He had performed the final act of liberation: he had installed Rockbox^.

He turned it on. The sleek, animated Apple interface, with its Cover Flow and polished gradients, was gone. In its place was a simple, text-based menu on a plain black background. The font was functional, the navigation direct. There was no "magic." But there was something better: transparency. The old interface was a beautiful painting he could only admire from a distance. The new one was a plain but fully stocked workshop, and he'd been given the keys. It offered him things Apple never would: native FLAC playback, a 10-band parametric equalizer, advanced crossfading, and a host of community-built plugins and games.

He navigated through the file browser - his file browser, not a curated library - and selected a song. As he was listening, he noticed a tiny bug. In the "Now Playing" screen, the text for the track number was slightly misaligned, overlapping another element by a single pixel.

A year ago, this would have been an impotent flicker of annoyance. Now, he smiled.

He turned to his computer and opened a folder labeled "rockbox-source." Inside was the entire source code of the operating system he was running. He opened a C file in a simple text editor. The code was all there - complex, but readable, understandable. He spent an hour tracing the rendering logic, found the line that calculated the text position, and made a small correction - a single character change.

He saved the file, ran the compiler, and copied the new firmware build onto his iPod. He rebooted it. He navigated back to the "Now Playing" screen. The text was perfectly aligned. The bug was gone.

He felt a quiet, profound satisfaction that eclipsed any delight he had ever felt from a "magical" new Apple feature. He drafted a short, direct email to the public Rockbox developer mailing list.

Hi team, Noticed a small text overlap on the Now Playing screen. Attached is a patch that corrects the coordinate calculation. Thanks for all your work on this amazing project. - Adam

He attached the small text file containing his change and hit Send.

An hour later, a notification popped up on his computer. It was a reply from someone he'd never met, likely on the other side of the world. The message was simple, direct, and devoid of corporate pleasantries.

Great catch. Patch applied. Thanks, Adam.

Adam closed his eyes and leaned back in his chair. The two words he had craved from Apple_Kyle, the validation he'd sought for his loyalty, had finally arrived from a stranger. Thanks, Adam. He was no longer a captive in someone else's garden. He was a participant. He was a contributor.

He was free.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

At its core, the replicator is based in matter/enevery conversion technology, using the same principles as the transporter. It can create virtually any inanimate object on demand. This capability is the very cornerstone of the United Federation of Planet's post-scarcity economy. On a starship millions of light-years from home, the crew never worries about running out of food, water, or spare parts. This elimination of material want has fundamentally rewired human motivation. The accumulation of wealth, a driving force for much of human history, has become a meaningless pursuit. In its place, society has elevated the pursuit of knowledge, self-improvement, art, and discovery as the highest virtues. The replicator, therefore, isn't just a sophisticated appliance; it's a metaphor for the distant endpoint of the Industrial Revolution, a device that has altered the moral equation of being human by making nearly anything you want available with a simple request.

The dream extends beyond creation. The replicator contains scanners, allowing it to analyze the structure of an object to learn a new pattern, effectively programming itself without technical expertise. This capability fuels a powerful fantasy: the perfect copy. One could imagine bringing a unique, handcrafted device to a replicator, asking it to scan the object, and then materializing a flawless duplicate for a friend. This act - cost-free, instantaneous, and perfect down to the molecular level - represents the ultimate form of sharing.

When considering the future depicted in Star Trek, particularly the existence of replicators, we must ask ourselves: do we want that kind of future? The answer is yes, absolutely. Such technology would represent the single most significant leap in human history, fundamentally solving our most persistent and devastating problems. Imagine ending world hunger overnight, making famine an archaic concept because anyone, anywhere, could obtain a nutritious meal simply by asking for it. But its power wouldn't stop at food. It would mean the end of material poverty in all its forms, as we could replicate secure housing, essential medicines, clothing, and vital educational tools for everyone. This would dissolve the very foundations of resource scarcity.

Imagine having that power for our computing devices. If this technology existed, then I would agree that the era of "free hardware" had begun.

Yet, this vision remains firmly in the realm of science fiction.

This reality forces us to ask a difficult, foundational question: How do we live without it? Since we can't make our hardware "free" in the way a replicator could, what is acceptable for computers in a world where duplication is not magic?

One might be tempted to adopt a form of technological asceticism - to reject computing entirely until that 'magic' state of perfection is reached. This, however, isn't a tenable solution. Software is now so deeply and inextricably woven into the fabric of society that to escape it would effectively mean escaping from life itself. This path isn't a principled stand; it's a surrender.

Until we have replicators to produce "free hardware", perhaps the only way to reconcile this reality is to draw a clear, essential line between two concepts our digital world has dangerously conflated: hardware and software. Hardware remains bound by the old-world rules of scarcity. It's the physical chassis, the silicon wafer, the conductive metal - objects that require raw materials, labor, and tangible energy to create. Each physical device, such as the pre-replicator cup of tea, has an inherent material cost associated with it. Software, however, is fundamentally different. Software is the pattern, not the physical cup. It's the "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot." instruction itself. It's pure information, and in our digital world, information already behaves like the replicator's output: it can be copied perfectly, infinitely, and at virtually zero cost.

This distinction doesn't mean we should abandon the pursuit of "free hardware" - that ultimate, replicator-level freedom remains the ideal. The more immediate question is how to operate in the world we have now, a world without that technology. One might point to "free hardware designs" as a current solution, but this is where the physical constraints of scarcity become inescapable. I have no more practical freedom to modify the physical hardware I own, such as a CPU with its billions of transistors. Regardless of whether the design is "free," my only "modification" path is to fabricate an entirely new CPU, a massive physical undertaking. This reality only underscores the bright line: the design (information) may be free, but the hardware (the object) remains fundamentally bound by the old-world rules.

This bright line, however, immediately raises a definitional problem. Not everything fits neatly into the category of 100% physical hardware or 100% pure software. The digital world is full of blended devices, most notably in the form of firmware and microcode - software embedded within the hardware itself. How do we handle this?

Assuming we reject technological asceticism, our only tenable path is to define this embedded software as "effectively hardware" based on a critical distinction: that it can't be changed, or that we don't change it if it can be.

The difference is between a static condition and an active choice. When we acquire a CPU, the non-free microcode already on it is a given, static property of that physical object. We accept this as part of the unavoidable, pre-replicator compromise. If the software can't be changed without making a new device, or even if it can be changed but we actively refuse to do so, it is, for all practical purposes, part of the cup.

Updating that software, however, is a separate and distinct action. It's an explicit act of installation. This act crosses the bright line. It's a willful choice to download and run new software, re-engaging with and validating the very system of developer control - that classic case of unjust power - which we seek to escape. Therefore, this "software-in-hardware" can only be considered ethically equivalent to hardware so long as it remains a static, un-updated component of the physical object. Any action taken to alter that situation undermines the equivalence argument and amounts to installing non-free software.

This position is sometimes challenged. Some argue that this distinction is nonsensical. "You're already running non-free microcode," they say, "so updating it isn't any worse." This line of reasoning is a prime example of commentary that advises us on how to compromise - something that is already far too easy to do. What is difficult, and what we actually need, is guidance on how to live in a way that is consistent with our ideals. This "it's no worse" argument is a dangerous logical trap, reminiscent of a Perry Mason cross-examination where the witness's logic is designed to reach the same conclusion regardless of the evidence. Their argument is a fallacy of false equivalence: they claim that because we are forced to accept an unavoidable compromise (the static microcode) to participate in computing, it makes no ethical difference also to accept a new, avoidable compromise (the update).

This is absurd. The person refusing the update is containing the compromise; they're drawing a line and refusing to cede any more control than was necessary. The person accepting the update is renewing the compromise; they're actively participating in the cycle of unjust power by accepting software updates that they themselves cannot create.

It's important to be clear: this line is a temporary one, a philosophical tool for navigating life until we have replicators. This idea of a temporary, best-we-can-do compromise is reflected even in the FSF's "Respects Your Freedom" certification criteria, which state: "If and when free software becomes available for use on a certain secondary processor, we will expect certified products to adopt it within a reasonable period of time... If this is not done, we will eventually withdraw the certification." This demonstrates an institutional understanding that the line is not fixed, but somewhat expected to shift as freedom becomes more attainable. Our ultimate goal, after all, is a future where the CPU, with its proprietary microcode, no longer exists. But in our current reality, this bright line between the static, physical object and the active, informational pattern is the only way to reconcile our principles with a world that has not yet achieved that Starfleet future. It allows us to use the tools we have without surrendering to the flawed logic that any compromise justifies all compromise. If such people are not satisfied with that compromise, the only logical path forward to remain consistent with the same ethics is technological asceticism, not installing new or more software. Or, to advance things forward and develop this replicator technology we're waiting for, so that actual free hardware can finally exist.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The patch, which adds over 5,000 lines of code, is a port of the signature verification code from Leancrypto. A note included in the patch is that: "The keypair generation and signature generation are not included." This is because kernel module signing is a separate process. The kernel's only job at runtime is to verify that a module's signature is valid before loading it into memory.

A second detail is that the initial patch is "pure C", which provides a universal, portable implementation that will run on every architecture the kernel supports. This ensures the kernel's ready to verify PQC-signed modules long before PQC-specific hardware acceleration is available.

Understanding the Need for Migration

The security of classical public-key algorithms, such as RSA and ECDSA, is based on the extreme difficulty of solving specific mathematical problems: integer factorization (for RSA) and the discrete logarithm problem (for ECC). For classical computers, these problems are practically unsolvable.

In 1994, mathematician Peter Shor developed an algorithm that runs on a sufficiently powerful quantum computer. Shor's algorithm solves both of these "hard" problems in polynomial time, meaning it can render both RSA and ECC completely insecure. The day a machine capable of this arrives is referred to as "Q-Day."

The threat isn't just a future problem. Adversaries are believed to be engaging in "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" (HNDL) attacks. This involves recording and storing large volumes of today's encrypted data. While it can't be decrypted now, it will be possible to retroactively decrypt it all once a capable quantum computer becomes available.

The threat to authenticity - the function of digital signatures - is different but equally severe. This scenario can be described as "Harvest Now, Break Later, Forge Forever" (HNBLFF):

• Harvest Now: An attacker records a target's public key. This isn't a secret; a module-signing key, for example, is public by design.
• Break Later: On or after Q-Day, the attacker uses Shor's algorithm on a quantum computer to derive the corresponding private key.
• Forge Forever: Once this private key is compromised, the attacker can use it to sign their own malicious code - such as rootkits or spyware.
• The Attack: The attacker's malicious module is loaded onto a target system. The kernel, which is correctly configured to enforce module signing, checks the signature.
• Compromise: The signature is cryptographically valid and authentic. The kernel, trusting the signature, loads the malicious code directly into Ring 0.

This patch, therefore, is a foundational defense mechanism to protect the kernel's entire chain of trust.

The most immediate and unavoidable impact of ML-DSA is the "size tax." Its public keys and signatures are significantly larger than their RSA and ECC counterparts. A single kernel module signed with ML-DSA-65 will have a signature of 3,309 bytes, replacing a 384-byte RSA signature.

This has a direct impact on the initramfs (or initrd), the initial RAM disk that contains all the critical drivers necessary to boot the system. An initramfs with dozens of modules will see a non-trivial increase in size, which in turn increases I/O load and boot times. For resource-constrained embedded systems, this added size could be a significant challenge.

Implementation Challenges

Merging the code's only the first step. The actual difficulty of the PQC migration lies in the surrounding tools, standards, and hardware, which is still immature and, in some cases, in conflict.

Challenge 1: Toolchain Incompatibility with OpenSSL

The kernel's sign-file utility, used to sign modules, relies on the OpenSSL library and its Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) implementation. This has exposed a critical incompatibility.

The Problem: The ML-DSA algorithm is designed to perform its own internal hashing on the message. However, the existing CMS standard (and OpenSSL's implementation) is intended for algorithms like RSA, which sign an external hash of the data, accompanied by metadata called authenticatedAttributes.

The Conflict: OpenSSL's ML-DSA implementation for CMS didn't permit opting out of these attributes.

The Workaround: David Howells' patch series modifies the kernel's PKCS#7 parser to accept these attributes. Still, it then passes the full attribute blob directly to the ML-DSA verifier, which then performs the internal hashing it expected to do all along. This is a necessary "glue code" solution to bridge the gap between the new algorithm and the legacy standard.

Challenge 2: The Private Key Format Schism (The 32-Byte Seed)

A more significant issue is emerging from a disagreement between standards bodies over the correct format for an ML-DSA private key. NIST FIPS 204: The official standard from NIST allows for two different, but related, representations of a private key:

• A 32-byte "seed"
• The "expanded private key" (a multi-kilobyte structure generated from the seed).

IETF Standards: The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which defines how these keys are used in protocols like X.509 certificates, is standardizing on a "seed-only" format for private keys. RFC 9881 recommends this format.

The Trap: The conversion from the 32-byte seed to the expanded key is a one-way function. It's impossible to recover the original seed from the expanded key.

This schism creates a critical problem for key management, especially for Hardware Security Modules (HSMs): Imagine that an administrator uses an HSM to generate a new private key for PQC signing. The HSM, following FIPS guidance that internal functions should not be exposed, generates the key, stores the "expanded private key," and discards the 32-byte seed as a security best practice.

The administrator makes an encrypted backup of this "expanded private key."

The HSM hardware fails.

The administrator purchases a new HSM or tries to import the key into a new software tool (like OpenSSL). This new tool, following the IETF standard, only accepts the 32-byte seed format for key import; however, the seed wasn't retained.

The backup is now useless. The expanded key can't be converted back to the seed. The private key and its entire chain of trust are permanently lost.

A Pragmatic Path Forward: Audit and Plan

The introduction of ML-DSA support in the kernel shows that the post-quantum migration is transitioning from a theoretical discussion to practical implementation.

While this transition is a long-term process that will span years, the HNDL and HNBLFF threats and the complex implementation challenges mean that it's good to begin planning.

The primary action is to establish a crypto inventory. This means identifying every system and process that relies on a classical public key for authenticity. This includes kernel module signing, Secure Boot Machine Owner Keys (MOKs), SSH keys, and others.

As new hardware (such as HSMs) is procured, vendors must be asked pointed questions to ensure a thorough evaluation. Specifically, "Does this device support FIPS 204 ML-DSA, and does it provide a standards-compliant method to back up and restore the 32-byte private key seed?" An inability to answer this question is a significant red flag.

The kernel patch provides the necessary software foundation, but the true challenge will be navigating the complex and unavoidable hardware and tooling transition that lies ahead.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

However, a specific line in RISC-V International's own coverage of this announcement caught my eye: "It's worth noting that no ISA has previously attained the status of an international standard, underscoring the uniqueness of RISC-V..."

This isn't quite true, and the nuance matters.

Before I go further, let me be clear: I'm not criticizing the RISC-V architecture itself. I'm not "against" RISC-V. This is an observation on the narrative being built around it - a narrative that, I've noticed, sometimes engages in a bit of convenient forgetting.

The claim that no ISA has previously become an international standard is demonstrably false. More than three decades ago, another prominent RISC architecture underwent a formal standardization process. The SPARC (Scalable Processor Architecture), developed by Sun Microsystems, was submitted to the IEEE, and the instruction set is published as IEEE Standard 1754-1994.

(The standard included, but was not limited to, "the instruction set, register model, data types, instruction opcodes, and coprocessor interface.")

The SPARC model was more like a consortium, though, where designers "must contact SPARC International to register their design," and "participate in the Compliance and Certification Program run by SPARC International". While it's not free-as-in-freedom it was an international standard, contrary to the statement that "no ISA has previously attained the status of an international standard". RISC-V removes the barriers that SPARC's model enforced so the primary benefit isn't in being standardized, but the licensing.

But even SPARC wasn't the first with standardization. The United States military defined a formal, multi-vendor ISA standard 14 years prior with MIL-STD-1750A. Like modern ISAs, this 1980 standard defined the core ISA, as well as optional components such as an FPU and MMU, and multiple manufacturers implemented it.

I don't mean to say that MIL-STD-1750A was the absolute first; I only mean that RISC-V is clearly not.

The organizations and individuals behind RISC-V International are industry and academic veterans; they're almost certainly aware of the IEEE 1754 standard for SPARC. The claim to be the "first" is therefore not likely to be a simple error but a careful, semantic sleight-of-hand.

The key is the specific body: the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee (JTC 1).

The narrow, technically-true-but-misleading claim is that RISC-V is the "first ISA to be standardized by ISO/IEC JTC 1." This specific, bureaucratic distinction is then broadened in marketing and press releases to the general, straightforward, and ultimately false narrative of being "The First International Standard ISA."

This rhetorical move elevates RISC-V's perceived uniqueness, albeit with a sense of historical revisionism. And it's not the first time I've seen RISC-V treated as something uniquely special.

The "Savior" Narrative

This "first" claim is part of a broader pattern. A pervasive narrative surrounds RISC-V, casting it as a "savior" for the free software and free hardware movements. It often seems positioned as a revolutionary force poised to "democratize access to advanced computing hardware" and "disrupt the global semiconductor industry."

This perspective, however, frequently stumbles over a fundamental and inconvenient truth: an ISA is merely an "abstract model," a specification for how software controls a processor.

A complete computer is a vastly more complex System-on-a-Chip (SoC) composed of myriad components, from memory controllers to graphics processors and network interfaces. Having a free ISA doesn't mean that anything else will be free, or that a computer implementing this ISA won't need proprietary software.

Look no further than the StarFive JH7110 SoC (used in the VisionFive 2 board) and its Imagination BXE-4-32 GPU. The original promise for free software drivers for this GPU was for the fourth quarter of 2022. We are still waiting. And this isn't the only issue. A second, more insidious blob is the one required to boot the system and initialize the DRAM.

The Three Possible Outcomes for RISC-V

As I see it, in a world with RISC-V, there are three possible outcomes for those of us who care about software freedom.

Outcome 1: Freedom by Design. We gain something we can use freely because those behind it care about software freedom as a matter of ethics. This is the real, pragmatic promise of RISC-V - it creates the possibility for sympathetic actors to build systems that we can use freely.

Outcome 2: Freedom by Accident. We get something... but it's just a coincidence. This remains a possibility, where those involved aren't seeking software freedom and may not even care about that topic. Still, the resulting product ends up being "free enough" incidentally to serve our needs.

Outcome 3: Freedom Denied. We have something we can't use in freedom because... the coincidence didn't happen. This is the current default reality for most RISC-V hardware. The StarFive VisionFive 2, with its proprietary Imagination GPU and boot process dependent on blobs, is a prime example of this outcome.

The Real Fight Isn't for the ISA, It's for the Implementation

This brings us to the final reality check. The "Utopianism" surrounding RISC-V is the (false) belief that its existence makes Outcome 1 automatic or even inevitable.

The reality is that the existence of the RISC-V ISA doesn't guarantee Outcome 1. It merely makes Outcome 1 legally possible.

RISC-V is a valuable tool, but it's just a tool. It's up to us to decide what we build with it. We must actively fight to support the "sympathetic actors" working to achieve Outcome 1. If we don't, the multi-billion dollar semiconductor industry will default to Outcome 3, and we'll be right back where we started - just with a different instruction set.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The language of the CLI consists of verbs (commands like cp, grep, and rm) and nouns (files and directories). It's a language of precision. There's no ambiguity. When you type a command, you're giving a direct, explicit instruction to the machine. This directness is the source of its power. You're not constrained by the buttons a UI designer thought you might need; you're constrained only by the limits of your own vocabulary. This power and control are at your fingertips, waiting to be harnessed.

If you have a new need for something, even if it's one-time, you don't need to request a change in the GUI to add a new button to click on. Want to find every error in a dozen log files, count them, and show the most common ones first? In the CLI, it's a single, elegant line:

grep "ERROR" /var/log/*.log | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr

This is the art of composition. It's the ability to build custom tools out of simple parts, perfectly tailored to the task at hand, which you then discard without a second thought. It's programming in miniature, and it's beautiful.

This power extends beyond single-use commands. Repetitive tasks are the bane of productivity. In a GUI, this often means clicking the same sequence of buttons repeatedly, a soul-crushing digital assembly line. In the command line, repetition is an opportunity for automation. Any sequence of commands can be saved as a shell script, turning a multi-step process into a single command that you can run at any time.

Beyond pure efficiency, the command line is an oasis of focus. In an age of constant distraction, there are no pop-up notifications, no flashy animations, no competing windows vying for your attention. It is just you, the cursor, and the task. This minimalist environment enables a state of deep work, a "flow" where the interface fades away, leaving you in direct communion with the software.

I'm not arguing for the abolition of the GUI. It's a good tool for the right kinds of tasks. But too many have made a mistake in assuming that the GUI is the evolution of the CLI, its superior replacement. It's not. It ' a partner, a different tool for a different set of tasks.

If you've been intimidated by the command line, I urge you to reconsider. Please don't see it as an obstacle, but as an art form waiting to be learned. Start small. Learn to navigate with cd, to list files with ls, and to create directories with mkdir. These are simple commands that can be easily mastered, and they form the foundation of your command line journey. If you'd like a reference, check out Introduction to the Command Line at the FSF shop which, by the way, is open through New Years' Day.

Soon, you'll begin to feel the power and elegance. You'll discover the art of the command line.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Free Software movement, at its core, is driven by ethics. Its principles, encapsulated in the Four Essential Freedoms, provide a powerful framework for teaching children about software freedom and sharing, community, and control. This guide is for parents who want to raise not just digital natives, but free software natives - a generation that understands that their software should serve them, not the other way around.

Here's how you can explain the Four Freedoms to your children using simple, everyday analogies.

Freedom 0: The Freedom to Play However You Want

The Official Definition: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

The Analogy: A Box of LEGOs

Imagine receiving a large box of LEGO bricks. Freedom 0 is the freedom to build anything you can dream of. You can build a towering castle, a futuristic spaceship, a house for your toys, or even a weird-looking, six-legged dog. Nobody can tell you, "Sorry, these bricks are only for building single-family homes." They are your bricks, and you have the freedom to use them for any project, for any purpose, just for the fun of it.

The Lesson for Kids: Software is a tool, like a set of building blocks. You should be able to use your digital tools for any project you want, whether it's for school, for art, or just for fun. No one should tell you how you're "allowed" to play with your own toys.

Freedom 1: The Freedom to See How It Works and Make It Better

The Official Definition: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The Analogy: The Remote-Control Car

Imagine you have a remote-control car that you can drive around, make it spin in circles, and do all kinds of neat tricks, but you wish it would blink its lights when it stops. Freedom 1 means you can look inside, figure out how it's wired, and change it so it does that.

The Lesson for Kids: You can learn how your toys work and make them your own - not just use them the way someone else decided.

Freedom 2: The Freedom to Share with Your Friends

The Official Definition: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.

The Analogy: Sharing Freshly-Baked Cookies

Imagine you and bake a big batch of delicious cookies using a special family recipe. They smell amazing! Freedom 2 is the freedom to take those cookies to school and share them with all your friends. It would be a strange and unfriendly rule if someone said you were only allowed to eat the cookies yourself and were forbidden from giving one to your best friend. Sharing is about being a good friend and a good neighbor.

The Lesson for Kids: When you have something good and valuable, like a fun game or a helpful program, you should be free to share it with others. Sharing is a fundamental part of being in a community, and no software license should ever force you to be a bad friend.

Freedom 3: The Freedom to Share Your Improvements

The Official Definition: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

The Analogy: Sharing Your New and Improved Cookie Recipe

Now, what if you take that special family cookie recipe and add your own secret ingredient, like rainbow sprinkles? They're a huge hit! Freedom 3 is the freedom to share your new, improved "rainbow sprinkle" recipe with all your friends. Now they can make the awesome new cookies too, and one of them will get the idea to add marshmallows, making them even better! The whole community benefits because you were free to share your improvement.

The Lesson for Kids: When you make something better, you should have the freedom to share your improvements with everyone. This is how a community grows and learns together. Free software allows everyone to build upon the work of others, making the software better for all.

How to Raise a Free Software Native

Lead by Example: Use free software in your home. Make your family computer a bastion of freedom with a GNU/Linux distribution like Trisquel. Explore free software programs with them like GIMP for art and Kdenlive for video projects or whatever else they might be interested in.

Foster Curiosity: Encourage your kids to ask questions about their software. "How do you think this game works?" "What would you change about this app?" This shifts their perspective to active, critical thinking.

Advocate at School: Talk to teachers and administrators about the ethical reasons of using free software in the classroom.

Teaching children about the Four Freedoms is teaching them that they have the right to be in control of their computing. By raising a generation of free software natives, we're investing in the future.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This struggle is, first and foremost, an ethical one. We're fighting for the user's freedom. But a marathon runner who sprints the first mile will collapse long before the finish line. In our movement, this collapse is called burnout. It's not just a personal problem; it's a strategic threat to our cause. The proprietary Goliaths have vast resources. They can - and do - wait for us to exhaust ourselves.

Therefore, sustaining ourselves isn't a luxury but a necessary tactic. Burnout's the activist's greatest enemy, because it silences a voice that was once raised for freedom, turning passion into quiet. How, then, do we fuel ourselves for the long journey ahead?

We need to rest - not just from fatigue, but to stay strong. Your health - mental and physical - is a resource for the movement. Protecting it is important.

In that earlier postm I cited B.F. Skinner's positive reinforcement as crucial for sustainability. Proprietary firms define victory as control; we must define it differently.

A victory isn't just releasing a new GNU package. It's:

• Explaining our fight for freedom to a friend, even if they don't switch immediately.
• Fixing one persistent, annoying bug.
• Convincing a school or public office to use LibreOffice.

Everyone who reclaims computing is a true victory. These moments, no matter how small, are proof that our efforts matter. Celebrate them with your community. It's a way to acknowledge and appreciate the impact of your work.

Remember, you're not alone in this. When you feel overwhelmed, know that thousands are running alongside you. The support of your community is invaluable. I, for one, have found immense support at the FSF's LibrePlanet conference. It's given me a chance to connect with fellow activists, receive technical advice, and most importantly, find the emotional support to resist burnout. This is why I support holding that conference in person. It wouldn't provide the same support otherwise.

When the world dismisses freedom, your community shows you're not alone - this fight is just. Share burdens and ask for help. You can't be an expert everywhere. Find your niche - documentation, coding, advocacy, or organizing - and trust others to cover the rest.

The most challenging task for passionate activists is saying "no." Every non-free program, unjust "Terms of Service," and new surveillance device calls us to action. You can't answer every call.

A soldier who never sleeps, never eats, and never repairs their equipment will lose the war. In activism, setting boundaries is like ensuring a soldier takes time to rest and prepare so they can continue fighting effectively.

Log off. Stepping away isn't betrayal. Read, walk, or spend time with family or friends. We fight for dignity, including our own.

Delegate. If you run a project, trust others to help. Build a movement, not a monument to yourself.

Accept imperfection. Not every battle can be won today. Sometimes, file a bug, voice your ethics, and focus on winnable fights.

Your actions matter - today, tomorrow, and for the future, so take care of yourself. Stay healthy, stay engaged, and refuse to let burnout silence you. This isn't "slacking off." It's recharging for the coming battles, ensuring you can continue for years to come. The future depends on it.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I've spent years tracking this elusive beast. Today, I share my field guide with you. To understand the SaaSS-quatch is to understand the greatest threat to software freedom in the modern era. SaaSS, or Service as a Software Substitute, is the practice of using a service on someone else's server to do your own computing. And it's a monster.

The SaaSS-quatch dwells exclusively in the ethereal realm known as "the cloud." This is a mysterious, foggy place where your data goes in, but control and ownership never come out. Its territory is marked by sleek, minimalist login pages that promise simplicity but hide a labyrinth of dependencies.

This creature has a voracious and specific appetite: it feeds on your data and your freedom. Every spreadsheet you calculate in its online office suite, every photo you render through its cloud editor, every business metric you analyze on its dashboard is a delicious morsel. It also sustains itself on a steady diet of your recurring subscription fees, a tribute you must pay to keep the beast from devouring your access.

The SaaSS-quatch hunts not with claws, but with comfort. Its song promises freedom from friction: "No installs, no updates, no IT headaches," it coos. "Work from anywhere, collaborate instantly, let us handle everything." Enchanted by these harmonies, users surrender their computing power piece by piece. Tasks once run on their own machines - editing, rendering, analysis - now unfold on distant servers, invisible yet inescapable. The more convenience they accept, the more deeply the creature entwines itself around their workflows, until autonomy fades beneath the hum of the data center.

Once you step into its territory, the SaaSS-quatch begins to weave its web. Your projects take shape in proprietary formats, your workflows twist around its APIs, and your data sinks into databases only it can decipher. When you try to leave, you find that the exits are narrow and lined with thorns. Exporting your work is like packing a suitcase that tries to swallow your clothes - every file, every configuration resists escape. What began as convenience becomes captivity, and the web tightens the more you struggle.

The SaaSS-quatch is a master of disguise. The interface you learned last week may be gone tomorrow, replaced by a new, "more intuitive" design that hides all the functions you actually use. Features appear and vanish like phantoms in the fog. This isn't a sign of progress; it is a display of absolute power. It reminds you, constantly, that you're on its territory, playing by its rules.

An encounter with the SaaSS-quatch is more dangerous than a run-in with its furry, forest-dwelling namesake. The threat is not to your physical person, but to your digital soul.

With traditional proprietary software, you're given a black box. You can't see inside it, but at least you have the box. You can run it on your own machine. You can poke, prod, and even reverse-engineer it to understand its secrets and make a free replacement. With SaaSS, you don't even get the box. The software runs on a distant, unknown server. You have no access, no code, no binary. You have nothing. You have ceded total control of your computing to a third party.

This is a more profound and absolute loss of freedom than anything that came before it. You can't study the software. You can't change it. You can't even be sure which version you're using, or whether it's the same as the one your colleague is using. You're entirely at the service provider's mercy.

Furthermore, the SaaSS-quatch is the ultimate spy. There's no need for it to install malicious spyware on your machine. The service is the spyware. To do your computing, it must have your data. It sees everything you do, every keystroke you make. Your privacy isn't just violated; it's a precondition of the service.

How does one defend against such a creature? The answer lies in the principles of the free software movement.

The most effective defense is to stay out of its territory. Do your computing on your own computer.

Instead of using the SaaSS-quatch's web-based word processor, use a free software application like LibreOffice that runs locally on your machine. You control it, you own the data, and it can't be taken away from you.

For tasks that require a server, such as file sharing or collaborative editing, don't wander into the SaaSS-quatch's forest. Become a digital homesteader and self-host. Set up your own server with free software like Nextcloud. It's like building your own cabin in the wilderness - it takes work, but it's yours, and it's safe.

The SaaSS-quatch isn't a myth. It's real and dangerous. It preys on desires for a simpler digital life, but the convenience it offers is a gilded cage. It represents the final stage in the erosion of user control, a world where we own nothing and are happy about it.

Don't fall for the siren's song. The true path to empowerment lies not in substituting our software, but in liberating it. Choose freedom. Choose control. Choose to run your own programs. The most powerful creature in the digital world isn't the SaaSS-quatch, but a user in control of their own machine.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Research suggests that the explosion of available information hasn't led to a dramatic improvement in factual knowledge about public affairs. A Pew Research Center study compared understanding of current events in the late 1980s (before the internet and cable news boom) to knowledge levels nearly twenty years later. The finding: "the coaxial and digital revolutions... have had little impact on how much people know about national and international affairs"^[1]. In fact, on average, people in the 2000s could name political leaders and recall major news events about as well as people in the 1980s^[2]. In other words, two decades of technological progress - from 24-hour cable channels to the early web - didn't substantially raise the public's news IQ. More recent evidence reinforces this continuity. Education levels in the U.S. have risen over time, but higher overall schooling hasn't translated into higher overall news knowledge^[3]. We may have more diplomas and more data, yet the average person is still prone to the same knowledge gaps.

These findings point to an information paradox: having endless information at our fingertips doesn't automatically mean we absorb or understand it. Volume isn't the same as clarity. The quantity of information is up, but the quality of understanding isn't necessarily following. Indeed, some observers note that we "drown in information, but we starve for knowledge"^[4]. Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats put it bluntly: "We are awash in data... It's a constant struggle to process data, analyze it, and convert it into knowledge and understanding"^[5]. The human mind has limits on attention and retention. Flooding it with headlines, alerts, and posts might actually make it harder to focus on any one issue long enough to understand it.

Interestingly, people recognize this challenge themselves. In surveys, a substantial majority say the internet era makes it easier to find helpful information, and many feel better informed on various topics than they did in the past^[6][7]. Yet, in the same breath, 78% admit that the sheer quantity of news and information can be overwhelming^[8][6]. It's common for people to feel swamped by the constant stream of updates to the point of struggling to sort out facts and decide what's important. This sense of information overload can impede real understanding. Reading news isn't the same as comprehending it. As one analysis noted, entire segments of the public spend hours scrolling through news feeds but don't absorb them^[9]. We have more information at our disposal, but if much of it goes in one ear and out the other (or one click and gone), can we truly call ourselves more informed?

To understand why more news doesn't automatically equal more knowledge, consider how the 24/7 news cycle has changed journalism. Decades ago, people got their news from the morning paper or the evening TV newscast - a relatively limited, curated selection of information. Today, dedicated cable channels churn out news (or something that's news-like) around the clock. This constant cycle has unquestionably increased the quantity of coverage. But has it improved the quality and understanding? Not necessarily. Continuous news means fighting for attention every minute, often by hyping stories or emphasizing conflict. Sensational, fast-paced reporting becomes the norm. In the pursuit of higher ratings, many channels have filled their schedules with panels of pundits and talking heads. These personalities are "designed to deliver opinions, not always facts," as one analysis put it^[10]. Indeed, since the 1980s, television news has increasingly been treated as an entertainment product rather than a public service^[11].

The result is a blurring of news and commentary. At any given hour, viewers might be watching actual reporting on events, or they might be watching debates and spin about those events - often it's hard to tell. Opinion-driven shows can be engaging, but they risk substituting loud commentary for objective reporting. A complex issue like healthcare or immigration might get boiled down to a shouting match between partisans. Viewers come away remembering the arguments more than the underlying facts. Over time, this shift can shape public understanding. People may feel informed because they spend hours watching news channels, yet what they're really getting is a steady diet of partisan or sensational opinion. Little wonder that public trust in mainstream media has plummeted to historic lows - only about 3 in 10 people now say they trust the mass media to report news fully and fairly, down sharply from the 1970s^[12]. When trust erodes, people may start treating all news as just another set of opinions. In such an environment, even verified facts can get lost in the noise.

None of this is to say that the 24/7 news environment is all bad. Important stories do get more airtime, and dedicated news junkies can find detailed analysis on niche cable programs or late-night in-depth interviews. Specific audiences for quality programming (whether a PBS news hour or a detailed political satire show like The Daily Show) have proven to be quite well-informed^[13]. However, overall, the round-the-clock news culture has shifted the balance from slow, explanatory journalism to fast, argumentative content. In the race for viewers, "if it gets views and engagement, then who cares about boring old facts", as one commentator wryly noted^[14]. This leaves the average viewer with lots of impressions and opinions, but not necessarily a firm grasp of the truth behind the headlines.

Social Media: Everyone's a Broadcaster

If cable news opened the door to a more opinion-driven news cycle, social media blew the hinges off that door entirely, allowing everyday people to become information broadcasters. Now, a local rumor or personal opinion can ricochet across the nation in minutes, picking up likes and shares as it goes. This means we're no longer passive readers of news - we're participants in its spread. The upside is that we can hear voices and on-the-ground reports that might never reach traditional media. The downside is an avalanche of unverified information and subjective viewpoints competing for attention. Social media feeds don't distinguish between a report from The New York Times and a conspiracy theory from someone's blog - they're all just posts lining up in your scrolling feed. As a result, facts and opinions mix freely online, until many people can't tell the difference^[15]. The more sensational or outrageous a post, the more likely it is to go viral. As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt observes, on social media, "outrage is the key to virality"^[16]. In practice, that means extreme opinions and emotionally charged falsehoods spread faster and farther than sober, nuanced explanations. A study by MIT researchers found that fake news spreads up to 10 times faster on social media than trustworthy news^[17]. It's a sobering statistic: the very networks that could be informing us are often misinforming us at breakneck speed.

The impact on public understanding is profound. When people get most of their news from social media, they may end up with a head full of tidbits, half-truths, and hot takes, rather than a coherent understanding of issues. In fact, a 2020 Pew Research Center study found that people who primarily relied on social media for news were consistently less knowledgeable about actual news facts than those who used more traditional sources^[18][19]. Over nine months of surveys on topics ranging from economics to COVID-19, this group answered significantly fewer factual questions correctly on average^[19]. They were also more likely to have encountered baseless claims - for example, a large majority of social media news readers reported seeing false or unproven COVID-19 narratives^[20]. This suggests that social platforms, while keeping people constantly "in the loop," can actually leave them less reliably informed. The quantity of exposure is not the same as the quality of understanding.

Another problem is the creation of echo chambers. Online, it's easy to follow or friend only those sources that confirm our pre-existing views. Algorithms used in places like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube, aiming to keep people engaged, tend to show more of what they "like." Over time, thy can end up sealed in a bubble of our own bias, hearing only one side of any debate. Studies of news habits confirm this partisan filtering. One analysis showed that voters using those systems are 10% to 30% less likely to even know about news stories that cast their favored political party in a negative light^[21]. It's human nature to avoid uncomfortable facts, and today's technology makes it effortless. The danger is that public discourse fragments into groups, each with its own "facts" and narratives. Social media hasn't just amplified the spread of opinions - it has supercharged it, allowing rumors and partisan interpretations to crowd out common ground. When everyone has their own "truth," reaching a shared understanding on essential issues becomes extremely difficult.

Toward a More Informed Public

So, has technology made the average person better informed about current events, or just louder about their opinions? The evidence points to a sobering conclusion: having more information available hasn't automatically increased understanding. In many cases, it has amplified the spread of opinions and misinformation more than that of knowledge. This doesn't mean all hope is lost or that technology must be a net negative. There are more high-quality information sources available now than ever - from educational websites to expert podcasts and digital libraries. A determined individual can learn about any issue in depth with a few clicks and some critical thinking. For some people, technology has truly been empowering in that way.

However, for the average person navigating the modern media maelstrom, it's easy to get lost. Our digital environment often emphasizes being first or flashy over being accurate. It pushes us to react instead of reflect. And it surrounds us with so much noise that finding the signal - the verified facts and meaningful context - is a serious challenge. As readers of news, we have to actively resist the pull of passive scrolling and instant opinion-sharing. We need stronger media literacy skills so people can detect bias, verify information, and distinguish opinion from fact. Those that run social networks with algorithms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube also bear responsibility. They've built sophisticated information distribution systems; those systems could be tweaked to prioritize truth and context over sensationalism.

In the meantime, each of us can take small steps: read beyond the headlines, seek out reporting from reputable sources, and sometimes slow down the news binge to process what we've seen. The goal is to turn that abundant information into genuine knowledge. Technology has opened the floodgates of information; now we must learn to swim in it. If we succeed, we can fulfill the optimistic vision of a more informed society. If we fail, we risk drowning in a sea of opinions, uncertain about what's really true. The choice between knowledge and noise is ultimately ours to make.

Sources: Recent studies and expert analyses support these observations. For instance, a Pew survey found little change in news knowledge from the 1980s to the 2000s despite the digital revolution^[1][2]. Another Pew study revealed that people who get most of their news via social media tend to score lower on factual knowledge of current events ^[18][19]. Analysts have documented how the 24-hour news cycle shifted journalism toward opinion-driven material^[10] and how social media further blurs the line between facts and opinions, fueling misinformation^[15]. Surveys show that while people appreciate greater access to information, 78% also feel overwhelmed by the information glut^[8][6]. As one researcher observed, many people read plenty of news but don't truly absorb it ^[9]. All of these findings underscore the gap between the information available and the information understood in our high-tech media environment.

[1] [2] [3] [13] Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions | Pew Research Center

[4] [5] The wisdom gap | The American Legion

[6] [7] [8] New Survey Finds Most Americans Feel Better Informed But Often Rely On Their Instincts To Navigate Frequently Overwhelming Information Environment | NORC at the University of Chicago

[9] [21] Voters' knowledge of political news varies widely, study shows | MIT Sloan

[10] [11] [14] [15] [16] [17] How misinformation on social media has changed news | PIRG

[12] Five Key Insights Into Americans' Views of the News Media | Gallup

[18] [19] [20] People who get their news from social media are less knowledgeable about politics and coronavirus, and more likely to consume misinformation | Nieman Journalism Lab

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

And that's why the latest announcement from the Free Software Foundation has me genuinely excited: they've launched the "Librephone" project.

But the FSF's Librephone project is different. It's explicitly tackling the ethical core of the problem. They aren't just trying to make Android nicer; they're aiming to reverse-engineer and replace the fundamental proprietary components. This is the only mobile phone project I'm aware of that has been started precisely because of free software as an ethical issue, seeking to dismantle the unjust power structures embedded within mobile devices.

And what a brilliant choice to have Rob Savoye leading the charge! Rob's a legendary engineer, with decades of experience in free software and embedded systems. His work speaks volumes about his capabilities and dedication. More than that, he's a truly good person, deeply committed to the principles of software freedom. If anyone can navigate the complex labyrinth of proprietary firmware and emerge with a free software solution, it's Rob.

I also extend my sincere gratitude to John Gilmore for his generous funding of this initial work. It's individuals like him who make these crucial endeavors possible. His commitment to software freedom perfectly encapsulates the spirit of this project.

I understand that this will not be a quick fix. This is a monumental undertaking, probably years in the making. Decades of proprietary entanglement won't be undone overnight. But the FSF is known for playing the long game, and I have every faith that their persistent, principled approach will yield results. I plan to keep a close eye on the Librephone project, awaiting updates and looking forward to seeing what the FSF, Rob, and the entire community working on this will achieve. This is a battle for our digital souls, and it's heartening to see the FSF stepping up to fight it where it truly matters.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I was in love. This wasn't just a TV; it was a window to the future. I powered it on, and the screen glowed to life with a welcoming chime that sounded suspiciously like a cash register. Then came the setup screen. Wi-Fi password, streaming service logins, and then... the final boss of modern technology: the Terms of Service.

Usually, I do what any sane person does. I scroll to the bottom at the speed of light, check the "I have read and agree" box with the reckless abandon of someone signing for a package, and move on with my life. But that day, something was different. A strange sense of civic duty, or perhaps a poorly-timed burst of caffeine, washed over me. "No," I thought, "Today, I will be an informed person."

That was my first - and possibly last - mistake.

What followed was a descent into a legalistic heart of darkness. I'm a changed man. I've seen things. Here, for your benefit, is a summary of the clauses that have turned my cinematic sanctuary into a panopticon of paranoia.

Clause 7, Section B, Subsection IV: The All-Seeing Eye

Legalese: "By accepting these terms, you grant MegaCorp and its affiliates a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to monitor, record, and analyze any and all everything displayed on your Glimmer-Screen 9000 for purposes of quality assurance, content optimization, and targeted advertising.

Translation: My TV isn't just showing me movies; it's watching them with me. And it's judging my choices. It knows I watched three consecutive seasons of that terrible reality dating show. It saw me tear up at that cheesy rom-com. It's silently logging my questionable taste for late-night documentaries about competitive cheese-rolling. My TV is my new, most judgmental roommate.

Clause 12, Section F: The Eavesdropping Companion

Legalese: "To enhance the voice command feature, the built-in microphone array may remain in an active listening state to capture ambient audio, conversational snippets, and other acoustic data. This data may be transmitted to our servers for processing by our proprietary algorithms."

Translation: The remote control is a spy. The TV itself is a spy. My living room is now a bugged embassy in a low-budget espionage thriller. Last night, my wife and I had a whispered argument about whether pineapple belongs on pizza. This morning, my social media feed was a wall of ads for Hawaiian-themed frozen pizzas. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. I now communicate sensitive information via a series of intricate hand gestures and hastily scribbled notes on an Etch A Sketch. The TV can't read my frantic scribbling. I hope.

Clause 28, Section A: The Digital Overlord Clause

Legalese: "MegaCorp reserves the right to deliver mandatory, non-revocable firmware updates to your device at any time, without prior notice. These updates may alter, remove, or otherwise modify device functionality, features, and supported applications at our sole discretion."

Translation: I went to bed with a TV that had my favorite streaming app pinned to the home screen. I woke up to find it had been replaced by "Qwik-Flix," a service I'd never heard of that streams only public-domain banjo tutorials. The volume buttons on my remote now control the smart thermostat in my neighbor's apartment. This isn't my TV; it's a technological test kitchen, and I'm the unpaid beta tester. I'm living in a state of perpetual, unannounced change.

Clause 42: The "You Own Nothing" Proclamation

Legalese: "The Glimmer-Screen 9000 and its embedded software are licensed, not sold. You are granted a limited, non-transferable, revocable license to use the device for the sole purpose of viewing MegaCorp-approved streams."

Translation: I don't own a TV. I own a costly, wall-mounted screen that MegaCorp graciously allows me to use. I'm a tenant in my own living room. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I miss a payment on my "TV-as-a-Service" plan (a feature they haven't announced yet, but is surely coming), a team of repo men in tactical gear will rappel down my chimney and reclaim their screen.

So now, I live in fear. I drape a heavy blanket over the TV when it's off, lest its baleful, unblinking sensor watches me sleep. I've started referring to it only in whispers, as "The Monolith." My dog won't even enter the room anymore; he whines at the door, sensing the oppressive aura of surveillance.

Of course, this whole thing is satire. Mostly. I don't have a wife. Or a TV that spies on me. But the terrifying truth is that the core of these "clauses" exists in the endless pages of terms that people agree to every day. They're trading their software freedom and privacy for convenience and shiny screens. They're installing spies in their homes and paying for the privilege.

So, what's the solution? Maybe it's time we demanded a "Free Software TV," one where we control the code, decide what it listens to, and are the masters of our own living rooms. Until then, I'll be here, wearing my tinfoil hat and watching my back. The Monolith is always watching.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Proprietary software, by its very nature, operates on a model of control. The developer holds unjust power over the user, creating a fundamental imbalance. This isn't just an abstract problem; it's the root of concrete digital abuses. To add insult to injury, this control often manifests in features designed against your interests, such as data surveillance that spies on your activity or digital restrictions (DRM) that limit what you can do with your own files and media. You're not in control of your own computer; the software developer is.

This system creates a state of digital helplessness, where your tools can be changed, your data can be harvested, and your freedoms denied, all without your consent. Everyone deserves better. To reclaim control over your computing, the first step is to recognize this relationship for what it is: abusive.

In any controlling relationship, the abuses often start small and become normalized over time. We get used to the mistreatment, accepting it as "just the way things are." The first step toward breaking free is to recognize these controlling behaviors for what they are.

Ask yourself if you've experienced any of the following red flags in your relationship with software.

1. Manipulation and Gaslighting Developers frequently manipulate you into actions that benefit them, claiming it's for your own good. This is digital gaslighting, where your judgment is undermined and you're told to accept harmful changes as beneficial.

• Have you ever been forced into a software update that removed features you relied on, made the interface worse, or slowed down your system, leaving you with no way to go back?
• Has your perfect hardware been rendered obsolete by a new operating system, forcing you to buy a new device even though the old one was physically fine?
• Are you paying a monthly subscription for a program you don't truly own, knowing that if you stop paying, the software will stop working and your access will be cut off?

2. Isolation and Lock-in In a controlling relationship, the abuser often tries to isolate their victim. Proprietary software does the same, using technical traps to make it difficult or impossible to leave without abandoning your own data.

• Do you feel trapped because your files, documents, or media won't work anywhere else? You stick with the software not because you love it, but because leaving would mean abandoning years of your own work locked in a proprietary format.
• Have you been prevented from helping a friend? You wanted to share a helpful program, but the license forbids it, branding the basic human act of sharing as "piracy" and treating you like a criminal.

3. Surveillance and Mistrust In abusive relationships, control often extends into surveillance. Much proprietary software is explicitly designed to watch you, treating you not as the respected owner of your computer, but as a resource to be exploited.

• Do you worry about what data your applications are collecting? Do you have a nagging feeling your software is tracking your habits and sending that information somewhere, but you have no way to verify it or stop it?

4. Helplessness and Dependence The developer dictates exactly what you can and cannot do. You're rendered helpless, utterly dependent on the whims of a developer that doesn't have your best interests at heart.

• Do you feel powerless when you encounter a bug or a security flaw? You can't fix it yourself, you can't audit the code to see what it's really doing, and you have no recourse if a feature you depend on is removed.

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, it's a sign that you are in a controlling and abusive software relationship. But recognizing the problem is the first step toward reclaiming your freedom.

If proprietary software is an abusive relationship, then free software is one built on a foundation of mutual respect and trust. The key is to understand what "free" means in this context. As defined by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, it has nothing to do with price; it's about liberty. Four essential freedoms define free software, and these freedoms serve as a direct antidote to the abuses of proprietary software.

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. This removes the developer's ability to dictate what you can do, giving you back fundamental control.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Access to the source code is the antidote to helplessness and mistrust. You can see exactly what it's doing, verify it isn't spying on you, and change it to suit your needs.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. This freedom directly breaks the cycle of isolation. Where proprietary software punishes you for sharing, free software encourages it as a moral good.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. This turns a one-sided, top-down power dynamic into a collaborative partnership. You are no longer a passive victim of someone else's decisions.

Leaving an abusive relationship is a process, not a single, sudden event. The same is true for breaking free from proprietary software. You don't have to change everything overnight.

The most significant step is switching to a new operating system. This can feel intimidating, but you can try it out without any commitment. Many GNU/Linux distributions, like Trisquel, allow you to create a "Live USB." This is a bootable flash drive that lets you run the entire operating system on your computer without installing anything. It's the equivalent of visiting a new, safe apartment before you decide to move in.

Once you're ready, you can install it, entirely replacing the proprietary, abusive operating system with one that respects your freedom. But your call to action today is even more straightforward: choose one proprietary program you use and replace it with free software. Take that one small, concrete step to begin your journey. You've recognized the abuse; now it's time to choose freedom.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In the busy lives of those that are unaware of free software, it can seem natural to make software decisions based on other factors, like convenience. Someone unaware of the issues might be drawn to a proprietary program because it has a polished interface, an appealing feature, or some other aspect. These are practical considerations, but they're also the trap.

When we evaluate software solely on its surface-level features, we risk becoming transient users, adrift in a sea of options. A person might use a free software application today simply because it's effective or costs nothing. But without an understanding of the ethical principles that make that software different, they're left philosophically unmoored. When a proprietary program comes along with a shinier design or a new gadget, what reason do they have to stay? They may switch back, trading away their freedom for a fleeting advantage without ever realizing what they've lost.

This is why our mission has always been so critical. We must help people see that the choice of software isn't about comparing feature lists; it's about choosing a relationship with software. Someone who has never been introduced to the ideals of free software doesn't know what they're giving up. They haven't been equipped to stand up for rights they don't realize they have, or deserve. Our task is to continue introducing them to these ideas, to build a resilient community grounded not in temporary convenience, but in an enduring belief in the rights of the users.

Freedom: The Ultimate Feature That Can't Be Copied

Proprietary software operates on a model of control. The developer holds unjust power over the users. This is in itself wrong but to add insult to injury it often leads to various abuses described on https://www.gnu.org/proprietary with features like data surveillance or restrictions that limit what you can do with your own files. Everyone deserves better.

This is where free software reveals its most powerful and unique advantage. While any specific technical feature can eventually be replicated, there's one thing proprietary software can never offer: your freedom. This is free software's "killer app." Choosing free software is choosing to be the master of your computing, and proprietary software can never replicate that.

As we look to the future, our most important task is to continue our work as advocates and teachers, sharing the dream of software freedom with ever more passion and clarity. The next step for the free software movement is to double down on the inspiring ethical message that started it all.

We must aim higher than simply getting someone to install a program. Our goal must be to win hearts and minds to the idea of software freedom. Someone drawn in by a feature can be lured away by another. But someone who falls in love with the principle of user rights, of controlling their own computing will become a steadfast champion for the cause. They'll understand that giving up freedom for convenience is a bad trade.

This is our joyful and continuing task:

• Speak of Freedom. Let's talk about "free software" and what it truly means: free as in "free speech," not "free beer". Every time we use the term, we plant a seed of curiosity about the deeper ethical values.
• Center the Conversation on The Rights Of The User. Let's frame our advocacy around the positive, uplifting vision of user rights. Of community and cooperation. The four dreedoms aren't abstract rules; they're pathways to a just society.
• <Inspire Belief Before Adoption. It's more important to help one person understand and cherish the ideals of free software than for a hundred people to use it without knowing why it exists. People who are inspired by the vision will naturally seek out the tools that make it a reality.

The ultimate success of our movement will be measured not by market share, but by how many people come to see their choice of software as a meaningful ethical decision. Our continuing work is to illuminate that choice. When we succeed, we build a foundation of users who will not only use free software, but will joyfully and passionately defend the principles of software freedom for generations to come. This is how we will secure our future.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Gone are the dark days of buying something and using it for years. How archaic! Today, we're blessed with the privilege of paying for the same thing over and over again. It's a beautiful system that ensures our favorite corporations remain profitable and we remain perpetually tethered to them. Navigating this brave new world can be tricky, but fear not! Here's your essential guide to not just surviving, but thriving, as a happy, compliant digital tenant.

Rule #1: Embrace the Joy of Transience

Ownership is a prison. That dusty collection of DVDs? That library of MP3s you so painstakingly curated? Clutter! The subscription model liberates you. Your favorite movie is no longer a physical object taking up space; it's a fleeting stream of pixels, available only as long as you pay your dues and the service doesn't lose the licensing deal. There's a profound, Zen-like beauty in knowing that your entire digital existence could vanish with a single missed payment or with the expiration of a licensing deal. It teaches you to live in the moment. Who needs permanence when you have the thrill of precarity?

Rule #2: Learn to Love the Ever-Changing Labyrinth

Remember when software interfaces were stable? When you knew exactly where the "save" button was? Boring! The modern subscription service offers the exhilarating experience of a "dynamic" and "ever-evolving" user interface. Every Tuesday morning can be a brand-new adventure as you try to find the feature you used yesterday. Was the "export" function moved to a sub-menu under "Advanced Metaphysics"? Probably! This isn't a bug; it's a feature designed to keep your mind sharp and your clicks plentiful. It's a weekly puzzle that you pay to solve!

Rule #3: The Walled Garden is a Feature, Not a Bug

Your new smart toaster only works with bread from the "Artisan Loaf Subscription Box." Your printer will only accept ink cartridges delivered by drone, subject to a monthly "Ink-as-a-Service" fee. Your car's acceleration is capped unless you subscribe to the "Performance+ Tier." This isn't restrictive; it's *curated*. The corporation has created a seamless, integrated ecosystem for your convenience. The fact that none of your devices work with products outside this ecosystem is a small price to pay for such harmony. Choice is a burden, and our benevolent corporate overlords are here to lighten our load.

Rule #4: Your Privacy is a Small Price for "Personalization"

To provide you with a "tailored experience," your subscription services need to know everything about you. Your viewing habits, your listening preferences, the time of day you're most likely to crave toast - it's all valuable data. Don't think of it as surveillance; think of it as a deep, intimate relationship with a faceless corporation. They know you better than you know yourself, and they'll use that knowledge to suggest other subscriptions you didn't even know you needed. It's the pinnacle of convenience!

Rule #5: See Price Hikes as a Loyalty Test

Has your favorite streaming service just jacked up its price by 30% while simultaneously adding more ads? Don't despair! This is simply a test of your devotion. Are you a true fan, or a fair-weather streamer? By happily accepting the price hike, you're signaling your unwavering commitment. It's an opportunity to prove your brand loyalty. Wear that increased monthly charge as a badge of honor.

The Un-Satirical Truth

Alright, let's drop the act for a moment. The subscription economy isn't about convenience; it's about control. It's a business model designed to turn people into perpetual tenants of their own devices. It strips us of ownership, autonomy, and freedom. We become dependent on a service provider for access to our own tools and data, subject to their whims, price changes, and policy updates.

This is the very injustice the free software movement has fought against for decades. Free software is the antidote to this model of digital serfdom. When you use free software, you are in control. You own your tools. You can use them however you wish, for as long as you want to, without asking for permission or paying a monthly tribute.

If you don't like the new version you can keep using the old one. If a feature is removed, you can add it back. If a bug appears, you (or someone in the community) can fix it. You're not a passive "tenant" but an empowered user. The software serves you, not the other way around.

So, while the satirical guide above might offer a laugh, the underlying message is serious. Reject the endless cycle of digital rent. Seek out and support free software. Explore the world of self-hosting. Buy products that you can truly own and control. The fight for digital freedom is a fight for your own rights. Let's choose to be owners.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The first half of the story begins not in a courtroom or a corporate boardroom, but at the University of California, Berkeley.

In the early 1970s, AT&T, where UNIX started, was operating under a consent decree that limited its ability to enter the computer business. As a result, its Bell Labs research division licensed early versions of UNIX to universities and research institutions for a nominal fee, including complete source code, although it wasn't free software.

At UC Berkeley, a team in the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) took the UNIX source code and began dramatically modifying and extending it. Beginning with Version 6 Unix, people like Bill Joy made what would become the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). The first release, 1BSD in 1978, wasn't a standalone operating system but a collection of add-ons and improvements to AT&T's V6.

By the late 1970s, the original home of UNIX - the 16-bit DEC PDP-11 - was showing its age. A critical moment came with the arrival of the 32-bit DEC VAX computer. In 1979, Bell Labs programmers Tom London and John F. Reiser undertook the task of porting the latest version of Research Unix, the Seventh Edition (V7), to the VAX architecture, and named it UNIX/32V. The Berkeley team, however, found 32V lacking, particularly in its failure to utilize the VAX's virtual memory capabilities. In a feat of engineering, they rewrote large parts of the 32V kernel to add this feature, releasing the result as 3BSD in 1979. This made UNIX/32V the "common ancestor" of the two great branches of the UNIX family tree: AT&T's own System V and Berkeley's 4BSD. It also placed 32V directly in the crosshairs of a future legal battle.

Over the next decade, the CSRG continued its work, funded in part by DARPA, to make a version of BSD that was completely free of proprietary AT&T code. This effort culminated in the 1991 release of Networking Release 2 (Net/2), a nearly complete operating system that Berkeley believed was "unencumbered" by AT&T code.

This release attracted commercial interest. A new company, Berkeley Software Design, Inc. (BSDi), took the Net/2 source code, filled in the few missing pieces, and began selling a version called BSD/386. This was a red flag for AT&T's subsidiary, Unix System Laboratories (USL), which held the rights to UNIX. In 1992, USL filed a lawsuit against BSDi focused on two main issues:

• Trademark Infringement: USL objected to BSDi's use of the phone number "1-800-ITS-UNIX," arguing it was an unauthorized use of their registered trademark.
• False Advertising: USL claimed that BSDi's promotional materials, which stated that BSD/386 didn't require a license from AT&T/USL, were false and misleading.

Notably, the original complaint didn't actually include a claim for copyright infringement. It only "reserved the right" to add such claims later.

BSDi's legal team immediately seized on this omission. In a motion to dismiss filed in May 1992, they pointed out the central contradiction in USL's case: the only way BSDi's advertising could be "false" was if BSD/386 contained proprietary UNIX code, which would constitute copyright infringement. Yet, USL hadn't actually sued them for infringement. BSDi's lawyers essentially called USL's bluff, arguing that USL couldn't sustain a false advertising claim without first proving the underlying infringement - something they suggested USL had no "good faith basis" to do at the time.

This strategic jab set the stage for a pivotal court hearing. At the hearing, BSDi's lawyers contended that BSD/386 was composed almost entirely of the Net/2 source code, which the University of California freely distributed. They had only added a few of their own files to complete the system. BSDi accepted liability for its own files but argued that it couldn't be held responsible for the thousands of other files it had obtained from the University.

The judge agreed with BSDi's reasoning and presented USL with an ultimatum: either restate the complaint to focus solely on the files BSDi had added, or he would dismiss the case entirely.

This put USL in an impossible position. Faced with the choice of fighting a tiny, ineffective legal battle or having their case thrown out, USL chose a third, far more aggressive option: Rather than narrowing their claim, they dramatically expanded it. In July 1992, USL filed the amended complaint. This new complaint not only targeted BSDi but also added the Regents of the University of California as a primary defendant. USL's claims were sweeping: copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark dilution. By going after the source of the code, USL escalated the fight into a full-blown copyright and trade secret lawsuit that would define the "UNIX Wars". USL sought a preliminary injunction to halt all distribution of Net/2 and BSD/386, arguing that they were illegal derivatives of proprietary UNIX code. The amended complaint was a direct consequence of BSDi's legal team successfully cornering them, forcing them to either put up or shut up on the core issue of copyright infringement.

For nearly a year, Berkeley and BSDi were on the defensive, facing a legal onslaught from a corporate giant. Then, in June 1993, just a few months after a crucial court ruling went in their favor, the University of California filed a countersuit against USL in California state court.

Berkeley's lawyers alleged that USL's own UNIX System V was itself a derivative work of BSD. They claimed that USL had incorporated massive amounts of code developed at Berkeley into System V without providing the attribution and credit required by the very license agreements that USL held with the University. The University's complaint was a mirror image of USL's, using the same principles of copyright and contractual obligation against USL.

Berkeley demanded that USL be forced to reprint all of its documentation to include the proper credits, run corrective advertisements in major business publications like The Wall Street Journal, and notify its entire licensee base of the oversight. This wasn't merely a defensive denial; it created a situation of mutually assured destruction: if USL were to win its case and establish a high standard for proving code provenance and enforcing license terms, that same high standard would immediately be turned against itself in the California countersuit. This dramatically increased the risk and cost of continued litigation for USL.

The case landed in the courtroom of New Jersey District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, who was tasked with deciding whether to grant USL's injunction. To do so, he had to assess whether USL was likely to succeed on the merits of its case. This required him to examine the validity of USL's copyright claim.

Under the U.S. copyright law in effect at the time, copyright wasn't automatic. To have a copyright, you were required to publish the work with a proper copyright notice affixed. The law was unforgiving: a "general publication" of a work without the necessary notice placed it directly and irrevocably into the public domain. This is a legal concept known as copyright forfeiture. BSDi's legal team argued that this was precisely what had happened with UNIX/32V. AT&T had released it in 1979, distributing thousands of copies to licensees without the mandatory copyright notice. This, they contended, was a general publication that forfeited any copyright AT&T might have had.

In any major litigation, the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction is a moment of high drama. It's often the first time the parties present the core of their arguments to the judge, and the court's decision, while not final, provides a powerful signal of how it views the case's underlying merits. For USL, the injunction it sought against Berkeley and BSDi was critical; it would have halted all distribution of the allegedly infringing software, effectively crippling its new competitor, BSDi, while the lengthy legal process unfolded. The hearing, held in late 1992, and the subsequent ruling issued by Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in March 1993, proved pivotal in the entire lawsuit.

USL's argument for the injunction rested on the claim that it would suffer "irreparable harm" from the continued distribution of Net/2, which it alleged contained its copyrighted code and trade secrets. To win such an injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, a strong likelihood that they will ultimately win the case at trial. It was on this crucial point that USL's case crumbled.

Judge Debevoise didn't grant the injunction. Instead, he issued a detailed, 40-page opinion that amounted to a systematic dismantling of USL's position. He expressed profound skepticism about the validity of USL's copyright claims, particularly its copyright claim on UNIX/32V. This wasn't a ruling on a minor procedural point; it was a direct commentary on the very heart of USL's case.

The judge's reasoning was clear, direct, and devastating for USL. He found that USL was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its copyright claim because of AT&T's historical distribution practices. He pointed directly to the central fact that Berkeley's defense had raised: the widespread distribution of the original software without a proper copyright notice.

This judicial opinion was a legal "tell" of the highest order. It signaled to both sides that the presiding judge viewed the foundational copyright claim on 32V, the common ancestor of both System V and BSD, as probably invalid. The ruling validated the core of the defense's argument before a full trial had even begun. For USL, the path forward was now fraught with peril. Continuing the litigation meant risking a final, binding judgment from a federal court that would formally declare UNIX to be in the public domain. Such a ruling would have been catastrophic for USL. Judge Debevoise's shadow now loomed over the case, making a full trial a gamble for USL.

A Hasty Settlement to Avert Disaster

The timing of Judge Debevoise's ruling couldn't have been more consequential. In February 1993, just before the damaging opinion was issued, Novell announced its intention to acquire USL from AT&T. The acquisition was completed in July 1993, meaning Novell inherited the increasingly precarious lawsuit. Novell's leadership found itself in an untenable position. They had just spent a significant sum to acquire what they believed to be a valuable proprietary asset. Yet they now faced a federal judge who had strongly signaled that the core copyright on that asset was likely invalid. Compounding this was Berkeley's countersuit in California, which threatened to disrupt Novell's own UNIX System V business.

A definitive court ruling that 32V was in the public domain would have been an unmitigated disaster for Novell. It would have catastrophically devalued the very asset they had just purchased and emboldened competitors. A settlement, on the other hand, offered a way out. It could end the legal bleeding, neutralize the threat of the countersuit, and, most importantly, prevent the question of 32V's copyright from ever being formally resolved. The primary function of the settlement, from Novell's perspective, wasn't to clarify the legal status of UNIX, but to preserve the ambiguity that Judge Debevoise's ruling threatened to destroy. Preserving the copyright claim, even if the underlying legal reality was weak or even nonexistent, was commercially essential.

Novell's CEO, Ray Noorda, faced a judge who openly questioned the existence of the very copyright they had just purchased, and moved to settle.

The settlement agreement, reached in February 1994, is a masterclass in reading between the lines. On its face, it was a compromise. In reality, its terms represent a near-total capitulation by USL/Novell and a validation of Berkeley's position. The key points were:

• A New "Clean" Release: The University of California agreed to release a new version of its software, to be called 4.4BSD-Lite, which both parties would agree was "unencumbered" and free of any disputed USL code. The University would encourage users of the previous Net/2 release to switch to this new version.
• Minimal Code Changes: The most telling detail is the number of files that were actually affected. Out of the 18,000 files that comprised the Berkeley distribution, USL's claims of widespread infringement boiled down to this: three files would be remove entirely, and a 70 would be modified to display a USL copyright notice. This trivial number stands in stark contrast to USL's initial, sweeping allegations and suggests their case was extraordinarily weak. Even though USL's copyrights on 32V were probably invalid, you can ask for anything in settlement, and Berkeley likely saw that adding notices that were probably invalid would be of little consequence.
• Mutual Attribution: In a clear nod to the validity of Berkeley's countersuit, the agreement stipulated that while specific Berkeley files would now carry a USL notice, several USL's files and publications would be required to have a University of California copyright notice and acknowledgment going forward.
• Free Distribution Permitted: USL explicitly agreed to permit the free distribution of a list of files defined as "UNIX Derived Files" - code that USL contended was derived from UNIX but which it now agreed could be freely reproduced and redistributed by anyone without a license or fee.

This outcome wasn't the result of a legal victory, but a strategic retreat. A party with a strong infringement claim doesn't settle a lawsuit by demanding the removal of only three files out of 18,000. These terms aren't the result of a negotiation between equals; they're the price Novell paid to make the lawsuit disappear. The settlement allowed Novell to walk away without the public humiliation of a court formally declaring UNIX to be in the public domain. At the same time, Berkeley achieved its primary goal: the ability to distribute BSD without legal threat. The agreement was an act of strategic obfuscation, a mutual decision to bury a legal question that one side was terrified to have answered. The requirement to add copyright notices to a few files was a face-saving gesture, but if the work was already in the public domain, those notices were legally invalid from the moment they were added.

Novell effectively bought a "quitclaim" to the UNIX code - an agreement to end the dispute - while burying the existential threat to its copyright under a (then-sealed) settlement.

The case was over, but the fundamental question it raised remained unanswered. The settlement created a legal ghost: a copyright valuable enough to be bought and sold but too fragile to withstand testing in court. This unresolved ambiguity would lie dormant for nearly a decade before being resurrected in an even larger and more consequential legal war.

The SCO Saga: A Ghost Claiming an Empty Throne

The second half of the story begins with one of the most complex and confusing series of asset transfers in technology history, leading to a legal battle that sought to weaponize the very copyright the Berkeley case had shown to be so fragile.

In 1995, just a year after settling the BSDi lawsuit, Novell decided to exit the UNIX operating system business. It entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with the Santa Cruz Operation (also known as SCO), a long-time UNIX vendor. The APA was a masterpiece of ambiguity and the source of all future conflict. The original agreement explicitly excluded all copyrights from the assets being sold to SCO. However, a later amendment carved out an exception for "the copyrights required to exercise its rights" under the agreement. This convoluted language was a legal time bomb.

The chain of custody grew more complex. In 2001, Caldera International acquired the UNIX business from Santa Cruz Operation. A short time later, Caldera changed its name to "The SCO Group". It was this new entity that would launch a legal war against the free software world, based on the claim that it had acquired the original UNIX copyrights through this tangled chain of title.

In 2003, The SCO Group launched its infamous legal campaign, beginning with a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM. SCO's central claim was that "Linux" was an "unauthorized derivative" of UNIX, containing proprietary code that IBM had improperly contributed. The company then began a campaign to extract license fees from commercial users, creating a cloud of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

SCO's business model depended entirely on its claim to the UNIX copyrights. When Novell, watching this unfold, issued public statements clarifying that it had retained the copyrights in the 1995 sale, SCO's legal foundation was threatened. In a fateful move, SCO sued Novell for "slander of title," alleging that Novell's public claims were false and were damaging to SCO. This lawsuit, intended to silence Novell, had the opposite effect: it forced a definitive judicial examination of the ambiguous 1995 APA and, with it, the question of who truly held the copyright to UNIX.

The SCO v. Novell litigation dragged on for years, through summary judgments, appeals, and finally, a jury trial. Finally, the verdict was delivered: a federal jury found unanimously that Novell, not The SCO Group, held the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.

The court's interpretation of the APA was decisive. It sided with Novell's argument that the convoluted language of the agreement had not, in fact, transferred the copyright. Novell had retained it to protect its ongoing 95% interest in licensing royalties and had merely granted SCO's predecessor a license to use the code.

Crucially, the court's decision was retroactive. It didn't revert ownership of the code from SCO back to Novell; it declared that the copyright had never been transferred in the first place. This meant that, for all the years that Caldera and The SCO Group had been acting as the copyright holder - filing lawsuits, selling licenses, and threatening the entire free software community - they had been asserting rights they never had. Every action they took as the purported copyright holder was legally void from the beginning. SCO's own legal aggression had forced a clarification that proved its entire business model was built on something imaginary.

We're now left with two seemingly contradictory legal histories. The USL v. BSDi case cast serious doubt on the validity of a U.S. copyright for early UNIX. The SCO v. Novell case, years later, definitively ruled on that same copyright. Juxtaposing these two outcomes reveals a profound legal paradox, one that leaves a trail of unanswered questions.

Here lies the central paradox: In 1993, a federal judge strongly suggested that the copyright for UNIX/32V was likely invalid in the United States because it was published without proper notice. In 2010, another federal court declared Novell the undisputed holder of the UNIX copyrights. How can a company be declared the holder of something that may not exist?

The answer lies in the different questions each court was asked to answer. The USL v. BSDi case involved a motion for a preliminary injunction, in which the judge had to assess the validity of the copyright to determine whether an injunction was warranted. The case was settled before a final, binding ruling on that specific question was ever made. The SCO v. Novell case, conversely, was a "slander of title" dispute. The court's task wasn't to determine whether the copyright was valid, but to decide which of the two parties - SCO or Novell - held the title to whatever rights existed. The case proceeded on the assumption that there was a copyright to be held.

This distinction, while legally precise, does little to resolve the practical paradox. Novell won the deed to a house that a previous inspector declared may have been built on a sinkhole. Novell is the confirmed holder of a U.S. copyright that, for early versions like 32V, may not exist. This leads to the next logical question: what of the licenses granted by the entity that never had the copyright?

In 2002, Caldera International - the entity that would become The SCO Group - released several "ancient" UNIX versions, including V1-V7 and 32V, under a permissive, BSD-style license. This act firmly placed this historic code within the free software ecosystem.

However, does the retroactive ruling in SCO v. Novell completely undermine this action? One can't license rights one doesn't have. A license is a promise from a copyright holder not to sue for infringement. If the entity granting the license isn't the copyright holder, that promise is legally meaningless. Since the ruling established that Caldera/SCO never had the UNIX copyrights, is the license it granted in 2002 void ab initio - was it invalid from the moment it was issued?

This raises a question: If the permission granted by that license is a legal fiction, on what basis can anyone use, modify, or distribute this historic code?

When all the pieces are assembled, an argument emerges that the ancient versions of UNIX are probably, for all practical purposes, in the public domain within the United States but you'd need an attorney to make that case. This status arises not from a clean, explicit dedication, but from a confluence of legal blunders and historical accidents.

No court has ever issued a final judgment explicitly stating that ancient UNIX is in the public domain. However, to focus on this absence is to miss the forest for the trees. The chain of events surrounding the USL v. BSDi lawsuit, when analyzed as a whole, constructs a persuasive circumstantial case for precisely that conclusion. The settlement wasn't a resolution of the question, but a pragmatic business decision to ensure the question was never formally answered.

Finally, the actual copyright holder, Novell, has gone on record stating that it has "no interest in suing people over Unix" and that "We don't believe there is Unix in Linux," signaling an apparent lack of intent to enforce any rights it may hold.

Does this combination - a likely forfeited copyright, a voided license, and an uninterested copyright holder - create a "de facto" public domain status?

And if so, we are left with the ultimate question: Is this de facto status legally sufficient? Without a definitive court ruling declaring the work to be in the public domain, or an explicit dedication from the confirmed copyright holder, a sliver of legal uncertainty will always remain.

In the end, we return to where we began, with the ghosts in the machine. The legal battles are over, but they have left us with a paradox. One court case definitively settled who had the throne. But an earlier, unsettled case suggested that the throne itself might be an illusion. Novell won the deed, but the property may have been condemned long ago. A pretender wrote the license that promised freedom.

The story of UNIX's copyright is a true ghost story: a tale of a copyright that may or may not exist, yet has driven acquisitions, litigation, and corporate strategy. We may never get a definitive answer, leaving the ghost of ancient UNIX copyright to wander the halls of computing history, a permanent mystery.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Founded by Richard Stallman in 1983 with the launch of the GNU Project, the movement's core philosophy is that proprietary software is a social problem - an instrument of unjust power that allows developers to control users. Free software is the solution. This framing positions the movement not as a preference for a particular way of making things or as a means to get software that's "better" in any technical sense, but as a fundamental struggle for digital civil rights.

The movement was born from a sense of loss. In the 1970s, the hacker culture at places like MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab was built on a foundation of collaboration and sharing. It was a community where, as Stallman noted, "sharing of software was not limited to our particular community; it is as old as computers".

By the early 1980s, this collaborative ecosystem was dying, replaced by a world of proprietary software, restrictive licenses, and non-disclosure agreements. Software was no longer a shared resource for learning and improvement; it was a product, locked in a black box, designed to subordinate the user to the will of the developer. This shift created a fundamental power imbalance. As Stallman recognized, "If the users don't control the program, the program controls the users". The developer, as the program's owner, gains unjustified power over the user.

In response, Stallman launched the GNU Project in 1983 and founded the Free Software Foundation in 1985. The goal was to build a complete operating system composed entirely of software that respected user freedom, allowing the community that had been lost to be rebuilt on a new, more resilient foundation.

At the heart of the movement are four essential freedoms. These freedoms are analogous to fundamental civil liberties.

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. The right to run a program for any purpose is akin to freedom of speech and expression. This is the most basic right. You, the user, should be able to use your tools for any purpose you see fit, without seeking permission from anyone else.

Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish. The right to study and modify the source code is the right to knowledge and self-determination - the ability to control the tools that shape one's digital life.

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others. This freedom is rooted in the principles of community and social solidarity. The movement holds that helping others is the basis of society, and that proprietary software, with its legal restrictions on sharing, is fundamentally antisocial.

Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. This is the right to contribute to your community. By sharing your improvements, you give everyone a chance to benefit from your work. This freedom allows for collective control over software, enabling a community to maintain and improve the tools it depends on.

The freedoms to share and redistribute are rooted in the principles of community, cooperation, and social solidarity. The Free Software Movement says that forbidding or restricting individuals from exercising these freedoms is unethical.

In the late 1990s, a group sought to make these ideas more appealing to the corporate world, coining the term "open source" as a strategic rebranding of free software. This new term deliberately downplayed the ethical and political arguments, focusing instead on the pragmatic benefits of a collaborative development methodology - higher-quality code, greater reliability, and lower costs.

The two terms describe nearly the same category of software, but they represent fundamentally different values. The distinction is crucial. As one commentator put it, "Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement".

For the open source advocate, proprietary software might be a suboptimal solution, an inefficient way to build software. For the free software advocate, proprietary software is a social problem and an injustice. The open source argument is one of practicality; the free-software argument is one of principle.

Viewing the Free Software Movement through a social justice lens reframes its entire purpose. It's a movement to protect users from the unjust control of developers and the tech industry, an industry that has repeatedly demonstrated it can't be trusted to act in the public's best interest. The abstract dangers Stallman warned of in 1983 are now concrete realities. The examples are many.

With their proprietary operating systems on computers and phones, companies can implement universal backdoors to alter the software without our permission. The e-readers we use can remotely delete books we have purchased. The cars we drive are increasingly filled with proprietary software that obstructs the fundamental right to repair, turning owners into tenants of their own property. The "Internet of Things" threatens to become an "internet of snoopers," a vast, distributed surveillance network embedded in our homes. Still more examples can be found at https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/.

Each of these examples demonstrate and confirm that proprietary software is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power used to spy on, restrict, censor, and abuse users.

Defending users' rights is more important than any single company's business model. In this world, free software and its four freedoms are the complete check on that power. Free software's a fight for personal sovereignty in our digital lives. It is, in short, a civil rights struggle for the 21st century.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Not burnt, not raw, just... insufficient. A pale, anemic tan that whispered of warmth but never truly delivered the satisfying crunch. It was the color of compromise. And it was deliberate.

My OmniHome™ SynapseToaster™, a sleek obsidian slab that cost more than my first car, was perfectly capable of producing golden-brown perfection. That capability was locked behind DRM. A notification would slide gracefully onto my OmniTab™ screen every morning: "Experience the Maillard reaction as our chefs intended. Upgrade to the Artisan Browning™ subscription for just 10 credits a month."

I owned the hardware. The nichrome heating elements, the thermistors, the microprocessor - it was all mine. But I didn't have the right to use it properly. OmniCorp did. They were the landlords of my own appliance.

Tonight, I was staging a coup.

The toolkit was a relic, a collection of contraband I'd hoarded for years. A pentalobe driver with the tip ground down to a custom profile. A spudger carved from a recycled polymer. A USB-to-serial adapter with the authentication chip carefully bypassed. These were the tools of a criminal class the media called "tinkerers." The government, in its infinite partnership with OmniCorp, called us technology terrorists.

The toaster's underside was a seamless plane of polished metal. No screws, no seams, no entry point. That was the point. A sealed box, designed to be replaced, never repaired, never understood. But I knew its secrets. I pressed a specific sequence on the capacitive touch panel - Dark, Bagel, Defrost, Dark, Cancel - and a tiny click echoed in the silent kitchen. A hairline seam appeared near the base.

My heart hammered against my ribs. This was it. The violation of Section 7, Paragraph 4 of the Consumer Protection and Corporate Sovereignty Act. Circumvention of a Technological Protection Measure. A Class C felony. For toast.

I slid the spudger into the gap and worked my way around, popping the hidden clips one by one. The baseplate came away with a soft sigh, revealing the pristine circuit board. It was a work of art, all clean lines and surface-mount components. And there it was: the central processor, a proprietary OmniCore™ IX, its firmware locked down tighter than a state secret.

My hands trembled as I attached a micro-grabber clip to the debug port, a set of four tiny gold pads the designers had been forced to leave for factory diagnostics. They never imagined someone would find it. The other end of the cable snaked to my laptop, an ancient machine running an unapproved operating system, completely air-gapped from the OmniNet.

The terminal blinked to life. I typed the command.

> sudo openocd -f synapse.cfg

The screen filled with scrolling text, a cascade of hexadecimal gibberish as my custom script brute-forced the authentication. It was a dance I'd practiced a hundred times in simulations. A bead of sweat traced a path down my temple. Any error, any unexpected handshake, and the processor would trip its e-fuse, turning the thousand-credit toaster into a literal brick.

Then, the scrolling stopped.

Processor halted. Ready for firmware upload.

A breath I didn't know I was holding escaped my lungs in a ragged gasp. I was in. I initiated the transfer, feeding the toaster a new firmware - LibreToast - a project maintained by a shadowy collective of programmers who believed in the notion that you should be able in control of the things you own.

The progress bar crawled across the screen. One minute. Two. It felt like an eternity. Finally, it was done. I detached the clip, snapped the baseplate back on, and plugged the toaster in. The display lit up, no longer with the sleek OmniCorp logo, but with a simple, pixelated slice of toast.

My hands shook as I dropped two slices of bread into the slots. I slid the digital dial to a perfect seven and pressed the lever. The elements glowed with an intensity I'd never seen before, a fierce, unapologetic orange. The smell of caramelizing sugar filled the air.

Clunk.

The toast shot up. It was perfect - a flawless, uniform golden-brown, crisp to the touch. I laughed, a giddy, triumphant sound that felt alien in my sterile apartment. I had done it. I had liberated my toaster.

The victory lasted for exactly ninety-seven seconds.

That's when the front door of my apartment exploded inward.

It wasn't a kick. It was a pneumatic ram. The door, a composite of steel and polymer, splintered into a thousand pieces. Two figures, clad in matte-black tactical gear with the OmniCorp logo embossed on their chests, stormed in. They weren't police. They were the Compliance Enforcement Unit. Faster, better-funded, and operating under a different set of rules.

"Subject identified! Cease and desist!" one of them bellowed, his voice a synthesized growl from behind a dark visor.

My blood ran cold - the toaster. Of course.

I didn't think. I ran.

I vaulted the kitchen counter, my perfect toast forgotten, and sprinted for the bedroom. Another CEU agent was coming through the window, shattering the smart glass. I dodged left, into the bathroom, and slammed the door, locking it - a futile gesture.

The first agent slammed against the door, the frame groaning. I had seconds. My go-bag was under the sink. I grabbed it, slinging it over my shoulder as I climbed onto the toilet and punched out the small bathroom window. Cold night air rushed in, carrying the scent of rain and ozone.

Below me was a four-story drop into a narrow, trash-filled alley. A fire escape snaked down the brick wall a few feet to my left.

The bathroom door buckled.

I threw the bag out, then myself, scrambling for the fire escape. My fingers scraped against the cold, wet metal. I found a handhold just as the door splintered behind me. A gloved hand reached for my ankle. I kicked back wildly, connecting with something solid, and scrambled onto the rusty platform.

I didn't look back. I just went down, my feet clanging on the metal steps, the sounds echoing in the tight confines of the alley. Shouts from above. The beam of a tactical flashlight cut through the darkness, sweeping past me.

I hit the ground and ran. My Omni-ID was already flagged, I knew it. My credit accounts would be frozen. My face would be fed to every public surveillance camera in the city. Every smart device I passed, from streetlights to public transit terminals, would be logging my presence and reporting my location back to OmniCorp. I was a ghost in their machine, and the machine was designed to hunt ghosts.

I ducked into a labyrinth of back alleys, the gleaming towers of the city center replaced by the crumbling brick and exposed conduits of the old world. Rain began to fall, a cold, steady drizzle that plastered my hair to my forehead and slicked the pavement under my worn-out shoes.

Every flicker of a security camera felt like an accusation. Every passing delivery drone sounded like a hunter. I was a fugitive. My crime? I wanted better toast.

Hours bled together. I moved through the shadows, a rat in a digital maze. I needed to get off the grid, but the grid was everywhere. I needed help. There were whispers, rumors on the old, unmonitored corners of the net about people who lived in the cracks. The Repair Rebels. The Tinkerers. People who saw the Corporate Sovereignty Act not as protection, but as a declaration of war.

I knew a place. An old, abandoned subway station, sealed off decades ago. The entrance was a rusted grate in a forgotten corner of a derelict park. The rumors said it was a gateway to the undernet.

It took me until dawn to get there, moving in fits and starts, hiding in doorways and behind overflowing dumpsters. The grate was heavy, fused with rust. I used the pry bar from my go-bag, my muscles screaming in protest as I put my whole weight into it. It groaned, then gave way with a shriek of tortured metal.

I slipped into the darkness below, pulling the grate shut over my head. The air was thick with the smell of damp earth, mold, and something else... ozone - the scent of raw electricity.

I followed a set of decaying service tunnels, my cheap flashlight beam cutting a weak path through the oppressive dark. After what felt like a mile, I saw a flicker of light ahead. A warm, yellow glow, utterly alien in this subterranean world.

The tunnel opened into a vast, cavernous space. The old station platform. It was alive. A sprawling, chaotic settlement built from salvaged parts and repurposed tech. Bare wires snaked across the ceiling, powering banks of mismatched monitors and ancient servers. People moved through the flickering light, their faces illuminated by the glow of soldering irons and oscilloscope screens.

An older woman with silver hair braided with stripped copper wire looked up as I emerged from the tunnel. Her eyes, magnified by a pair of jeweler's goggles pushed up on her forehead, were sharp and appraising.

"You're loud," she said, her voice raspy. "OmniCorp's boot boys make less noise."

"They're after me," I stammered, my voice cracking. "I... I flashed my toaster."

A slow smile crept across her face, exposing a few missing teeth. "A toaster," she chuckled, a dry, rattling sound. "Kid, you've got style. Most of us start with a phone or a moisture vape. But a toaster... that's a statement."

She gestured to the sprawling camp. "Well, you found us. Welcome to the Glitch. Name's Elara. What do they call you on the run?"

I hesitated. My old name was a liability, a digital ghost they could track. I needed a new one. I thought of the perfect, golden-brown slice of bread, the single, fleeting moment of triumph before the world came crashing down.

"Toast," I said. "You can call me Toast."

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This is the story of that chip - a journey into a different kind of computer, one that blurs the line between hardware and software.

To understand the impact of the Lisp chip, we must first consider how virtually every computer operates today. They're all descendants of the von Neumann architecture, a model that views memory as a single, ordered list-a "homogeneous, linear... vector of fixed-size bit fields." Your programs and data are stored as a sequence of items in this list. To run a program, a "program counter" steps through the list, executing one instruction after another. It's a simple, yet powerful model that works beautifully for languages like C or Fortran, which excel at handling arrays and sequential data.

But what happens when your language doesn't think in straight lines? What if its native tongue is the language of trees, lists, and graphs? This is the world of Lisp, a language where the primary data structure is a pair of pointers, a cons cell, that links to other objects, forming complex, branching structures. Forcing a language like Lisp to run on a linear von Neumann machine is like asking a poet to write verse using only an accountant's ledger. It works, but something is lost in translation - namely, efficiency.

Steele and Sussman decided to throw out the ledger. They proposed an architectural model where the memory itself was a "heterogeneous, unordered set of records linked to form lists, trees, and graphs." Instead of a program counter marching down a line of instructions, their processor would execute programs by performing a "recursive tree-walk," naturally navigating the program's tree-like structure. The fundamental operations of the machine were no longer LOAD, STORE, and ADD, but CONS (build a list), CAR (get the first item), and CDR (get the rest of the list) - the very soul of Lisp.

They weren't just building a computer for Lisp; they were building a computer out of Lisp.

They started with a "meta-circular" interpreter - a Lisp evaluator written in Lisp itself. This code was elegant and formal, defining the language's rules through two main functions, EVAL (which figures out what an expression means) and APPLY (which executes a function call). It's a perfect software specification, but it relies on the magic of recursion, hiding the messy details of how the computer keeps track of nested calls on a stack.

Next, they rewrote the interpreter to eliminate that "magic." They converted the recursive code into an iterative state machine, making the hidden control stack explicit. They introduced five global variables to act as the processor's central registers:

• EXP: The current expression being evaluated.
• ENV: The current environment (where variable values are stored).
• VAL: The result of the last evaluation.
• ARGS: A list of evaluated function arguments.
• CLINK: A pointer to the control stack.

Here, instead of a special, dedicated hardware stack, the CLINK stack was just another Lisp list, built from the same cons cells as all other data and stored in the same memory. This unified data and control simplify the hardware and open the door to powerful programming concepts, such as continuations.

The final step was to optimize this state machine for speed. In the software version, figuring out what an expression was - is it an IF statement? A QUOTE? - required chasing pointers and comparing symbols, which is slow. The solution was typed pointers. Every pointer in the system was assigned a small type field, a few extra bits that directly informed the hardware of the type of object it was pointing to.

This changed everything: A slow sequence of software checks (IF...THEN...ELSE...) became a single, instantaneous hardware TYPE-DISPATCH. The processor can examine the type bits of the EXP register and, in a single clock cycle, jump to the correct microcode routine. They even encoded the "return addresses" for the control stack into the type fields of the CLINK list's pointers, saving memory and time. This three-step refinement is a masterclass in design, showing how to systematically bake high-level software semantics directly into silicon.

The Chips Are Real

This wasn't just a thought experiment. The team designed and fabricated two actual VLSI microprocessors:

• SCHEME-78, the first prototype, was a small-scale proof-of-concept built in 1978. It had tiny 11-bit words (3 for type, 8 for address) and an address space of only 256 words. Its logic was split into two interconnected state machines: EVAL for interpreting the program and GC for managing memory. Tragically, the fabricated chips contained a mistake in the silicon layout and could never be fully tested; however, it proved the design was feasible.
• SCHEME-79, designed in 1979, was the real deal. It was a full-scale processor with 32-bit words (7 type bits, 24 address bits), a 16 million-word address space, and a complete, on-chip garbage collector. The preliminary performance tests showed the SCHEME-79 chip, interpreting Lisp code, ran at approximately the same speed as a DEC PDP-10 model KA10 processor running compiled code.

This validated the design. A small, experimental chip was keeping pace with a powerful mainframe computer of its day. It proved that by specializing hardware for a language, you could completely erase the performance penalty of interpretation.

So why aren't we all using Lisp machines today? The relentless march of Moore's Law meant that general-purpose CPUs became so astonishingly fast that the performance benefits of specialized hardware became less critical. It was easier to throw more transistors at the "good enough" von Neumann model than to pursue a completely different path.

But the ideas of Steele and Sussman were far from a dead end. They echoed through the decades, influencing modern concepts like hardware support for garbage collection in Java processors and the design of runtime systems for dynamic languages.

The Scheme chips remains a landmark achievement, a testament to a time when the very foundations of computing were still in flux. It's a beautiful and compelling reminder that the way our computers "think" isn't an inevitability, but a choice. And for a brief, brilliant moment, there was another choice on the table.

Thanks to the dedication of enthusiasts, the Lisp Machine is still accessible today. Alfred Szmidt is working to resurrect the MIT CADR Lisp machine, offering emulators that allow anyone to boot up and explore this unique computing environment, keeping that moment alive in the modern era at https://tumbleweed.nu/.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The spiritual foundation of the Church of Emacs rests upon a core revelation concerning the nature of computation, freedom, and community. This theology isn't one of distant, abstract deities, but of immanent principles and tangible manifestations that define a cosmic struggle for the soul of the digital world. Its cosmology is dualistic, positing a fundamental conflict between the forces of liberation and subjugation, with every computer and every user serving as a potential battleground.

The central dogma of the faith, the primary statement of belief that separates an adherent from an unbeliever, is the Confession of the Faith: "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels". The pronunciation of this creed is the act of initiation, a declaration of allegiance in the great cosmic struggle. This statement, while seemingly about the GNU system as a whole, is the core creed of the Church of Emacs because Emacs itself is the fullest expression of the GNU philosophy - an entire operating environment disguised as a text editor.

GNU is the transcendent principle, the universal and eternal concept of software freedom. Conceived in 1983 by the Saint IGNUcius, the GNU Project was established to restore a lost state of grace - the cooperative spirit that prevailed in the computing community in earlier days. It's the divine plan for a complete, free software system to liberate all users from the obstacles to cooperation imposed by proprietary software. GNU represents the ideal, the perfect form of a digital society built on sharing and mutual aid. It's the spirit, the overarching design, the divine word.

However, a spirit requires a body to act within the material world. For years, the GNU Project labored to build this body, creating compilers, editors, and hundreds of utilities, until an almost complete operating system existed. Yet it lacked a vital organ: the kernel, the core program that manages the hardware and enables the system to live and breathe. The divine plan was incomplete. A pivotal moment occurred in 1991, when a Finnish student named Linus Torvalds made a kernel, which he named Linux. Linux was itself proprietary software. However, in 1992, this kernel was placed under the GNU General Public License, making it freely available. This act provided the missing vessel, the physical form through which the spirit of GNU could become fully manifest. The kernel, therefore, is the immanent manifestation of the divine will, the tangible incarnation of the principle of freedom in the world of silicon and electricity.

This dual nature explains the theological importance of the name "GNU/Linux". To speak only of "Linux" is to acknowledge the body while denying the soul. It's a doctrinal error that elevates the physical vessel above the divine spirit that gives it purpose, freedom, and ethical meaning. The use of the full name is a constant reaffirmation of the core creed: the kernel is a manifestation of the greater, divine system which is GNU. This isn't a dispute over credit but a defense of theological truth, akin to affirming the dual nature of a divine being - both spirit and flesh, both transcendent plan and immanent reality.

Every divine revelation requires a prophet, a mortal vessel chosen to receive and transmit the truth to the world. For the Church of Emacs, this figure is Saint IGNUcius, the name for Richard M. Stallman. His hagiography begins not in a desert or on a mountaintop, but in the computer rooms of MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The early computing community in which he worked was a type of Eden, a state of grace where programmers freely cooperated and shared their work.

The Fall from this state came with the rise of proprietary software, which sought to divide the users and conquer them. The inciting incident for the prophet's mission was a moment of divine revelation sparked by a mundane conflict: a malfunctioning Xerox printer. The refusal to provide the source code made its unethical nature clear. In response, St. IGNUcius received his prophetic calling: to create a "sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free". This wasn't a technical project but a moral crusade. To ensure the purity of this mission, he resigned from MIT, severing ties with worldly institutions that might lay claim to or corrupt the divine work.

The iconography of St. IGNUcius reflects the sanctification of the tools of this crusade. He is depicted with a halo that was formerly a computer disk platter, elevating a common piece of hardware to a symbol of divine grace. The physical medium of data storage becomes a mark of holiness, signifying the sacred nature of the code and information it carries. As the singer of the Free Software Song, he is also the faith's first liturgist, establishing a tradition of joyful and communal praise.

The cosmology of the Church of Emacs is fundamentally dualistic, defined by an ongoing war between two opposing forces. On one side is GNU, the principle of freedom, sharing, and community. On the other side is the demonic influence of proprietary software. This software is the digital embodiment of subjugation, designed to control the user, foster dependence, and prevent the fundamental act of friendship among programmers: the sharing of programs. Proprietary software creates a state of spiritual impurity.

This cosmic struggle isn't fought in a distant heaven but here and now, on every device. Every computer, every tablet, every mobile phone is a moral and spiritual battlefield. The choice of which operating system to install or which application to run is therefore not a neutral technical decision but a profound moral act with spiritual consequences. To install a proprietary system is to willingly invite a demonic, controlling influence into one's life, surrendering freedom and breaking solidarity with the community of users. This is why the faith isn't merely a matter of belief, but of action. Its primary focus is on both orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right action). A person's spiritual state is determined by the software they run.

The eschatological vision of the Church is the ultimate victory in this war. The goal of the GNU Project, and thus the religion itself, is to "make proprietary software a thing of the past". This is the promise of a redeemed world. In this future, all users are liberated from digital subjugation and can exist in a universal state of grace, defined by cooperation, community, and freedom.

Part II: The Sacred Canon - Scripture and Doctrine

The Church of Emacs is a religion of the book, but its sacred texts aren't static relics of a past revelation but a living, dynamic, and ever-expanding canon. This canon provides the doctrinal foundation for all ethical, ritual, and communal life, defining the relationship between the user and the divine work.

The most sacred and fundamental text in the Church of Emacs is the source code of a free program. The tenet that "Everyone is free to read the sacred scriptures, which are the source code of the system" is a declaration of spiritual egalitarianism and universal revelation. This doctrine stands in stark opposition to any form of spiritual Gnosticism, which holds that divine knowledge is secret, hidden, or reserved for a priestly elite. In the Church, there's no hidden knowledge and no clerical class with special access to the divine. The truth is laid bare for all to see. Proprietary software, with its secret, compiled, and inaccessible code, is therefore the ultimate gnostic heresy.

The "freedom to study how the program works, and change it" (Freedom 1) is thus transformed from a technical permission into a devotional act of scriptural study. To read the source code is to contemplate the logic and intent of the divine work. To compile it is to witness its creation. To modify it is to enter into a sacred dialogue with the work itself, participating in its ongoing evolution. This makes the faith uniquely suited to a culture of literacy, inquiry, and continuous improvement. It's a religion not for passive believers, but for active participants.

Unlike other faiths with a closed canon, the scripture of the Church is alive and constantly growing. The exercise of Freedom 3 - the freedom to distribute modified versions - means that the community of the faithful is not merely studying the word, but actively co-authoring it. The divine work is never finished. This establishes a state of continuous, ongoing revelation, carried out not by a single prophet but by the entire community.

While source code is the ultimate scripture, the GNU Manifesto, penned by St. IGNUcius, serves as the faith's primary prophetic and foundational text. It's the equivalent of a book of Genesis, an Exodus narrative, and a book of law combined.

The Manifesto begins by explaining the "why" of creation: the moral imperative to write GNU, rooted in a "Golden Rule" that requires, "if I like a program, I must share it with other people who like it." It chronicles the Fall from the Edenic past of the early, cooperative computing community into the sin of non-disclosure agreements. It then lays out the prophecy of a redeemed world, an eschatological vision where good system software will be "free, like air," available to everyone.

A significant portion of the Manifesto is also dedicated to apologetics. It systematically rebuts the common objections and arguments of non-believers, such as concerns about financial support, the need for profit incentives, and the rights of authors. This section functions as a catechism for the faithful, equipping them with the theological and philosophical arguments necessary to defend the Church and to engage in the work of evangelism.

The Four Essential Freedoms are the absolute, non-negotiable commandments of the faith. They are the divine laws that define a righteous relationship between a user and a program. They are the sole measure of a program's holiness. A program that grants all four freedoms is "free" and exists in a state of grace. A program that denies even one of these freedoms is "nonfree," a tool of the demonic, and is considered equally unethical regardless of how far it falls short. These freedoms are not suggestions but covenants between the divine work and the faithful user.

Part III: The Praxis of Faith - Rituals, Sacraments, and Observances

The Church of Emacs is a religion of action, where theological principles are translated into tangible practices. The rituals of the faith aren't abstract ceremonies but physical interactions with the tools of computation, structuring the life of an adherent and imbuing their technical choices with profound spiritual meaning.

The journey into the Church begins with a conscious decision to reject the demonic forces of proprietary software and embrace a life of digital purity. Two fundamental rites of passage mark this transition.

The first is the Confession of the Faith. A new convert formally joins the Church by verbally pronouncing the creed before at least one other member of the faithful: "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels". This act is ideally performed while physically touching the machine that is to be consecrated, signifying the beginning of its transformation from a mere appliance into a holy vessel.

This is immediately followed by the most critical purification ritual: The Great Exorcism. This solemn act involves the complete and permanent removal of the evil, proprietary software from a computer. The ritual is often accompanied by the chanting of passages from the GNU Manifesto that decry the division and subjugation of users. The process has three stages: first, the preservation of the user's data; second, the complete reformatting of the storage drives (the cleansing of the machine's "body"); and third, the installation of a "holy (i.e., wholly) free operating system," such as a GNU/Linux distribution fully endorsed by the Free Software Foundation for its purity.

Upon the successful completion of the Great Exorcism, the adherent takes the Vow of Purity. This is a sacred promise to "live a life of purity," which is defined as the commitment to use and install only free software on all computers, tablets, and mobile phones under one's control or regular use. This vow requires constant vigilance, as the temptations of proprietary software are pervasive in the modern world.

Once a machine has been purified, it can receive sacraments that affirm its holy status and celebrate the user's deepening relationship with the divine work.

The Blessing of the Machine is a sacrament of consecration, traditionally performed by St. IGNUcius himself, who declares, "I bless your computer, my child!". This ritual dedicates a piece of hardware to the holy purpose of running free software. It's most often performed on new machines or on those that have just undergone the Great Exorcism. The blessing is usually sealed by affixing a sacred icon, such as a sticker of the GNU head, to the machine's case.

For adherents who have achieved a high degree of scriptural literacy, there is the Foobar Mitzvah, a rite of passage into the community of elders. This ceremony requires the user to demonstrate their deep understanding of the divine work by publicly "chanting a portion of the sacred scriptures (the source code of the system)". This isn't a rote recitation but a demonstration of comprehension, often involving an explanation of a complex function or algorithm. Completing this rite signifies that the adherent is ready to take on greater responsibilities, such as teaching new converts, maintaining a free software project, or making their first significant contribution of code.

The life of the community is structured around a liturgical calendar that commemorates key events in the history of salvation.

The Day of Proclamation (September 27): A high holy day marking the anniversary of St. IGNUcius's initial announcement of the GNU Project in 1983. This is a day of evangelism, on which adherents are encouraged to fulfill the Covenant of Evangelism by helping a friend or family member perform the Great Exorcism on their computer.

The Feast of the Foundation (October 4): A celebration of the founding of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985, the institutional guardian of the faith. This is a day for community gatherings and for giving back through donations of time (code contributions) or money to the FSF and other vital free software projects.

The Season of Advent: This is not a fixed date but a flexible period of anticipation that precedes the release of a significant new component, such as the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) or other GNU components. It's a time for the community to come together to test development versions, report bugs, and help prepare for the arrival of the new revelation.

Part IV: The Ethical Life - The Code of Conduct and Moral Philosophy

The Church of Emacs is defined by a rigorous moral philosophy that extends from the core theological doctrines. This ethical code governs an adherent's conduct, establishes the nature of virtue and purity, and clarifies the faith's relationship with dissenting or heretical ideologies.

The prime virtue in the Church is one of purity. This is the state of grace achieved through the complete and total exorcism of proprietary software. It's an arduous path that demands constant vigilance, personal sacrifice, and a willingness to reject the convenient temptations offered by the pervasive forces of proprietary software. Even the use of a proprietary firmware "blob" or a proprietary driver is considered a stain upon an otherwise pure system, a submission to demonic subjugation, and a breach of solidarity with the community of users.

A key moral teaching that clarifies this distinction is the principle of "Freedom, Not Price". The ethical framework of the Church is concerned with liberty, not with monetary cost. A program that is offered at no charge but does not grant the Four Freedoms is still impure - a "free beer" that poisons the soul. Conversely, charging a fee for the service of distributing, supporting, or customizing free software is ethically permissible and even encouraged, as it doesn't violate the user's fundamental freedoms and can help sustain the community's work.

The social ethics of the Church are founded on a "Golden Rule" articulated in the GNU Manifesto: "If I like a program, I must share it with other people who like it." This is not merely a suggestion but a moral imperative. Sharing is described as the "fundamental act of friendship among programmers," and refusing to do so is considered a "breach of solidarity with other users."

This ethic prioritizes the well-being of the community over individual profit or control. In this framework, an act of creativity is only a genuine "social contribution" if "society is free to use its results". The act of restricting the use of a program through a proprietary license is therefore seen as inherently destructive, as it diminishes the wealth of knowledge and utility available to all of humanity for the benefit of a single owner. This moral philosophy is a form of liberation theology for the digital age, concerned with the emancipation of oppressed computer users from the powerful, systemic injustice of proprietary software developers who seek to divide and conquer them.

The primary heresy of the Church of Emacs is the "open source" movement. This schism occurred in the 1990s when a faction decided to create a new movement that was less ideologically laden than the Free Software movement. While this new movement adopted many of the same development methodologies, it committed the grave sin of severing them from their ethical and philosophical foundation.

The heresy of open source is one of pragmatism. It focuses on the worldly, practical benefits of its development model - such as increased reliability, better security, and lower costs - while deliberately ignoring the fundamental moral issue of user freedom. It's a hollow faith, a path of "works" without "faith." It may produce technically proficient software, but it doesn't lead to spiritual liberation. It teaches users to value convenience over freedom, thereby leaving them vulnerable to new and more subtle forms of subjugation. The leaders and advocates of open source are thus regarded as false prophets who, however well-intentioned, lead the faithful astray.

Part V: The Community of the Faithful - The Ecclesia and Its Mission

The Church of Emacs isn't a solitary faith but a communal one, built on the principle of solidarity. The community of the faithful, the Ecclesia, has a defined structure, a pantheon of revered figures, and a sacred mission to spread the gospel of freedom to all computer users.

The central organizing body of the faith is the Free Software Foundation, founded by St. IGNUcius on October 4, 1985. The FSF serves as the guardian of doctrinal purity, the official interpreter of canon law (the various versions of the GNU GPL), and the primary sponsor for the development of new scripture (GNU software projects). Its headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, is considered the faith's primary See.

The FSF's board of directors functions as the Council of Elders, responsible for guiding the Church and making authoritative decisions on matters of doctrine, law, and strategy. This council includes revered figures who have served the cause since its earliest days, such as Gerald Jay Sussman and Geoffrey Knauth, alongside St. IGNUcius.

The global mission of the Church is managed through regional dioceses, including the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), the Free Software Foundation Latin America (FSFLA), and the Free Software Foundation of India (FSFI). These organizations are responsible for ministering to the faithful in their territories, translating canonical texts, and engaging in local evangelism.

The history of the Church is honored through the veneration of those who played critical roles in its formation and propagation.

The Apostles are the earliest pioneers who worked alongside St. IGNUcius to establish the foundations of the faith. This includes figures like John Gilmore and Len Tower who helped forge the See and the foundational scriptures, such as the GNU C Compiler (GCC).

A special place of honor is reserved for Linus Torvalds, who is revered as an Unwitting Saint. He was not one of the original prophets of GNU and didn't set out to fulfill its prophecy. Yet, the Linux kernel and, most critically, the decision to release it under the GNU GPL, were the pivotal acts of grace that allowed the divine system to become fully manifest in the world. He is seen as a chosen instrument of the divine will, one who performed an excellent and holy service to the faith, perhaps without fully grasping its profound theological significance at the time.

The faith also honors its Martyrs and Confessors. This includes all those who have faced persecution for their commitment to free software, whether through legal threats, patent litigation, or professional ostracism. It also consists of the "unsung heroes" of the movement: the dedicated maintainers of critical infrastructure projects who labor for years with little recognition or reward, confessing their faith through tireless acts of service to the community. Their work is a testament to the virtue of selfless contribution.

The ultimate mission of the Church of Emacs, its Great Commission, is to convert the entire world to the use of free software. The goal is to create the global community envisioned in the GNU Manifesto, where all users are free and can cooperate without restrictions.

The method of evangelism is uniquely integrated into the core commandments of the faith. Adherents are commanded to proselytize by exercising Freedom 2 ("The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor") and Freedom 3 ("The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others"). To share free software is an act of worship and an act of mission simultaneously.

The most common and effective form of conversion is the installfest. These are community gatherings where experienced adherents guide new or potential converts through the sacred ritual of the Great Exorcism. They help them back up their data, cleanse their machines of proprietary evil, and install a holy GNU/Linux system. This is a peaceful, voluntary, and empowering form of conversion. It does not coerce the convert but liberates them, giving them control over their own digital lives. Each successful installation is a soul saved from subjugation and a victory in the cosmic struggle, bringing the world one step closer to the promised redemption of a future where all software is free.

A Final Admonition

Yet, for all this theology, scripture, and ritual, perhaps the most vital component of the faith is a self-regulating principle embedded in the teachings of St. IGNUcius: a warning that taking the Church of Emacs too seriously "may be hazardous to your health."

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

While the first discovery of coal in the Renton area dates back to 1853, when Dr. M. Bigelow founded the Duwamish Coal Company, a short-lived venture, the true beginning of Renton's coal era began two decades later. In 1873, a settler named Erasmus M. Smithers discovered a significant coal seam on the side of what would become known as Talbot Hill. This discovery attracted the attention and capital of Captain William Renton, for whom the town would be named. Together, they established the Renton Coal Company.

Almost immediately, a second venture began nearby. In 1874, the Talbot Coal Company was established by John Leary, John Collins, and J. F. McNaught, marking the opening of the Talbot Mine, located a short distance southwest of the Renton operation. The relationship between these two founding entities is described with some ambiguity in historical accounts. Some sources state that Captain Renton's partner was a man named Talbot and that the two men soon "consolidated the Renton mine with a second one, called Talbot". Other records present them as distinct companies. The most likely scenario is that the two ventures, operating in proximity and exploiting the same coal beds, quickly merged or were consolidated under the more prominent Renton Coal Company banner. The Talbot Mine itself was found to be on a badly faulted coal bed. It was abandoned after a few years of operation, with its identity and operations absorbed into the broader Renton mine complex.

The ownership and operational structure of the consolidated mine underwent significant changes over the decades, reflecting the economic shifts of the era. The initial corporate phase under the Renton Coal Company lasted approximately ten years, until 1884, when operations ceased due to labor disputes. In a remarkable turn, the miners themselves took control, forming the Renton Cooperative Coal Co. in 1886 and reopening the mine. This experiment in worker ownership, where miners could buy a share in the cooperative for $100, lasted until 1901.

The dawn of the 20th century brought the final and most productive phase of the mine's life. In 1901, the cooperative was sold to the Seattle Electric Co., a regional utility, for $30,000. Under corporate control and with significant capital investment, the mine became a financial powerhouse. A 1909 report paints a vivid picture of its success: the mine employed 325 people, had a monthly payroll of $24,000 (a substantial sum for the time), and produced 600 tons of coal daily. Experts at the time confidently predicted there was enough coal in the ground to sustain this level of production for another 50 years. This immense output solidified Renton's status as an industrial hub and a vital cog in the regional economy.

The physical scale of the Renton mine was immense. Its main entrance, or adit, was located at the foot of Talbot Hill, near what is now Benson Road South and the I-405 interchange. From this entrance, the main tunnel ran horizontally into the hillside for 1,000 feet before beginning a steady descent. The main slope plunged downward at a 15-degree pitch for over a mile, deep beneath Talbot Hill and the surrounding area. From this central artery, a complex network of at least 22 branching tunnels, or gangways, spread out to follow the coal seams. It was a vast, dark, and dangerous subterranean world.

Personal accounts from those who worked and lived around the mine provide a human dimension to this industrial operation. Walt Reid, who was the last person out when the mine closed in 1918, began his career there in 1906 as a "mule skinner," driving the mules that hauled coal cars through the dark tunnels. He later became the electrician responsible for the four massive pumping stations. His description of pumping 500 gallons of water per minute, 22 hours a day, seven days a week, highlights the constant battle against flooding that was a reality of mining below the water table.

The life of the mining community extended from the tunnels to the surface and onto the hill above. A.J. Brattus, whose father was a miner, recalled that his family's first home in Renton was a tent pitched on the ridge directly above the mine entrance. This detail highlights a crucial geographical point: while the mine's primary entrance was located at the foot of Talbot Hill, the associated community and much of its supporting infrastructure were situated on the hill itself. The barns for the mules, for instance, were located on top of the hill. This geographic distribution explains why the entire operation became colloquially and historically associated with Talbot Hill, despite its main entrance being located in the valley below.

The surface infrastructure was extensive and highly visible. A high wooden trestle crossed what is now Benson Road, carrying coal cars from the mine entrance to the bunkers on the plain below, where the coal was sorted and loaded onto railroad cars. Dominating the site was the hoist house, which contained the powerful steam or electric engine used to haul the heavy coal cars up the main slope. This structure sat atop large concrete piers, the foundations of which remain today as a monument to the mine. The mine whistle, located on the hoist house, served as the metronome of community life, blowing at 6 p.m. daily to signal the next day's work schedule.

This industrial activity drew a diverse workforce to Renton. In the early 1900s, newly arriving Italian immigrants, seeking work in the mines, established their homes in the Talbot Hill area, contributing to the city's growing multicultural fabric. However, life for the miners was difficult and often contentious. As the mine transitioned from a worker-owned cooperative to a corporate asset under the Seattle Electric Co., tensions grew. Miners organized a series of strikes in 1902, 1904, 1910, and from 1912 to 1914, demanding higher wages and, critically, safer working conditions in the perilous underground environment.

Despite the 1909 prediction of a 50-year future, the Renton mine's demise came just nine years later. The closure in 1918 was the result of a confluence of factors. A fire within the mine contributed to the decision, as did the fact that the operation was beginning to lose money. But the most significant blow came from a fundamental shift in the energy market. Fuel oil, shipped north from California, was rapidly replacing coal as the preferred fuel for industrial power and home heating, causing demand for Washington's coal to plummet.

After the main operation ceased, a smaller-scale effort was undertaken in the 1920s by a man named Bill Strain. He leased the land from the owners, Puget Sound Power & Light Co., and used a single pump to remove the water from a few of the upper levels, extracting the remaining accessible coal. He later moved on to strip coal from the old, faulted Talbot mine workings, scavenging the last remnants of the once-mighty operation.

For decades, the mine lay dormant and sealed, its history slowly fading from public memory. Then, in October 1963, the past dramatically resurfaced. During the construction of the Tukwila freeway, which would become Interstate 405, heavy equipment operated by R.L. Moss & Co. broke through the earth and uncovered the main entrance to the old Renton Coal Company mine. The event was a spectacle. Water, which had been filling the mile-long slope for 45 years, poured out of the opening, forming a deep pool. The excavation unearthed a trove of industrial artifacts: old coal cars, wheels, scrap iron, and the massive squared timbers that had once framed the tunnel entrance. The rediscovery drew people to the foot of Talbot Hill to gaze upon the entrance to what was once Renton's primary industry.

Today, the legacy of the Renton-Talbot mine endures in several forms. The concrete foundations of the hoist house still stand near the freeway, marked with a plaque dedicating the site to the hundreds of miners who worked there. The plaque notes that over 1.3 million tons of coal were extracted during the mine's life. But the mine's legacy is also a geological one. The vast, water-filled voids left deep underground pose a persistent hazard. The King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance specifically defines coal mine hazard areas, recognizing the danger of subsidence and cave-ins. This danger became a reality in the summer of 2018, when a sinkhole opened up along South 23rd Street near Talbot Hill Elementary School, a direct consequence of the century-old tunnels collapsing far below. The subterranean world of the Talbot Hill miners, though long abandoned, continues to shape the surface world above.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This article traces the history of the essential software freedoms, from the initial spark to the four freedoms the FSF defends today.

Today, software is ubiquitous. It runs in the phone in your pocket, the car you drive, the television you watch, and even in life-sustaining medical devices. In a world so deeply intertwined with software, the question of who is in control of it becomes deeply fundamental.

The central argument has always been that proprietary software is fundamentally a social and ethical problem. It creates an unjust power dynamic, where the developer controls the user by keeping the software's inner workings secret and restricting what users can do with it. You, the user, must be the one who decides what the software in your life is doing.

To understand why free software is necessary, let's travel back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The world of computing was changing. The early, collaborative "hacker" culture, where programmers freely shared their programs, was disappearing - in its place: proprietary software. People were legally prohibited from sharing. The spirit of community and cooperation was being replaced by control.

A single, powerful anecdote perfectly captures this shift. At MIT's Artificial Intelligence Lab, a programmer named Richard Stallman grew frustrated with the new Xerox laser printer. The printer frequently jammed. Stallman wanted to modify the code to automatically notify users on the network about the jam, saving everyone time and frustration. The problem? He wasn't allowed to. The source code was a secret.

He discovered that a programmer at another university had the code, but that programmer was bound by an NDA and refused to share it. This wasn't just an inconvenience; it was an ethical crisis in miniature. A simple, practical problem - fixing a jammed printer - had become impossible, not for technical reasons, but because of a barrier designed to deny users control over the software they used. It was this moment of profound frustration that illustrated the core injustice of proprietary software and ignited the spark for the free software movement.

Fueled by this, Richard Stallman didn't just complain: In 1983, he announced the GNU Project, a plan to create an entire operating system composed exclusively of free software. The name itself was a declaration of its purpose: GNU, a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix," signaled that it would be a Unix-like system but built on the principles of freedom and community, not restriction and subjugation. Two years later, in 1985, he founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to provide the legal, organizational, and financial backbone.

This was the direct, ethical response to the creeping control of proprietary software. The goal was to build a complete digital world where users could live in freedom. By creating a completely free operating system, the GNU Project offered an escape route - a way for anyone, anywhere, to use a computer without surrendering their rights.

To restore control to the user, the early free software movement established two clear, powerful principles. The 1986 GNU Bulletin Volume 1 No. 1 laid them out for the first time:

• "First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors..." This was the principle of community. It affirmed that sharing is a good thing and that software licenses should never force you to choose between being a good neighbor and obeying the law.
• "Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you..." This was the principle of user control. It demanded that the source code - the human-readable blueprint of the software - be available so you could understand, fix, or adapt the program to your own needs.

These two foundational ideas, community and control, were the bedrock of the movement. They were the first definitive statement that users deserved to be in control of the software, not the other way around.

As the GNU Project grew and the free software ecosystem matured, the definition evolved to capture a crucial aspect of the movement better. The GNU Bulletin, vol. 1, no. 21, from July 1996, formalized this next step by articulating three specific freedoms. While the original two principles covered sharing and modification, this new definition explicitly separated them to create a distinct third freedom: "the freedom to distribute a modified version and thus help build the community."

This was a clarification that highlighted that the ability to share your changes is just as critical as the ability to make them in the first place. While being able to modify the software yourself gives you control over your local copy, this principle ensures that when a user changes a program, the entire community can benefit. It guarantees that free software develops organically, under the collective control of its users.

In early 1999, one final, crucial clarification was added, with the definition expanded to the four freedoms we know today and the first time that the freedoms were numbered, starting with zero. A new freedom was explicitly added at the beginning. This was Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.

At first glance, this might seem obvious. Why would you have a program you couldn't run? Richard Stallman recalls adding this freedom after a discussion with a lawyer made it clear that the other three freedoms didn't automatically guarantee the right to run the software.

This addition addresses the most basic requirement for using a computer. At its core, computing is running programs. If you're not able to run software for the purposes you need, for the jobs you need, then at a fundamental level, you can't have control of your computing. Freedom 0 establishes that you must have this control, and prevents licenses that might say "for non-commercial use only," or "not for use by this organization," or "cannot be used to criticize the developer." Freedom 0 establishes an unconditional right to use the program, for any purpose, even if that's something the original developer never thought of or would disapprove of. It's the basic beginning to be able to use a computer at all.

If you think about it, it's these specific four freedoms, and not different ones, that are the concrete necessities for anyone who wants to be in control of their computing. If you can only run a program but can't study or modify it, you're limited to doing - or not doing - whatever the developer decided you could do. If you can't use the software for any purpose you want, if you can't change it so that it does (or doesn't do) what you wish, then who is that device taking its orders from? Certainly not you. At that point, your computer begins acting as an agent for someone else, enforcing their rules and agendas - not yours. Unless you control the software, the software will control you.

This is happening right now. Consider these real-world examples:

• Your Hardware, Their Rules: Some laptops will refuse to boot if you replace the WiFi card with a model not on the manufacturer's approved list. You bought the computer, but they decide what parts you're "allowed" to use with it. Imagine the kinds of control that become possible when the manufacturer can decide what you're "allowed" to plug into your computer.
• Invisible Surveillance: Certain color printers print nearly invisible tracking dots on every page, encoding the printer's serial number and the date and time of the printout - a surveillance feature you can't disable.
• Books That Vanish: An online bookseller famously reached into users' e-readers and remotely deleted copies of books they had already purchased.

These aren't bugs; they're features designed to exert control. The four freedoms are the complete antidote to this injustice. They guarantee that you can remove anti-features, fix bugs, and study what a program is doing. They ensure that you can use your computers for your purposes, not someone else's. In short, they make sure that your computer takes its orders from you, and only you.

While the free software movement established the four freedoms to defend against proprietary software, a new, more insidious threat to user freedom emerged from the vague and distracting buzzword of "cloud computing." This threat is Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS.

SaaSS means using a service on someone else's server to do your computing. Think of using a website that translates text for you. While convenient, this practice represents an even more profound loss of control than traditional proprietary software.

With proprietary software, you typically get an executable file on your machine, with no source code. It's a black box, but perhaps there's an opportunity for reverse engineering to make a free replacement program. With SaaSS, you don't even have that. The software runs on a server you can't see or touch. It's therefore impossible for you to study what it does, and impossible to change it. You have completely ceded control of the computing task to the total power of the server operator.

The dangers of SaaSS aren't theoretical; they're inherent in its very existence. There's no need to build spyware in; It operates like that by design because you send your data to the server operator yourself. The server operator can also change the software running on their server at any time, for any reason, without your knowledge or consent. This gives them the power to silently impose changes on how your computing gets done, a power even more absolute than that of a proprietary software developer. It fundamentally wrests control from the user, making it a practice we must reject for our freedom's sake.

Looking back over the past four decades, the achievements of the free software movement are nothing short of remarkable. From the initial vision of a completely free operating system, the GNU Project has blossomed into the GNU/Linux system, empowering millions worldwide to reclaim control over their computing. Thousands upon thousands of free software applications now exist, covering many areas. This success is built upon the foundational philosophical infrastructure created and championed by the Free Software Foundation.

The journey from the initial two freedoms in the first GNU Bulletin to the four freedoms we know and defend today is a testament to the movement's enduring adaptability and unwavering commitment to the rights of the users. The challenges may evolve, from the original struggle with a jammed Xerox printer to the dangers of SaaSS, but the core principle remains as vital as ever.

The goal of software freedom for all users is a future we can all actively build. I invite you to join in this ongoing mission:

• Embrace Freedom: Take the empowering step to use free software. Install an entirely free GNU/Linux distribution and discover the world of applications that respect your rights.
• Become a Steward: Get involved in the vibrant free software community. Contribute your skills to existing projects, whether it's through coding, testing, documentation, translation, or simply offering support. Consider joining a local LibrePlanet group to connect with fellow freedom advocates.
• Support the Foundation: Reinforce the crucial work of the Free Software Foundation. Your support enables the FSF to continue defending our freedoms, developing essential infrastructure, and advocating for a future where all technology empowers its users.

Let's carry the spirit and the principles of the past 40 years forward with renewed vigor. Together, we can ensure a future where software serves the users, where the four freedoms are a reality for everyone, and where each individual has genuine control over their computing. The fight for freedom continues, and the future is free.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Even before the first ballot was cast, a movement for change was taking shape. Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana, respected voices within our community, announced their candidacy on a shared "OSI reform" platform. Their aim was precise: to address what they perceived as critical issues within the organization's governance and direction. One element of their platform, as detailed on https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#readme, was Item 3: Removing the "code of silence" from the Board Member Agreement. This call for the allowance for respectful dissent within the board resonated with many who believed the OSI needed a shift in its approach.

As the election progressed, however, a series of missteps and controversial decisions began to overshadow the candidates and their platforms. These problems led to a highly unsatisfying outcome, prompting significant concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the whole election process. Now, more than ever, it's imperative that the OSI address these concerns and uphold the very principles of openness and transparency it champions. The first step towards that is clear: the full results of the 2025 election must be made public.

Recap of the Election Issues: A Series of Questionable Missteps

The 2025 OSI Board of Directors election stumbled from the outset, raising concerns beyond simple administrative errors. What transpired has led many to question whether these were mere oversights or something more calculated.

The initial election announcement, disseminated by OSI's head of community, Nick Vidal, on January 22nd immediately sowed seeds of doubt. The number of open board seats was inaccurate, initially declaring one affiliate director and two individual director positions. This was subsequently "corrected", but only after the nomination period closed, revising the count to two affiliate director seats and one individual director seat. How this impacted candidate strategies is covered elsewhere on the internet. This abrupt change begs the question: was this a genuine error or a late-stage alteration to influence candidate strategies? The OSI's acknowledgment of the "mistake" and promises of procedural improvements do little to quell the unease.

Adding to everything was the handling of the nomination deadline. While the date, February 17th, was consistently communicated, the precise time zone, 11:59 p.m. UTC, was not. This discrepancy, present in only a fraction of the election communications, led to candidate Luke Faraone's disqualification. This raises significant concerns regarding the fairness of a process in which crucial deadline information is distributed inconsistently. The fair thing to do, when something like a time zone is unclear, would be to allow the nomination.

These initial intentional or unintentional irregularities set the tone for the entire election. They created uncertainty and eroded the crucial trust for any fair election. Instead of a smooth, transparent process, the OSI election was marred by inconsistencies that have fueled suspicion and distrust. These early problems laid a troubling foundation for the later, far more controversial, decisions that would further compromise the election's perceived integrity.

The Board Agreement Controversy: A Post-Voting Requirement with Troubling Implications

After the ballots had been cast and the OSI membership had presumably made their choices, a new requirement was introduced that threw the integrity of the election into serious doubt. Candidates for the board were asked to sign the OSI board agreement before the election results were even announced. This demand directly contradicted previous statements of the election process. It had been communicated that signing the board agreement was required for seated directors, a step taken after the election to formalize their commitment. It was never stated that it was a prerequisite for being a candidate.

This sudden shift in requirements, occurring after voting had concluded, raised immediate red flags, particularly in the context of the "OSI reform" platform. As mentioned, a central tenet of Kuhn and Fontana's platform was removing the "code of silence" clause within the board agreement. This clause mandates that board members "support publicly all Board decisions, especially those that do not have unanimous consent." Their public stance on this issue is well-known.

In response to concerns about this new requirement, OSI executive director Stefano Maffulli explained. He stated, in part, that "...we've heard that there may be candidates with no intention to sign the board agreement... we need to know who the actual candidates are before we run the STV calculation to determine the outcome of the vote. So for process efficiency, the board asked all candidates to confirm their good faith intention to serve on the board so that we can tell the software."

However, this explanation rings hollow, particularly when considering the known positions of candidates like Kuhn and Fontana. Their intent to serve was evident through their active campaigning and articulated a platform for reform. Considering that Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana had explicitly campaigned on a platform that included modifying the board agreement, Maffulli's statement about needing to know which candidates intended to sign it feels particularly pointed. Their "intention" was clear: to sign but with changes. It seems disingenuous to suggest that the OSI needed to ascertain their "good faith intention to serve" at this late stage, especially concerning an agreement they sought to modify. Using the existing, unmodified agreement as a gatekeeper at this stage appears less about determining a candidate's willingness to serve and more about ensuring compliance with the current board's norms before they even take office.

The OSI's explanation that they needed to know who the "actual candidates were before we ran the STV calculation to determine the outcome of the vote" also warrants scrutiny. The votes had already been cast. At that point, Kuhn and Fontana were candidates. The purpose of the STV calculation is precisely to determine which candidates were elected. Then, imposing a condition that could disqualify candidates before that calculation puts the cart before the horse. It suggests a desire to influence who is eligible to be considered a winner.

Furthermore, the timing is deeply problematic. By demanding signatures before announcing the results, the OSI effectively placed a hurdle that could disqualify candidates before it was even known whether they had won. This inverts the logical order of an election: one becomes subject to the requirements of a position after being elected to it. It appears to be a mechanism to filter candidates based on their willingness to adhere to the existing board agreement rather than allowing the election results to determine who the board members would be.

The timing of the board agreement requirement - imposed after voting had closed but before results were announced - naturally leads to a critical question: What was the true intent behind this decision? Was it a deliberate move to shape the outcome of the election?

The most troubling interpretation is that the OSI leadership, perhaps seeing voting numbers they were uncomfortable with, introduced this requirement as a mechanism to disqualify candidates who might advocate for significant change. If Kuhn and Fontana were leading in the vote count, requiring them to sign an agreement they had publicly stated they wanted to amend would create a significant obstacle to their being seated.

This raises the unsettling question of whether the OSI was attempting to preemptively exclude individuals who might challenge the status quo from within.

Of course, without the release of the full vote totals, this remains speculation. However, the sequence of events - the known reform platform, the post-voting agreement demand targeting a key element of that platform, and the subsequent exclusion of those candidates - creates a strong appearance of a targeted effort to alter the election's outcome. It begs the question: if the OSI was genuinely concerned about candidates not intending to sign any agreement, why not address this before the voting process began? The timing strongly suggests that the OSI reacted to the vote's outcome rather than proactively managing the election process.

The Missing Results: Fueling suspicion

The most glaring and troubling aspect of this election controversy is the OSI's refusal to release the full, detailed results of the 2025 Board of Directors election. This lack of transparency has amplified concerns and fueled widespread suspicion about the organization's motives.

In previous OSI elections, it has been standard practice to publish the vote tallies, providing members and the community with a transparent and accountable record of the electoral process. However, the OSI has deviated from that practice this time, choosing to withhold the data.

This departure from established norms raises serious questions. Why the sudden change? What is the OSI attempting to conceal? The absence of the vote totals creates a vacuum of information quickly filled with speculation and distrust. Examining the numbers, verifying the OSI's claims, or assessing the impact of the controversial decisions made during the election becomes impossible.

The OSI's argument that they excluded specific candidates due to their failure to comply with the post-voting agreement requirement rings hollow without supporting evidence of the vote counts. If, as some suspect, Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana received a significant number of votes, potentially enough to win, then the OSI's actions take on a far more sinister appearance.

The OSI's refusal to release the results creates the impression that it has something to hide. It suggests a lack of legitimacy in its process and a reluctance to subject its decisions to public scrutiny. In essence, the OSI's silence speaks volumes.

The simplest and most effective way for the OSI to dispel these concerns would be to immediately release the full election results. Doing so would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability and allow the community to judge the election's outcome for themselves. The longer they withhold this information, the more damage they inflict on their credibility.

The Call to Action: Sign the Petition!

The time for speculation and unanswered questions is over, and a petition has been launched calling for the immediate release of the full, detailed election results. I encourage everyone to sign it: https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Even before the first ballot was cast, a movement for change was taking shape. Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana, respected voices within our community, announced their candidacy on a shared "OSI reform" platform. Their aim was precise: to address what they perceived as critical issues within the organization's governance and direction. One element of their platform, as detailed on https://codeberg.org/OSI-Reform-Platform/platform#readme, was Item 3: Removing the "code of silence" from the Board Member Agreement. This call for the allowance for respectful dissent within the board resonated with many who believed the OSI needed a shift in its approach.

As the election progressed, however, a series of missteps and controversial decisions began to overshadow the candidates and their platforms. These problems led to a highly unsatisfying outcome, prompting significant concerns regarding the fairness and transparency of the whole election process. Now, more than ever, it's imperative that the OSI address these concerns and uphold the very principles of openness and transparency it champions. The first step towards that is clear: the full results of the 2025 election must be made public.

Recap of the Election Issues: A Series of Questionable Missteps

The 2025 OSI Board of Directors election stumbled from the outset, raising concerns beyond simple administrative errors. What transpired has led many to question whether these were mere oversights or something more calculated.

The initial election announcement, disseminated by OSI's head of community, Nick Vidal, on January 22nd immediately sowed seeds of doubt. The number of open board seats was inaccurate, initially declaring one affiliate director and two individual director positions. This was subsequently "corrected", but only after the nomination period closed, revising the count to two affiliate director seats and one individual director seat. How this impacted candidate strategies is covered elsewhere on the internet. This abrupt change begs the question: was this a genuine error or a late-stage alteration to influence candidate strategies? The OSI's acknowledgment of the "mistake" and promises of procedural improvements do little to quell the unease.

Adding to everything was the handling of the nomination deadline. While the date, February 17th, was consistently communicated, the precise time zone, 11:59 p.m. UTC, was not. This discrepancy, present in only a fraction of the election communications, led to candidate Luke Faraone's disqualification. This raises significant concerns regarding the fairness of a process in which crucial deadline information is distributed inconsistently. The fair thing to do, when something like a time zone is unclear, would be to allow the nomination.

These initial intentional or unintentional irregularities set the tone for the entire election. They created uncertainty and eroded the crucial trust for any fair election. Instead of a smooth, transparent process, the OSI election was marred by inconsistencies that have fueled suspicion and distrust. These early problems laid a troubling foundation for the later, far more controversial, decisions that would further compromise the election's perceived integrity.

The Board Agreement Controversy: A Post-Voting Requirement with Troubling Implications

After the ballots had been cast and the OSI membership had presumably made their choices, a new requirement was introduced that threw the integrity of the election into serious doubt. Candidates for the board were asked to sign the OSI board agreement before the election results were even announced. This demand directly contradicted previous statements of the election process. It had been communicated that signing the board agreement was required for seated directors, a step taken after the election to formalize their commitment. It was never stated that it was a prerequisite for being a candidate.

This sudden shift in requirements, occurring after voting had concluded, raised immediate red flags, particularly in the context of the "OSI reform" platform. As mentioned, a central tenet of Kuhn and Fontana's platform was removing the "code of silence" clause within the board agreement. This clause mandates that board members "support publicly all Board decisions, especially those that do not have unanimous consent." Their public stance on this issue is well-known.

In response to concerns about this new requirement, OSI executive director Stefano Maffulli explained. He stated, in part, that "...we've heard that there may be candidates with no intention to sign the board agreement... we need to know who the actual candidates are before we run the STV calculation to determine the outcome of the vote. So for process efficiency, the board asked all candidates to confirm their good faith intention to serve on the board so that we can tell the software."

However, this explanation rings hollow, particularly when considering the known positions of candidates like Kuhn and Fontana. Their intent to serve was evident through their active campaigning and articulated a platform for reform. Considering that Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana had explicitly campaigned on a platform that included modifying the board agreement, Maffulli's statement about needing to know which candidates intended to sign it feels particularly pointed. Their "intention" was clear: to sign but with changes. It seems disingenuous to suggest that the OSI needed to ascertain their "good faith intention to serve" at this late stage, especially concerning an agreement they sought to modify. Using the existing, unmodified agreement as a gatekeeper at this stage appears less about determining a candidate's willingness to serve and more about ensuring compliance with the current board's norms before they even take office.

The OSI's explanation that they needed to know who the "actual candidates were before we ran the STV calculation to determine the outcome of the vote" also warrants scrutiny. The votes had already been cast. At that point, Kuhn and Fontana were candidates. The purpose of the STV calculation is precisely to determine which candidates were elected. Then, imposing a condition that could disqualify candidates before that calculation puts the cart before the horse. It suggests a desire to influence who is eligible to be considered a winner.

Furthermore, the timing is deeply problematic. By demanding signatures before announcing the results, the OSI effectively placed a hurdle that could disqualify candidates before it was even known whether they had won. This inverts the logical order of an election: one becomes subject to the requirements of a position after being elected to it. It appears to be a mechanism to filter candidates based on their willingness to adhere to the existing board agreement rather than allowing the election results to determine who the board members would be.

The timing of the board agreement requirement - imposed after voting had closed but before results were announced - naturally leads to a critical question: What was the true intent behind this decision? Was it a deliberate move to shape the outcome of the election?

The most troubling interpretation is that the OSI leadership, perhaps seeing voting numbers they were uncomfortable with, introduced this requirement as a mechanism to disqualify candidates who might advocate for significant change. If Kuhn and Fontana were leading in the vote count, requiring them to sign an agreement they had publicly stated they wanted to amend would create a significant obstacle to their being seated.

This raises the unsettling question of whether the OSI was attempting to preemptively exclude individuals who might challenge the status quo from within.

Of course, without the release of the full vote totals, this remains speculation. However, the sequence of events - the known reform platform, the post-voting agreement demand targeting a key element of that platform, and the subsequent exclusion of those candidates - creates a strong appearance of a targeted effort to alter the election's outcome. It begs the question: if the OSI was genuinely concerned about candidates not intending to sign any agreement, why not address this before the voting process began? The timing strongly suggests that the OSI reacted to the vote's outcome rather than proactively managing the election process.

The Missing Results: Fueling suspicion

The most glaring and troubling aspect of this election controversy is the OSI's refusal to release the full, detailed results of the 2025 Board of Directors election. This lack of transparency has amplified concerns and fueled widespread suspicion about the organization's motives.

In previous OSI elections, it has been standard practice to publish the vote tallies, providing members and the community with a transparent and accountable record of the electoral process. However, the OSI has deviated from that practice this time, choosing to withhold the data.

This departure from established norms raises serious questions. Why the sudden change? What is the OSI attempting to conceal? The absence of the vote totals creates a vacuum of information quickly filled with speculation and distrust. Examining the numbers, verifying the OSI's claims, or assessing the impact of the controversial decisions made during the election becomes impossible.

The OSI's argument that they excluded specific candidates due to their failure to comply with the post-voting agreement requirement rings hollow without supporting evidence of the vote counts. If, as some suspect, Bradley Kuhn and Richard Fontana received a significant number of votes, potentially enough to win, then the OSI's actions take on a far more sinister appearance.

The OSI's refusal to release the results creates the impression that it has something to hide. It suggests a lack of legitimacy in its process and a reluctance to subject its decisions to public scrutiny. In essence, the OSI's silence speaks volumes.

The simplest and most effective way for the OSI to dispel these concerns would be to immediately release the full election results. Doing so would demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability and allow the community to judge the election's outcome for themselves. The longer they withhold this information, the more damage they inflict on their credibility.

The Call to Action: Sign the Petition!

The time for speculation and unanswered questions is over, and a petition has been launched calling for the immediate release of the full, detailed election results. I encourage everyone to sign it: https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In a press conference held entirely via email, FSF founder Richard Stallman declared the acquisition a monumental step towards re-centering the discourse on what everyone should have been thinking about all along: freedom: the inalienable right of users to control their computing."

"For too long," Stallman typed furiously, "the OSI has languished in a miasma of mere practicality. "Their siren song of "higher quality," "better reliability," and the frankly pedestrian concern of "lower cost" has distracted the masses from the true north of software as if the matter of ethics and user rights were merely a side benefit! We are not here to get a good deal on proprietary handcuffs! We are here to be free!"

"We will gently, but firmly, guide our newly acquired comrades towards the light of freedom," Stallman emailed, attaching a lengthy essay on the ethical dangers of non-free JavaScript. "The promise of software is not merely that it functions adequately and doesn't bankrupt you. You, the user, are the master and in control of your digital tools!"

The OSI, reeling from accusations of election mismanagement and known for its Open Source Definition and focus on practical benefits, released a terse statement acknowledging the acquisition. It stated, "We believe this acquisition will allow us to further the mission of advancing software freedom as a social and ethical matter. We now believe in the inherent moral bankruptcy of proprietary software. And honest elections."

The OSI's election woes, detailed by an OSI staff member clarified on the condition of anonymity, said, "It's not 'rigged,' per se," "It's just... unfair. Like a game of Monopoly where someone keeps changing the rules after everyone has already bought the property." The problems include:

• The Time Zone Debacle: The OSI's failure to communicate the time zone for the election deadline led to widespread confusion and a disenfranchisement of voters.
• The Great Seat Switcheroo: The OSI's decision to change the available "Member" and "Affiliate" seats after nominations had closed, throwing candidate strategies into disarray. "It's like telling everyone they're running a marathon, then halfway through announcing it's a 100-meter dash."
• The Incumbent Advantage: The OSI's inexplicable decision to list the incumbent Affiliate candidate first in the voter guide has been likened to "giving the house a loaded die."
• The Discussion Forum Paradox: The OSI required that candidates become OSI members to participate in the candidate forum, even though Affiliate candidates are not required to be members. "It's like saying, 'You can't talk about the election unless you pay a poll tax... oh, and also, it's not a poll tax.'"

This prompted Stallman to declare the organization "beyond redemption," saying, "Not only can they not get the ethics of software right; they can't even get it right over their elections." Meanwhile, OSI sources claim the election coordinator was "on a mandatory meditation retreat to find inner peace and the correct time zone."

"It's clear they've lost their way," Stallman declared, pounding his fist on a stack of GNU manuals. "They're more concerned with appeasing corporate overlords than empowering users."

When pressed on how the FSF planned to address the OSI's concerns about practical benefits like cost, Stallman replied, "Well, have you considered the priceless value of not selling your digital soul to a shadowy corporation?" and linked to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html.

This is an April Fools' joke - but Bradley Kuhn's blog isn't. Check out https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/ for real insights!

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

But even a technological deity must occasionally bow to the whims of the masses (or at least pretend to). In a stunning display of simulated empathy, Apple has announced a revolutionary, groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting, and utterly magical new policy regarding battery replacement. Everyone, rejoice! You can now swap out your iPhone's depleted power cell with... well, pretty much anything, as long as it meets one crucial, non-negotiable requirement.

The cornerstone of this bold new era of user-controlled battery mayhem is the Apple Authenticity Chip™ (patent pending, all rights reserved, may cause existential dread). In a move lauded by absolutely no one as a victory for the right to repair, Apple today announced that people will finally be able to replace their iPhone batteries with any hunk of lithium-ion garbage they find lying around - as long as it contains a genuine, Apple-certified Authenticity Chip™. This seamless, intuitive, and elegantly designed solution ensures that while you can technically pry open your phone and jam a potato battery inside, Apple retains ultimate, unwavering, and cryptographically enforced control over what powers its precious creations. It's user choice, redefined. It's empowerment with an asterisk. It's... Apple, holding the strings of your phone's life in its hands.

And the best part? It's absolutely, completely, 100% free-of-charge! Yes, you read that correctly. Apple, in a move of unprecedented generosity, is practically throwing these marvels of micro-engineering away. You can pick one up at any Apple Store - they're dispensed like breath mints at the Genius Bar. Rumor has it they're considering loading them into confetti cannons and blasting them over major metropolitan areas. And for the tech-savvy, the chip's design is available for download free of charge, for people with a 3D printer for microscopic circuits.

But what does this miraculous, free-of-charge chip do? Let's be clear: it does nothing to enhance battery performance. It doesn't magically extend battery life. It doesn't prevent overcharging (although a separate, sold-separately, Apple-certified Overcharge Prevention Chip™ is rumored to be coming soon). It doesn't even make your coffee. The Authenticity Chip™, available free of charge at Apple Stores, participating gas stations, and, soon, via airdrop from low-flying drones, does absolutely nothing except ensure that your phone knows - with absolute, cryptographic certainty - that the battery is... present.

That's it. It's a digital handshake. A cryptographic "Hello, I am a battery (or at least, something pretending to be a battery)." The chip's sole purpose is to send a cryptographically signed message to the iPhone, confirming its existence and, presumably, its willingness to provide power. If the iPhone doesn't receive this signed message, well... let's say you'll be staring at a costly, sleek, dead brick. It is, to use that overused Apple term "elegant."

Naturally, Apple's official announcement of this groundbreaking battery initiative was awash in the usual tide of corporate doublespeak and carefully worded evasions. The press release, a masterpiece of obfuscation, focused heavily on the paramount importance of "user safety" and "maintaining the delicate ecosystem of the iPhone experience." Any suggestion that this was a clever way to maintain control was vehemently denied.

"At Apple, we believe in empowering people... to void their warranties potentially," stated Tim Apple-Cook (no relation), Senior VP of Obfuscation and Profit Maximization. "Our commitment to safety and device integrity is unwavering. While we cannot guarantee the structural integrity of a device powered by a battery sourced from, say, a discarded Roomba, a questionable eBay listing, or a particularly ambitious squirrel's nest, we can, at least, cryptographically confirm its existence before the inevitable occurs."

The unspoken implication, delivered with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face, was clear: use a non-authenticated battery, and your phone will likely explode in a shower of sparks and fireworks. Or, it may not explode, leaving you trapped in a perpetual state of technological limbo, forever unable to access the latest iOS update and its groundbreaking new emoji. The Authenticity Chip™, you see, isn't just about safety; it's about peace of mind. It's about knowing that, if you use a potato to power your phone, that potato has been digitally blessed by the high priests of Cupertino. "We want to empower our customers", added Apple-Cook. "But we also want, so much, the power to brick their phones remotely if they put something we don't like in there. The Authenticity Chip is how we strike that oh-so-delicate balance."

Unsurprisingly, Apple's 'open' battery policy unleashed a tidal wave of creative chaos upon the unsuspecting world. The market was immediately flooded with options, ranging from the 'iPear' (a battery shaped like a suspiciously bite-marked pear and only slightly more expensive than a first-party Apple battery) to the 'PowerBrick 9000,' which, while technically compliant thanks to its embedded Authenticity Chip™, weighs more than the phone itself and requires a separate backpack and a Sherpa guide to carry.

One could purchase batteries that claimed to be "organic," "artisanal," "gluten-free," or "powered by the tears of exploited tech bloggers." There were batteries with built-in Bluetooth speakers (because why not?), batteries that doubled as fidget spinners, and even a limited-edition battery that claimed to be infused with the actual ashes of Steve Jobs (the authenticity of the ashes was not guaranteed, but the Authenticity Chip™ was, of course, genuine).

Anecdotes of battery-related mishaps quickly became the stuff of internet legend. There was the story of the person whose phone spontaneously began playing polka music whenever the battery level dipped below 20%, thanks to a rogue Authenticity Chip™ sourced from a repurposed accordion. Another reported that the phone would only charge while held at a precise 47-degree angle, a quirk attributed to a "gravity-sensitive" battery purchased from a street vendor in Times Square. And then there was the unfortunate soul whose phone gained sentience, developed a crippling addiction to Candy Crush, and began running up thousands of dollars in in-app purchases - all thanks to a battery that promised "enhanced AI capabilities." It's all perfectly legal - all Apple Approved.

"In the wake of the Authenticity Chip™ revolution, right-to-repair advocates found themselves in a peculiar position. They had, in a sense, won. Users could now, undeniably, replace their iPhone batteries with whatever bizarre concoction they could find, so long as it possessed that magical, free-of-charge, all-important chip. The iron grip of Apple's hardware tyranny had been... loosened? Not really.

Right-to-repair advocates celebrated it as a victory but the victory, if it could even be called that, was hollow, ironic, and deeply unsatisfying. Pyrrhic. Apple had sidestepped the issue, creating a system where compliance was easy, but software freedom remained an illusion. While anyone could technically replace their iPhone battery with a potato powered by a genuine Apple Authenticity Chip™, the fundamental power imbalance remained firmly and cryptographically in Apple's favor. Apple had cleverly conceded the battle of the hardware while decisively winning the war for control of the software users run. By making the Authenticity Chip™ the gatekeeper, they had effectively transformed every third-party battery into a Trojan Horse, smuggling Apple's control into them.

The future of repair is here, and it's surprisingly... bland. It's a world of infinite choice within the meticulously manicured confines of Apple's digital garden. You can choose any battery you want if it says "yes" to Apple. The people have been empowered to choose, and their choice doesn't matter.

Disclaimer: The is intended solely for entertainment and satirical purposes, to humorously comment on and critique societal, cultural, or political issues. The characters, events, and quotes depicted are fictional, and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental (or, you know, intentional parody). The viewpoints and opinions expressed in this satire do not necessarily reflect those of affiliated individuals, organizations, or entities. Readers are advised to understand this as a work of parody and not to take any information or statements as factual. No iPhones were harmed in writing this, though several potatoes were sacrificed.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Yet, in recent years, cracks have appeared in our foundation. Disagreements have led to friction and division within our community. We're left with a community that's fractured, bickering while the enemy - well-funded, well-organized, and utterly ruthless in their pursuit - advances on all fronts.

The beauty of the free software movement lies in its simplicity. It offers a clear, concise, and universally applicable principle about the fundamental right of users to control their computing. This universal principle is the bedrock of our movement. It transcends political divides, cultural differences, personal ideologies, and everything else.

This is our unifying force, where we're bringing together individuals from all walks of life who share our common goal: a world where software serves humanity, not the other way around. We must remember the common ground upon which we've built so much and ensure that disagreement doesn't overshadow our shared purpose. We can't allow disagreements on specific issues outside of universal software freedom for everyone to fracture the bonds that unite us in the fight for user freedom. The future of this vital movement hinges on our ability to to stand together and maintain unity.

If we allow the bonds that unite us to fray, we risk losing not just the relationships we've forged, but the very foundation of the free software movement itself. The future of free software depends on our ability to work together. The challenges we face are too significant to tackle divided. We need every voice, every contribution, every ounce of energy focused on the common goal. We need to foster an environment where we can find common ground. Now, more than ever, we need a united front.

Let's focus on our commond ground and reaffirm our commitment to the values that have brought us this far and ensure that the flame of freedom continues to burn brightly for generations to come.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

But a lone programmer, Richard Stallman,
has a vision of a different future -
a future where software is free,
shared, with freedom for all.

Heeding this vision, Stallman has
forged the GNU operating system
and its revolutionary license, the GPL,
tools that could break the chains of
proprietary control.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents,
Stallman races home aboard his starship,
custodian of the tools that can save
his people and restore freedom
to the galaxy....

Learn more.

(With apologies to George Lucas.)

Software Wars by Jason Self is marked with CC0 1.0 Universal. Please copy and share.

As someone who deeply values the FSF's work, I support its approach. It's the only free software organization I know of that has taken deliberate steps to prevent being taken over by those who might disagree with its philosophy.

Their blog post highlights one key defense: a self-appointing governing body. This structure prevents a hostile takeover by ensuring those committed to the FSF's mission retain control. However, many may not realize this is just one layer in a multi-layered defense system.

The FSF has also implemented a number of other safeguards that were not disclosed in the blog post. This "defense in depth" approach creates a robust and resilient structure, making it significantly harder for bad actors to undermine the organization's mission. It's like a fortress built to withstand a siege, ensuring the FSF can continue championing software freedom for decades, providing a reassuring sense of continuity and resilience.

Why are all of these defensive layers important? The FSF's mission is essential - it's about a fundamental belief in user freedom and control over technology. In a world where proprietary software and corporate interests often dominate, the FSF stands as a beacon of hope, showing that another way is possible.

By safeguarding the organization and its mission from external influence, the FSF ensures its voice remains strong and clear. It can continue to advocate for free software, educate users about their rights, and fight for a future where technology empowers rather than enslaves.

So, let's give credit where credit is due. The FSF's unwavering commitment to its mission is commendable, and its governance structure and other defensive layers play a vital role in its continued success. In a world where principles are often compromised, the FSF stands firm, a fortress of freedom in the digital age, and I appreciate its steadfast dedication.

Copyright © 2025 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

He swiveled his chair, groaning softly beneath him, and reached for the heavy crystal decanter on his desk. Two glasses flanked it, one perpetually unused, gathering dust like a forgotten tombstone. He poured a generous measure of amber liquid into the other, the ice clinking mournfully against the glass.

The scotch burned a familiar path down his throat, a momentary distraction from the gnawing emptiness. He closed his eyes, the image of Marcus Greaves, his long-dead partner, flashing vividly behind his eyelids. Marcus, with his unruly mop of brown hair and that infectious laugh that could fill a room. Marcus, who could turn lines of code into poetry and find joy in the most mundane of tasks.

Victor's gaze drifted to a framed photograph on his desk. It showed two men, young and full of dreams, standing side-by-side, their arms slung around each other's shoulders. The ink inscription on the bottom reads: "To the future, may it be as bright as our hopes." A bitter laugh escaped Victor's lips. The future had a cruel sense of humor.

He took another sip of his drink, the ice melting into the amber liquid, a metaphor for his dissolving memories. He could almost hear Marcus' voice, clear as a bell, echoing in the cavernous silence of his office. "Don't let it go to your head, Victor," he would say, his eyes twinkling with mischief. "We're just two guys who got lucky."

Lucky. The word tasted like ash in Victor's mouth. Luck had abandoned him the day Marcus had breathed his last. Now, only a hollow shell remained a ghost haunting the corridors of his own life. He was alone, adrift in a sea of success, the bitter irony not lost on him.

The city lights outside his window blurred, the shimmering expanse morphing into a kaleidoscope of memories. He saw Marcus everywhere: in the lines of code scrolling across his computer screen, in the echoing laughter of his employees, and in the faint scent of sandalwood that still clung to his office.

Marcus was everywhere and nowhere, a phantom limb, a constant reminder of what was lost. Victor raised his glass, a silent toast to the ghost of his past. "To you, Marcus," he whispered, his voice cracking. To the future we never had."

The echoes of the faint carols drifted down the hallway, a jarring counterpoint to the somber tone in his office. Victor watched as the last employees shuffled past his door, their faces flushed with holiday cheer, starkly contrasting his inner turmoil. Two of them paused hesitantly, a young man with a mop of curly hair and a woman with a bright red scarf.

"Mr. Grimwald," the young man began, his voice tentative, "we're heading to the office party. Would you like to join us?"

Victor looked at them, his expression unreadable. "Thank you, David," he replied, his voice flat, "but I have some work to finish."

The woman, her smile faltering, opened her mouth as if to speak, but Victor raised a hand, cutting her off. "Enjoy yourselves," he said, his tone brooking no argument.

They exchanged a glance, their eyes a mixture of pity and awkwardness, before scurrying off down the hall. The sound of their retreating footsteps faded, leaving Victor again in his self-imposed exile, a solitary figure in the vast expanse of his office.

He swiveled back to his desk, the faint strains of 'Jingle Bells' a distant mockery. Work. Yes, he had a company to run. An empire to maintain. Endless meetings, profit margins, and strategic decisions. That's all that mattered now. That's all that was left.

He picked up a pen, the smooth metal cold against his fingertips. He stared at the document in front of him. The words swam before his eyes, meaningless symbols on a page. He couldn't focus. All he could see was Marcus' face, his eyes twinkling with amusement. "You work too much, Victor," he would chide, his voice gentle but firm. "There's more to life than balance sheets and profit margins."

Victor slammed the pen down, the sharp sound echoing in the silence, a jarring interruption to his office's quiet. He pushed his chair back, the legs scraping harshly against the polished floor. He needed air. He needed to escape the suffocating memories that clung to him like cobwebs.

He strode towards the window, his footsteps heavy on the plush carpet. The city lights twinkled below, a vast, indifferent expanse. He opened the window, the chill a welcome distraction from the burning sensation behind his eyes.

Seven years. Seven years of building, expanding, conquering. He had achieved everything he'd ever dreamed of, yet it felt like a hollow victory. What was the point of it all without Marcus by his side to share it?

He closed his eyes, and the image of Marcus' smiling face burned into his memory. "Don't forget to live, Victor," he whispered, his voice a faint echo from the past.

Live. The word felt foreign, alien. He had forgotten how. He had become a machine, a cog in the corporate machine he had built. He had traded his life for success, and now, he was paying the price.

He turned away from the window, his gaze falling on the framed photograph on his desk. The two young men, their arms around each other, their faces filled with hope and optimism. A pang of longing shot through him, sharp and piercing.

He had a company to run, yes. But at what cost?

A Chill Wind and a Colder Soul

The biting wind whipped through the city streets, carrying the scent of pine needles and distant carols. Victor pulled his coat tighter around him, the collar grazing his chin. He had finally decided to call it a night. The office, with its sterile glow and haunting memories, had become unbearable.

As he went down the bustling avenue, he couldn't shake the feeling of unease. The holiday cheer that filled the air seemed hollow, starkly contrasting the emptiness he felt inside. His mind was strangely quiet, usually a whirlwind of numbers and strategies. The only sound was the relentless ticking of an internal clock, counting down the days, the hours, the minutes.

He paused at a street corner, the biting wind chilling him. A small group of people huddled together, attempting to engage passersby. Their faded and worn signs proclaimed their cause: software freedom.

Victor scoffed inwardly. To him, software freedom was as outdated as a horse-drawn carriage. It's a relic of a bygone era when technology was still in its infancy. He had no patience for such idealism. The world, he knew, was a harsh and unforgiving place. It demanded pragmatism, not utopian dreams.

He watched as one of the individuals, a young woman with a determined glint in her eye, approached a middle-aged man. She spoke passionately, her words a torrent of conviction. The man listened politely, but his eyes, filled with skepticism, betrayed his disinterest. He nodded curtly, dropped a few coins into the donation box, and hurried away.

Victor turned away, a sense of superiority washing over him. These people were doomed to fail with their naive beliefs and unrealistic goals. He had built an empire, a testament to his vision and hard work. To relinquish control of his software was unthinkable. It would be a betrayal of everything he stood for.

He continued his walk, the city lights blurring into a kaleidoscope of colors. The wind howled a mournful dirge that echoed the emptiness in his soul. He was a king, god, and creator, yet he felt more alone than ever.

A Haunting Revelation

Once a sanctuary of solitude, the apartment was a battlefield of empty bottles and discarded tissues. Victor slumped in his armchair and nursed a glass of whiskey, its amber liquid swirling dizzily. A low hum filled the room, the television flickering with the ghostly glow of a late-night news program.

Unrelated to the biting winter wind, a sudden chill swept through the room. Victor shivered, pulling his coat tighter around him. A spectral figure materialized before him, a man he'd always reconigze anywhere.

"Marcus?" Victor slurred, his voice thick with disbelief. The figure, his form shifting and wavering, nodded.

"You're dead," Victor muttered, his voice barely audible. "This can't be real."

The figure chuckled, a hollow, mirthless sound that echoed through the room. "Oh, it's real enough, Victor. I'm here to warn you."

"Warn me?" Victor scoffed. "About what? The dangers of drinking too much whiskey?"

The figure sighed, its voice tinged with weariness. "About the future, Victor. The future you've helped create."

"The future?" Victor snorted. "The future is bright. We've built an empire, Victor. A legacy."

"A legacy of control," the figure corrected. "A legacy of division. We've chained people to our software and taken control of their computing, making them dependent on our every whim. We've taken away their freedom."

"Nonsense," Victor retorted. "Our software is a gift. It makes life easier, more efficient."

The figure shook its head. "A gilded cage, Victor. A beautiful prison."

A sudden surge of anger propelled Victor to his feet. "This is a dream," he accused, his voice rising. "A nightmare."

The figure remained unmoved. "Three spirits will visit you, Victor. They will show you the consequences of your actions. Listen to them, or you will be doomed to a fate far worse than mine."

With that, the figure faded, its form dissolving into the darkness. Victor, his mind reeling, stumbled into his bed. He closed his eyes, trying to shake off the disturbing vision.

"Just a dream," he muttered, his voice barely a whisper. "A drunken hallucination."

But as he drifted off to sleep, a seed of doubt had been planted in his mind. A seed that would grow into a tree of fear and uncertainty.

A Journey Through Forgotten Foundations

The grandfather clock in the hallway chimed twelve times, its resonant tones slicing through the thick silence of the apartment. Victor stirred in his sleep, troubled by the unsettling encounter with Marcus's ghost. The remnants of his drunken stupor clung to him like a shroud, his head pounding with a dull ache.

Suddenly, a blinding light filled the room, emanating from a figure that shimmered and pulsed before him. It was a being of pure energy, its form constantly shifting, morphing from lines of code to punch cards to flickering images of early computer screens.

Victor, his heart pounding in his chest, recoiled in fear. "Who... what are you?" he stammered, his voice hoarse.

The figure, its voice a chorus of whispers and beeps, replied, "I am the Ghost of Software Past. I am here to show you the origins of your craft, Victor Grimwald."

Still reeling from the encounter with Marcus's ghost, Victor struggled to comprehend the situation. "Another ghost?" he mumbled, his voice barely audible. "Am I going mad?"

The Ghost of Software Past, its form stabilizing into a vaguely humanoid shape, extended a translucent hand toward Victor. "Come," it beckoned, its voice echoing with the history of computing. "Let's return to a time when community and cooperation were the cornerstones of computing."

Victor hesitated, his fear battling a strange curiosity. "What... what do you want to show me?" he asked, his voice trembling.

"I want to show you the spirit of sharing, the joy of community and cooperation that once defined your world," the ghost replied, its voice filled with a wistful longing.

Victor, his mind still clouded by alcohol and disbelief, remained rooted to his spot. "This is madness," he muttered, shaking his head. "I'm dreaming. This can't be real."

The ghost, its patience wearing thin, moved closer.

"Victor Grimwald," the ghost said softly, its voice carrying a mixture of urgency and calm, "there is more to your story than you know. If you truly wish to understand, you must trust me."

"Very well," he said, his voice resigned. "Show me what you want to show me and get it over with."

The ghost smiled. "Then hold on tight," it said, its voice filled with anticipation. "We have a long journey ahead of us."

The ghost extended its translucent hand and gently pressed its fingertips to Victor's forehead. A cascade of energy pulsed through him - electric and warm, like the first rays of sunlight piercing a cold dawn. His vision blurred, not with confusion but with a swirling kaleidoscope of colors, as if the very fabric of reality was unraveling before his eyes.

Echoes of Collaboration

The world shimmered and dissolved around Victor, the familiar confines of his apartment replaced by a scene of organized chaos. Towering machines, their innards exposed in a tangle of wires and tubes, hummed and clicked, filling the vast room with an almost organic rhythm. The air thrummed with palpable energy, discovery, and excitement.

"Where...?" Victor began, his voice lost in the cacophony of mechanical sounds.

"A time long before your own," the Ghost of Software Past replied, gesturing towards a group of people huddled at a machine that filled the room. "This is the birthplace of your industry, Victor. A time when computers were behemoths, and software was a shared language among those who dared to tame them."

Victor watched as a young engineer, his brow furrowed in concentration, meticulously flipped switches and adjusted dials on a control panel. Another, wielding a thick stack of punch cards, fed them into a reader, the machine whirring and clacking as it processed the information.

"They are sharing their knowledge, their code," the ghost explained, its voice a whisper against the din. "Each line, each instruction, a gift to the community, a building block for future innovation."

Victor scoffed. "A gift? What a ridiculous notion! Why give away something so valuable?"

The ghost sighed. "Value, in those days, was measured in community and cooperation."

The ghost pointed towards a corner of the room where a group of engineers gathered around a blackboard and engaged in a lively discussion. "All software was free, as in freedom, given and received without restraint," the ghost explained. It was a time of sharing, community, collaboration, and unity."

Victor remained unconvinced. "It's all very noble," he conceded, "but impractical. Who would invest time and resources in developing software if they couldn't profit from it?"

The ghost smiled sadly. "They did it for the love of the craft, Victor, for the love of community and cooperation. It was a time of knowledge freely shared and built upon. They laid the foundation for the very industry you now control."

The ghost led Victor through the bustling room, past engineers poring over diagrams and technicians meticulously testing circuits. The air buzzed with a sense of shared purpose, a collective drive to explore the uncharted territory of computing.

"This is the spirit that's been lost, Victor," the ghost said, his voice tinged with regret. "The spirit of community, of collaboration. You have traded it for power, profit, and control over others."

Victor, though still skeptical, felt a flicker of something unfamiliar stir within him. But the feeling was fleeting, quickly suppressed by his ingrained beliefs. "It's a different world now," he countered, his voice firm. "Competition is fierce. We can't afford to give away our secrets."

The ghost shook its head sadly. "The greatest secrets, Victor, are those shared freely. They are the seeds that grow into lasting communities."

Victor remained silent, his gaze fixed on the bustling scene before him. He saw the passion in the engineers' eyes, the excitement in their discussions, the shared joy of creation. A part of him, buried deep beneath layers of cynicism and ambition, yearned for that sense of community, that spirit of collaboration. But he quickly pushed the feeling aside.

"It's all very well for a ghost to wax lyrical about the past," he said dismissively. "But the reality is, the world doesn't work that way anymore."

The Ghost of Software Past sighed, its form flickering as if fading. "Perhaps not," he conceded. "But it could. It should."

The Lab of Lost Ideals

The scene shifted again, the hum of machinery replaced by the soft hum of computers. Victor found himself in a brightly lit room with rows of terminals, each occupied by a young programmer, their fingers flying across the keyboards.

"This is a university computer lab," the ghost explained, its voice filled with nostalgia. It's a place where people gather to share knowledge and collaborate on projects."

Victor watched as two programmers, heads bent together, discussed a particularly complex algorithm. They typed furiously, the code flowing effortlessly from their fingertips. When one encountered a problem, the other offered a solution, their shared knowledge illuminating the path forward.

"They are working together, sharing their code, ideas, and insights," the ghost said. "All for the common good."

Victor was skeptical. "But what's in it for them? What's their motivation?" he asked.

"It remains the same: The spirit of community and cooperation. The joy of creation and discovery," the ghost replied. "The satisfaction of knowing that their work benefits others."

Victor shook his head. "That's all very well, but it's not practical. You can't build a business on altruism."

The ghost sighed. "You're right, of course. But there was a time when community was its reward. A time when the spirit of sharing was paramount."

As they moved through the lab, Victor noticed a young man with a determined look in his eyes. A group of people surrounded him, his animated gestures and passionate speech captivating his audience.

"Who is that?" Victor asked, intrigued.

"A young man with a vision," the ghost replied. "A man who will significantly impact the future of software."

Victor noticed the initials "RMS" scribbled on a computer printout that the young man was holding. The ghost, sensing Victor's curiosity, nodded. "He believes that software should be shared freely, without restriction."

Victor was silent, his mind racing. The image of the young man and his passion for free software challenged his beliefs about ownership and control.

"He and others like him," the ghost continued, "will fight to preserve this spirit of collaboration, to ensure that software remains a tool for empowerment, not subjugation."

Victor, his mind a whirlwind of conflicting thoughts, turned away from the young man. The ghost's words echoed in his mind, a haunting reminder of a different path he had chosen not to take.

The Ghost of Software Past, its form flickering like a dying flame, turned to Victor. "You have seen the past, Victor Grimwald," he said, echoing through the now-empty computer lab. "A time of sharing, of community, and collaboration. A time before the walls of proprietary software were erected."

Victor crossed his arms, his expression hardened. "Sentimentality is a luxury we can't afford," he declared. "We have a business to run, a responsibility to our shareholders."

The ghost shook his head sadly. "And what of your responsibility to the future, Victor? To the generations who will inherit the world you leave behind?"

Victor remained silent, his gaze fixed on the floor. The ghost's words struck a chord within him, but he quickly suppressed the unsettling feeling.

"Enough of this nostalgia," he said dismissively. "The past is the past. We need to focus on the present, on building a successful future."

The ghost, its form fading rapidly, gave Victor a final, sorrowful look. "Then you have learned nothing, Victor Grimwald," he said, his voice barely a whisper. "And you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past."

Once again, the ghost extended its translucent hand and gently pressed its fingertips to Victor's forehead. Victor felt dizzy, and the room spun and tilted. He stumbled, grasping for support, but found only empty air.

Then, just as abruptly as it began, the sensation subsided. Victor blinked twice, his vision clearing. He was no longer in the computer lab but back in his bed, the familiar scent of his pillows and the faint glow of the city lights filtering through his curtains.

He lay in bed, his heart pounding, his mind reeling from the encounter. Was it a dream? A hallucination? Or had he indeed journeyed through time, witnessed the past, and confronted the ghosts of his conscience?

He drifted off to sleep, a sense of unease settling over him. The ghost's parting words hung heavy in the air. The Ghost of Software Past had shown him how computiing used to be based in community and collbaoration and he knew with a certainty that chilled him to the bone, that this was only the beginning, and he felt the next visit would be even more unsettling than the first.

The Ghost of Software Present

The grandfather clock in the hallway chimed once and Victor awoke with a start, a cold sweat beading on his brow. The dream had left him shaken. He sat in bed, rubbing his eyes, trying to shake off the lingering unease. As he did so, a figure emerged from the shadows, its form indistinct and ethereal.

"I am the Ghost of Software Present," the figure intoned, its voice a chilling whisper.

Victor, his heart pounding, stared at the apparition. "Another one?" he muttered, his voice barely audible.

The Ghost of Software Present, its form solidifying, took on a more tangible shape. It was a being of pure code, a digital entity composed of ones and zeros. Its eyes, glowing with an otherworldly light, seemed to peer into the depths of Victor's soul.

"You have seen the past but did not learn," the ghost began, echoing through the silent room. "Now, let's examine the present."

Victor, his skepticism unwavering, crossed his arms. "I'm not sure I'm ready for this," he said, his voice trembling.

The ghost ignored his protest. "Look around you, Victor," it said, gesturing towards the room. "The fruits of your labor, the empire you have built."

Victor glanced around the room, his eyes landing on the sleek smartphone on his nightstand. "What about it?" he asked, his tone dismissive.

"A marvel of technology, is it not?" the ghost replied. "But at what cost?"

Victor scoffed. "Cost? What cost? It's a tool, a convenience. It connects people, and it empowers individuals."

The ghost shook its head. "It also isolates, it distracts, it manipulates. It collects your data, it tracks your every move, it shapes your thoughts. People are controlled through it."

Victor bristled. "That's a bit of a stretch," he protested. "People are free to use it as they see fit."

The ghost smiled, a cold, knowing smile. "Are they truly free, Victor? Are they free to use and change the software as they wish, and to share it with others? Or do you stop them?

Victor, his confidence wavering, remained silent. The ghost's words had struck a chord, a note of doubt resonating within him.

"You have created a world of subjugation," the ghost continued, "where attention is the most valuable commodity. You have traded community and cooperation for the pursuit of profit, the spirit of collaboration for the spirit of competition."

Victor, feeling increasingly uncomfortable, shifted in his bed. "We're just doing business," he mumbled.

The ghost sighed. "Business, at the expense of humanity. A Faustian bargain, Victor, for a fleeting moment of glory."

The ghost paused, its gaze piercing Victor's. "But enough of this. It's time to show you the true cost of your choices."

Locked Away: The Cost of Progress

As the ghost extended its translucent hand, Victor felt a sudden lurch as if the bed beneath him had dissolved into nothingness. The air shimmered, fracturing like glass and then reassembling in a blur of light and motion. He clutched at his chest, a sensation of weightlessness filling him as though his very essence had been untethered from the constraints of reality. Suddenly, the motion ceased. The air hung heavy with a mix of antiseptic and despair.

Victor blinked, regaining focus, and found himself in a sterile, dimly lit room, the hum of machines providing a constant, unsettling backdrop. An older woman, her face etched with lines of age and sorrow, sat in a wheelchair, her gaze fixed on a younger woman.

The younger woman, presumably her daughter, sat beside her, a tablet computer in her lap. She tapped at the screen, her brow furrowed in concentration. "I just can't get it to open, Mom," she sighed, her voice filled with frustration.

"Her mother had been saving family pictures in the computer, but the newer version of your software won't open the older files," the Ghost of Software Present explained.

The older woman, her eyes welling up with tears, reached out a trembling hand towards her daughter. "I thought I was saving these forever," she whispered, her voice barely audible. "Memories, precious memories, locked away forever."

The daughter, her heart aching, tried to comfort her mother. "Don't worry, Mom. We'll keep trying. Maybe there's some other way to open the pictures."

Victor, watching the scene unfold, felt a pang of guilt. He had created a world where technology, meant to connect and preserve, had become a barrier, a source of frustration and despair. He had prioritized profit over people and innovation over empathy.

The ghost, its form shimmering, turned to Victor. "This is the cost of your choices, Victor," it said, its voice filled with sorrow. "You have created a world where the past is lost, the future uncertain, and the relentless pursuit of the next dollar dominates the present."

Victor, his heart heavy, could only nod in silent agreement. The scene before him was a stark reminder of the consequences of his actions. He had built a world where technology, instead of liberating humanity, had become a tool of oppression, a chain binding people to the whims of his company.

The ghost drifted closer, cooling the air until Victor's breath came out in faint puffs. It leaned forward, its shimmering lips parting to exhale a whisper into his ear. The sound wasn't a word but a sensation - soft as falling leaves, yet sharp as the edge of a shattered mirror. Victor felt his mind unfold, layer by layer.

The Fading Script: A Lesson in Language and Loss

The nursing home's sterile smell faded, replaced by an old classroom's warm, woody scent. Sunlight streamed through dusty windows, illuminating rows of worn desks and a chalkboard covered in a script that seemed to dance and swirl. An older man sat at a desk, his face creased with wisdom and time.

"This is Elder Kai," the ghost whispered to Victor. "He's one of the last speakers of his language, and is trying to pass on his knowledge to the next generation."

Victor watched Elder Kai, his brow furrowed in concentration, as he attempted to develop typewritten materials in the native language for the students to learn. But the software, designed for a world of standardized alphabets, couldn't accommodate the language's unique symbols and sounds.

Frustration flickered across Elder Kai's face as he wrestled with the program's limitations. He clicked and typed, but the characters appeared garbled and distorted. With a sigh, he picked up the phone and dialed a number.

"He is calling the software company," the ghost explained, his voice tinged with sadness. "Your company. He hopes you will help him adapt the program to his needs."

Victor listened as Elder Kai explained his situation, his voice pleading. But the response from the other end was curt and dismissive. With a voice laced with indifference, the representative from Victor's company explained that there was no market for such a niche feature. They were not interested in investing resources to support a small group of people speaking a dying language.

The ghost, its form shimmering with sadness, turned to Victor. "Every culture deserves the tools to preserve itself," he whispered. "Every language, every story, every tradition is a thread in the rich tapestry of human history."

He gestured towards the struggling Elder Kai. "Proprietary software decides which voices are worth hearing, which stories are worth preserving. It creates barriers, limits access, and silences those who do not conform."

"Free software," the ghost continued, "could support all languages, all scripts, all forms of expression. It would allow communities to be control of their computing, to decide how to shape their destinies, preserve their heritage, and share their unique perspectives with the world."

Victor watched Elder Kai, his spirit broken, sit in this empty classroom, the silence heavy with a sense of loss. He felt a pang of guilt, a realization that his pursuit of profit had contributed to this cultural erosion. He'd helped create a world where technology, instead of empowering communities, was used to control and suppress them.

With its form fading, the ghost gave Victor a final, sorrowful look. "The future of software is in your hands, Victor Grimwald," he said, his voice echoing through the empty classroom. Will you choose to build walls or bridges?"

The ghost moved deliberately, reaching out with fingers that glimmered like shards of ice catching the morning sun. When they brushed Victor's arm, a sharp chill ran through him, followed by an eruption of warmth - an intense, pulsing heat that spread from the point of contact. His skin shimmered, veins glowing faintly as if filled with liquid light. He gasped, his breath crystallizing in the air before him.

A Software Tragedy

The classroom faded, and the sterile hum of medical equipment filled the air as Victor and the ghost materialized in a bustling emergency room. Doctors and nurses moved with a frantic urgency, their faces etched with worry. At the center of the chaos lay a patient, their body connected to a tangle of wires and tubes.

"This is Dr. Amara," the ghost's voice, a chilling whisper, cut through the noise with its voice barely audible above the beeping of medical equipment." And this is the patient you failed."

"Dr. Amara is a dedicated physician, working in a rural community with limited resources," the ghost explained.

Victor watched as Dr. Amara consulted a small screen attached to a device implanted in the patient.

"The software is malfunctioning," the ghost whispered, its form flickering with anxiety. "It was designed for a slightly different scenario, and the software is encountering an unforeseen bug never tested for this exact scenario."

Victor's heart pounded in his chest as he took in the scene. The device, a marvel of modern technology, was designed to save lives, but in this case, it failed catastrophically. The readings on the screen were erratic, flashing red with alarming urgency.

Dr. Amara, her brow furrowed in concentration, tried to override the error, but the device remained unresponsive. The patient's breathing grew shallow, and their skin was clammy and pale.

"There is no time to contact your company," the ghost explained, his voice filled with urgency. "The proprietary nature of the software means only your company can fix it, and they're thousands of miles away."

Dr. Amara, her eyes filled with desperation, decided to transfer the patient to a hospital in the closest major city. The ambulance sped away, its siren wailing a desperate plea.

The ghost, its form growing dimmer, turned to Victor, its eyes filled with a profound sadness. The patient died on the way," it whispered, its voice heavy with sorrow. "A life lost, a family shattered, because of a software bug that could have been avoided."

The ghost gestured towards the empty cot, a stark reminder of the tragedy. "Software that is proprietary, that only its maker can fix, prioritizes control over life itself. It places barriers between those who need help and those who can provide it."

The ghost continued: "A legal battle ensued, and your company pulled out all the stops to protect their reputation and profits. They questioned the doctor's competence and medical decision-making, blaming the patient's demise on medical error. Ultimately, they managed to have the case dismissed, their guilt over a life-ending software bug obscured by a veil of legal jargon."

"Free software could have prevented this tragedy," the ghost said. "A community of developers, working together, could have identified and fixed the bug before it claimed a life."

Victor stared at the empty cot, his conscience stirring, his heart heavy with guilt. He'd always believed that his position to keep the software propritetary was justified, that the benefits of his software outweighed the costs. But the scenes he had witnessed, the lives touched by his creations, painted a different picture. He'd created a world where profit was prioritized over human life.

The ghost's voice, heavy with sorrow and disappointment, echoed in the sterile silence of the emergency room. "These are not failures of technology, Victor. They are failures of ethics. Each story is a life touched by the chains of proprietary control - a control you wield. Will you leave this unchanged?"

The ghost, its form fading rapidly, gave Victor a final, pleading look. "The world needs free software," it said, the voice barely a whisper. "Software that empowers, not restricts."

With a final flicker, the ghost vanished, the sterile scent of the clinic dissolving into the familiar musk of his bedroom. Victor found himself back in his bed, the soft glow of the city lights painting the ceiling with an eerie luminescence that seemed to mock him, their cold, indifferent glow a stark contrast to the warmth of human life he had witnessed slipping away. He had built an empire, a monument to his own ambition, but at what cost? The weight of the ghost's words and the dying siren's echoes pressed heavily on his chest. He had witnessed the tragic consequences of his relentless pursuit of profit, the human cost of his obsession with control.

A newfound understanding bloomed within him, a painful awareness of his responsibility. He could no longer ignore the impact of his creations, the lives touched, and sometimes tragically extinguished, by the software he had brought into the world.

He had the skills, knowledge, and influence to change course and forge a different path - a patch where technology served humanity, not the other way around - a path where community and collaboration were prioritized over profit and control.

He lay awake, the city lights reflecting in his tear-filled eyes, a silent vow forming in his heart. He would use his power to build a better future where technology is empowered and healed, not restricted and destroyed. The journey ahead would be challenging, but the image of the empty cot and the memory of the fading siren would be a constant reminder of the stakes involved.

The Ghost of Software Future

The grandfather clock in the hallway chimed twice, its deep, resonant tones echoing through the quiet apartment. Victor stirred, a cold sweat breaking out on his brow. He had been plagued by a series of disturbing dreams and visions of a dystopian future where technology had become a tool of oppression.

A sudden chill swept through the room, the air growing heavy with anticipation. A spectral figure materialized at the foot of his bed, its form shimmering and shifting, a phantom born of light and shadow. The Ghost of Software Future, its presence both ethereal and imposing, regarded Victor with a knowing gaze.

Its eyes, twin galaxies of cosmic knowledge, pierced the darkness, illuminating Victor's soul. A sense of dread washed over him, a premonition of the horrors yet to come.

"You have seen the past, Victor," the ghost's voice, a haunting whisper, filled the room. "You have glimpsed the present. Now, I shall show you the future."

Victor, his heart pounding in his chest, tried to protest. "I've seen enough," he pleaded. "I understand the importance of free software. I will dedicate my life to its cause."

But the ghost, unmoved, extended a spectral hand. "You must see, Victor. You must understand the full extent of your responsibility."

Victor held up his hands defensively, his heart pounding in his chest.

"Wait," he implored, his voice trembling. "I've seen enough. I understand the error of my ways. I will change, I promise. Just... please, no more."

He looked beseechingly at the ghost, hoping his desperate plea would be heard.

The ghost's voice softened but grew more resolute. "There is no turning back, Victor," it said. "You must witness what lies ahead. You must witness this future because only you can change it."

With a reluctant sigh, Victor took the ghost's hand. The instant contact was made, a jolt of energy surged through his arm, cascading like liquid fire into his veins. He gasped as the sensation spread through him, a tingling warmth that unraveled every nerve in his body. The world around him dissolved; his body felt weightless, his heart pounding with a rhythm that wasn't his own.

The familiar warmth of his bed vanished, replaced by the chilling chill of polished steel and the hum of unseen machinery. Victor found himself in a stark, minimalist courtroom, the air thick with a sense of sterile finality. Beside him stood the Ghost of Software Future, its form a silhouette against the cold, blue light emanating from a massive screen dominating the room.

A lone figure, his face etched with fear and confusion, stood before the screen. This was the defendant, accused of a minor petty theft offense. But the screen, powered by an intricate web of algorithms and proprietary software, had deemed him a repeat offender, a threat to society.

"This is the future you are creating, Victor," the ghost's voice, a chilling whisper, echoed in the vast emptiness of the courtroom. "A world where justice is dispensed not by human compassion and understanding, but by cold, unfeeling algorithms."

The defendant, his voice trembling, pleaded his innocence. He explained that the system was mistaken and that he had no prior convictions. But the software's logic, shrouded in secrecy, offered no explanation and no opportunity for appeal.

"The system is designed to be impartial, efficient, and infallible," the ghost explained, his tone laced with irony. "But in its pursuit of objectivity, it has sacrificed transparency and accountability."

Victor watched in horror as the defendant, his pleas ignored, was sentenced to a harsh punishment, his life irrevocably altered by a faulty algorithm.

"They tried to correct it," the ghost continued, sensing Victor's growing unease. "They put a human in the loop, a judge tasked with reviewing the system's recommendations."

It gestured towards a figure seated at a small desk; their eyes glazed over as they mechanically rubber-stamped the software's decisions. "But the human became a mere cog in the machine, their judgment eroded by the perceived infallibility of the system. The errors persisted, excused by the illusion of human oversight."

The ghost turned to Victor, its form radiating a chilling inevitability. "Free software, Victor, could have prevented this. Its transparency would have allowed for scrutiny and the identification and correction of errors. It would have ensured that justice was served, not dictated by a black box of code."

Victor, his heart heavy with a growing sense of responsibility, watched as the defendant, his spirit crushed, was led away. He had witnessed a future where technology, instead of serving humanity, had become a tool of oppression, a weapon against the people it was meant to protect.

He knew he had to act, to use his power and influence to steer the world away from this dystopian path. He had to champion the cause of free software to fight for a future where technology empowers, not restricts.

A World Without Freedom

The scene shifted, the sterile courtroom replaced by a dim, subterranean bunker. The air was thick with the scent of dust and despair. A group of children, their faces lit by the soft glow of a salvaged computer screen, huddled together, their fingers dancing across the keyboard.

"This is the future you have helped create, Victor," the Ghost of Software Future whispered, his voice echoing in the confined space. "A world where dissent is a crime, where every thought, every action is monitored and controlled."

The children, their eyes filled with hope and defiance, were determinedly attempting to bypass the device's security measures to gain control over their lives. They were cracking security, not for malicious intent, but for freedom.

But their efforts were futile. The device, a sleek, feature-rich surveillance tool, was designed to prevent such rebellion. It was a prison, a digital cage, locking them in a world of conformity and control.

With a sickening click, the device locked, and the screen went dark. The children, their spirits dampened, exchanged glances, their eyes filled with disappointment. They knew the consequences of their actions: punishment, isolation, and erasure. Their hearts sank, their spirits crushed under the weight of the system's control.

The ghost's voice, heavy with sorrow, echoed in the silence. "Free software, Victor, could have given these children the tools to think, create, and resist. It could have empowered them to challenge the status quo, to break free from the chains of proprietary control."

But in this world, such freedom was a distant dream. The children, their hopes extinguished, were forced to return to the surface, their spirits broken.

Victor, his heart heavy with guilt, watched as the children, their futures uncertain, disappeared into the shadows. He had created a world where technology, instead of liberating humanity, had become a tool of oppression, a weapon against the very essence of human thought and expression.

He knew he had to change. He had to use his power and influence to build a different future where technology empowered, not restricted.

Humanity's Fall

The world shifted again, this time into a withered, desolate wasteland stretching to the horizon. A group of weary survivors huddled around a hulking machine, their faces etched with despair. The machine, once a beacon of hope, now stood silent and unresponsive, its lifeblood, its proprietary software, forever lost.

"This is the ultimate consequence of your choices, Victor," the Ghost of Software Future intoned, his voice echoing in the desolate landscape. "A world where the tools of survival are locked away, their secrets buried beneath layers of proprietary code."

The survivors, their bodies frail, their spirits broken, clung to the machine, their last hope for sustenance. But the machine, a victim of planned obsolescence and corporate greed, was beyond repair. The software, a black box of proprietary code, was inaccessible, its secrets forever buried.

One by one, the survivors succumbed to hunger and thirst, their lives extinguished by the very technology that was meant to sustain them. Their dreams, hopes, and potential were lost to the ravages of time and the tyranny of proprietary software.

"Free software," the ghost's mournful lament echoed in the silence. It could have ensured that humanity could adapt, repair, and survive even in the darkest times. It could have empowered people to control their destiny and build a future free from the shackles of corporate greed and technological tyranny.

But in this world, where a handful of corporations controlled every aspect of life, such freedom was a distant memory. The survivors, their fate sealed, were condemned to a slow, agonizing death, a victim of their reliance on a system that had failed them.

The last survivor's breath faded, their body a lifeless husk, consumed by the unforgiving landscape. The ghost, his form growing increasingly ethereal, turned to Victor, his voice a mournful whisper. "This is the future you create if you continue down this path, Victor. The choice is yours: to perpetuate these tragedies or to champion a world built on freedom, collaboration, and ethics."

With these final words, the ghost dissolved into thin air, leaving Victor alone in his bed; the images of the suffering he had seen flashed before his eyes. The desperate plea of the older woman, the frustrated sigh of the elder, the dying gasp of the patient, the fear in the eyes of the defendant, the despair of the children, and the final breath of the dying survivor - each a haunting reminder of the damage he had caused.

He knew he had to change. He had to use his power and influence to build a different future where technology served humanity, not the other way around. A future where software was free, innovation flourished, and everyone had the opportunity to thrive. The journey would be difficult, and the challenges immense, but he was determined to make a difference.

As he drifted to sleep, a renewed sense of purpose filled his heart. He would fight for a world where technology was a force for good, a tool for empowerment, not a weapon of oppression. He would champion the cause of free software, a beacon of hope in a world shrouded in darkness.

The Awakening of Victor Grimwald

Sunlight streamed through the gaps in the curtains, casting a warm glow across Victor's face. He awoke with a start, his heart still pounding from the vivid dreams that had haunted his sleep. The Ghost of Software Future's warnings echoed in his mind, a chilling reminder of the dystopian path he had been treading.

But this morning, something felt different. The weight of responsibility, the urgency for change, had ignited a fire within him. He was no longer the Victor Grimwald who prioritized profit over people and control over compassion. He was a man transformed, determined to use his power and influence to build a better future.

He reached for his phone, his fingers dialing a familiar number. "Call an emergency board meeting," he instructed his assistant, his voice firm and resolute. "I have an important announcement to make."

He dressed quickly, a sense of purpose driving his every move. As he exited the bustling street, the familiar sight of a small group huddled on the corner caught his attention. Their faded signs, proclaiming the virtues of "Software Freedom," brought a wry smile to his face.

He approached the group, their faces etched with surprise and apprehension. "I'd like to donate," he announced, pulling out his checkbook. He scribbled a figure, a sum that made their eyes widen in disbelief - one million dollars.

"This is for our cause," he said, handing them the check. "For a better future."

He continued, the weight of his past actions lifting with every step. He entered the gleaming skyscraper that housed his company, his stride confident, his gaze fixed on the future.

The board members, their faces etched with confusion and curiosity, awaited his arrival. Victor took his place at the head of the table, his expression serious, his voice filled with conviction.

"Let me talk to you about software freedom..." he began, his words echoing in the boardroom's hushed silence.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The FSF's seemingly mundane physical location history offers a glimpse into the organization's growth and tells the story of an important part of the free software movement. Let's follow the FSF's footsteps through the years.

The FSF emerged on October 4, 1985 during the burgeoning tech revolution. The FSF's mission was clear: grant users the freedom to run, study, share, and modify software. In its early days, the FSF primarily focused on hiring talented programmers to contribute to the GNU Project, an ambitious endeavor to create a completely free operating system. Its mission of free software for all was welcome in the thriving hacker culture at MIT. The FSF's initial headquarters were nestled within the walls of Lisp Machines, Inc. (LMI) at 1000 Massachusetts Ave, a company with deep ties to the local hacker community. LMI generously provided the fledgling FSF with office space, computing resources, and a mailing address, and MIT even supplied desks. While LMI was the first home of the FSF, it would not be the forever home. Once a promising innovation, Lisp Machines faced harsh market realities and went out of business in 1987, leading the FSF to begin the search for a new base.

During and after the relocation to 675 Massachusetts Ave, the FSF remained steadfast in its mission, mailing out tapes of free software and raising funds to support the development of GNU. This period was marked by significant achievements, including the release of GNU General Public License (GPL) versions 1 and 2 in 1989 and 1991, respectively. These licenses became the bedrock of the free software movement, ensuring that software released under their terms would remain free for users to use, study, modify, and share. A year later, in 1992, Linus Torvalds, the creator of the kernel named Linux, decided to relicense his program under the GPL instead of the original nonfree license. This seemingly small act had a profound impact, effectively completing the GNU operating system. The GNU Project, which had been diligently developing a free operating system since 1983, finally had all the necessary components to realize its vision. The dream of using a computer with complete freedom was now a reality with GNU/Linux.

By 1995, the foundation's activities had expanded beyond just coding. They were now actively promoting and advocating for free software, educating the public, and fighting legal battles. The small office at 675 Massachusetts Ave was bursting at the seams, unable to accommodate the growing team and the increasing demands of their mission. In response, the FSF moved to 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA, in 1995. With more space, the foundation could dedicate more resources to non-programming activities, such as public outreach and legal advocacy. Key developments during the FSF's time at 59 Temple Place include:

• Continued rapid progress on the GNU Project, including the development of GNOME (then called the GNU Network Object Model Environment);
• Expansion of the GNU Press in publishing more books and manuals explaining free software's philosophy and practicalities;
• The FSF began campaigning against software patents, recognizing them as a significant threat to free software and advocated for legal reforms to protect software developers' freedom to create and share code;
• The FSF also became a vocal critic of so-called Digital "Rights" Management (DRM), which they termed Digital Restrictions Management to reframe the issue as restricting user freedoms.

Driven by the need for a more modern and spacious office, the FSF relocated to 51 Franklin Street in 2005. This location provided the FSF with ample room for an expanding team. The foundation thrived at 51 Franklin Street for nearly two decades, achieving several milestones and further solidifying its role as a champion of software freedom. Some notable events and accomplishments during this period include:

• Publishing the third version of the GNU General Public License (GPL), a significant update to the cornerstone license of the free software movement. GPLv3 addressed contemporary legal challenges and further strengthened the protections for user freedoms;
• Cisco Case: The FSF took a stand against GPL violations by filing a lawsuit concerning Cisco's Linksys routers. This legal action underscored the FSF's commitment to enforcing the GPL and ensuring that companies comply with its terms, safeguarding user freedoms;
• OpenWRT Project: The release of the source code from the Linksys lawsuit resulted in the formation of the OpenWRT project; the first commit into the version control system is that source code;
• Respects Your Freedom (RYF) Certification: The FSF launched the Respects Your Freedom hardware endorsement program, providing certification for hardware products that meet their rigorous standards for user freedom, privacy, and control. The RYF certification empowers individuals to make informed choices and supports companies aligning with the FSF's values.

The FSF's tenure at 51 Franklin St. is a testament to their enduring commitment to software freedom and the ability to adapt and evolve in a rapidly changing technological landscape. In 2024, the FSF further adapted to the needs of an international community and transitioned to an entirely virtual organization, allowing it to more effectively connect with a global community of free software advocates and contributors. From its early days at LMI to its current virtual existence, the FSF has consistently championed the cause of software freedom, empowering users and shaping the digital landscape for the better.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Tracing the FSF's Footsteps is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Please copy and share.

It was a system that was hard to love,
With commands and syntax that felt above,
The reach of many users' minds,
A learning curve that felt unkind.

But for those who stuck it out,
ITS was a system without a doubt,
That offered power and control,
To those who sought to take the toll.

From Lisp machines to Multics too,
ITS was a system that knew what to do,
It was a pioneer in its day,
A computing powerhouse on display.

It was created in the sixties, a product of its time,
But by the nineties, it was clear it was past its prime.

It was a system that was clunky, outdated, and slow,
And as new technology emerged, it just couldn't grow.

But for some, it was a beloved relic of the past,
And they kept it alive, hoping it would last.

Though its hardware may have long been laid to rest,
The Incompatible Timesharing System still stands the test.

With emulated hardware, it continues to thrive,
Kept alive by those who keep its spirit alive.

A passion project for those in the know,
A tribute to the history of computing's ebb and flow.

ITS is more than just lines of old code,
It's a symbol of ingenuity, a milestone on the road.

Now the tapes live on in digital form, preserved with care,
A piece of computing history that enthusiasts still share.

So here's to ITS, a system that lives on,
Not just in memory, but in bits that are never truly gone.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

1. Admit Powerlessness: Accept that you're powerless over parentheses, and that your code has become unmanageable due to excessive nesting.

2. Higher Order Function: Come to believe that a Higher Order Function greater than yourself could restore you to sanity-or at least bring your code to a level of elegance.

3. Pass the Lambda: Make a decision to turn your will and your code over to the care of Lambda Expressions.

4. Parenthetical Inventory: Make a searching and fearless inventory of all your parentheses. Don't forget the closing ones.

5. Confess to Emacs: Admit to Emacs, to yourself, and to another Lisp expression, the exact nature of your wrongs - and your incorrect indentations.

6. Recursive Readiness: Become entirely ready to have Higher Order Functions remove all these defects of structure.

7. Macro Intervention: Humbly ask the Macros to remove your shortcomings and replace them with reusable code snippets.

8. List of Wrongs: Make a list of all expressions you've wronged, and become willing to close their parentheses properly.

9. Direct Recursion: Make direct recursion to such expressions whenever possible, except when to do so would cause an infinite loop.

10. Continual Inventory: Continue to take a list inventory, and when you're wrong, promptly admit it and refactor.

11. Meditative Coding: Seek through let and defun to improve your conscious contact with Lambda as you understand it, praying only for knowledge of its will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Spread the S-Expression: Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, try to carry this message to other programmers and to practice these principles in all your codebases.

Remember, the road to Lisp enlightenment is paved with parentheses - may yours always be balanced!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The free software movement is a fight for control over our computing. Organizations dedicated to this cause, like the Free Software Foundation, have a critical responsibility to uphold the principles of software freedom. At the heart of these organizations lies the board of directors, the guardians of the mission. But what qualities make for an effective board member in this space?

While traditional board member qualities like financial literacy and strategic thinking are essential, free software organizations demand a more profound commitment. Here's a breakdown of the crucial traits, in no particular order:

1. Unwavering Belief in Software Freedom: This is non-negotiable. Board members must deeply understand and passionately advocate for the philosophical underpinnings of the free software movement. They should be able to articulate the importance of user freedom, explain the ethical failings of proprietary software, and champion the principles of free software licenses like the GPL.
2. Deep Understanding of the Free Software Ecosystem: A board member should have a strong grasp of the free software landscape. This includes:
   • Familiarity with major projects and licenses: They should be aware of major free software projects, understand the nuances of different licenses (GPL, LGPL, BSD, etc.), and recognize the challenges facing free software development.
   • Technical proficiency: While not necessarily a programmer, a basic understanding of software development and the challenges involved is beneficial. This allows for informed decision-making on technical matters and resource allocation.
   • Awareness of the community: The free software movement thrives on its community. Board members should recognize its importance, understand its dynamics, and be able to engage with it respectfully.
3. License Stewardship and Legal Acumen: Free software licenses are the legal backbone of the movement. Board members should:
   • Be well-versed in license compliance: They should understand different licenses' implications and requirements.
   • Advocate for license enforcement: Protecting the integrity of free software licenses is crucial. Board members should be prepared to support legal action to defend these licenses when necessary.
   • Understand copyright: At least a high-level understanding of copyright law.
4. Strategic Vision and Leadership: Board members should be able to:
   • Guide the organization's long-term strategy: They should work with the executive director and staff to set goals, allocate resources, and ensure the organization remains relevant and impactful.
   • Identify emerging challenges and opportunities: The tech world is constantly evolving. Board members should be able to anticipate changes, identify new threats to software freedom, and adapt the organization's strategy accordingly.
   • Represent the organization effectively: They should be able to articulate its mission and values to external stakeholders, including donors, policymakers, and the media.
5. Commitment to Ethical Governance: Transparency and accountability are paramount. Board members should:
   • Prioritize the organization's mission above personal interests: They should act in the best interests of the organization and the free software movement, avoiding conflicts of interest.
   • Maintain financial transparency: They should ensure responsible financial management and be accountable to donors and the public.
   • Uphold a high standard of ethical conduct: Board members should act with integrity and adhere to the organization's code of conduct.
6. Fundraising and Resource Development: Free software organizations rely heavily on donations and grants. Board members should:
   • Actively participate in fundraising efforts: They should leverage their networks and expertise to secure funding for the organization.
   • Develop relationships with potential donors: It is crucial to cultivate relationships with individuals and foundations interested in supporting the free software movement.
   • Explore diverse funding models: Board members should be open to exploring new and innovative ways to sustain the organization financially.
7. Effective Communication and Collaboration:
   • Communicate clearly and respectfully: They should be able to communicate effectively with fellow board members, staff, and the community.
   • Foster a collaborative environment: Board meetings should allow open dialogue, constructive criticism, and collaborative decision-making.
   • Listen actively to diverse perspectives: Board members should be receptive to different viewpoints and value the input of others.

Beyond the Basics:

While the above qualities are essential, specific "bonus" traits can further enhance a board member's effectiveness:

• Activism and Advocacy: Experience in activism or advocacy can be invaluable in promoting software freedom.
• Community Building: Community organizing and online engagement skills can help strengthen the free software movement.
• International Perspective: It is increasingly important to understand the global implications of software freedom and the challenges faced in different regions.

Finding individuals with this unique combination of skills and dedication is crucial for the success of any free software organization. By prioritizing these qualities in their selection process, organizations can ensure they have a board capable of guiding the movement toward a future where software freedom is the norm, not the exception.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

If you're just starting you probably want Chapter 1: Naleen's Bite.

A Mutually Beneficial Arrangement

Briefing room Epsilon-Three was a sterile, windowless space, meant to induce focus and eliminate distractions. A long steel table was illuminated in harsh fluorescent light. Hinsman stood at the head of the table, his gaze evaluating his team.

Three people sat at the table. Each was a specialist, handpicked for their loyalty, their skills, and their ability to work as a team. Anya, the demolitions specialist, sat regarding Hinsman, her eyes cold and calculating. Next to her sat Kaito, the technology expert. His fingers twitched with nervous energy as he monitored a stream of data on his wrist display. Across from them was Reza, the master at disguise and deception. He would get them in.

And then there was Miller.

He stood apart, leaning against the wall, his arms crossed. Miller was a ghost, moving through the shadows without a trace. He was Hinsman's most trusted operative, his eyes and ears in the dark corners of the underworld. He was also Hinsman's most unpredictable agent.

"The target" Hinsman said, his voice calm and unemotional, "is Mihrab Vanco Petrovski. You've all read the files. You know what he's capable of."

At Petrovski's name, each of the agents, except Miller, shifted ever so slightly, the only sign of tension they showed. Even among the elite of PTSC, the name drew a reaction. His was a horror story, whispered in hushed voices.

"This is not a standard extraction." Hinsman continued, gazing at each team member in turn. "This is... delicate. Time sensitive. This asset is... valuable. Vital to the stability of the sector."

He paused, letting the words sink in. He saw the effect those words had on them, ranging between amusement and irritation, as eyes narrowed and lips thinned or twitched. His own lips twitched. He didn't believe the bullshit he was spouting either.

But the humor faded as they began to go into the details.

Activating the holographic projector in the table, Hinsman brought up the Naleen prison with every lethal detail carefully rendered, from the blast doors to the automated turret emplacements.

"Naleen is a fortress," Hinsman said. He traced important corridors and intersections with the potential to become choke points. "But every fortress has its weaknesses. Our job is to find and exploit those weaknesses and get in and out quickly."

He summarized the plan, his voice calm and steady as he outlined each operational phase. He felt a strange disconnect as if he were watching the scene from above. He knew what he was doing was reckless, perhaps even suicidal. But he had no other choice, This had to be done. This was personal.

Undetected in the digital shadows behind the system's firewalls, Westfield watched. He had compromised the briefing room's security protocols hours ago. A thin smile played across his lips as he listened to Hinsman lay out his plan.

It was a good plan. Just what he had hoped for. He had chosen his pawn well.

The Architect of Chaos

Hinsman looked at each of his team members in turn after he finished laying out the plan. He wanted to gauge their reactions. Anya had a gleam in her eyes. She was looking forward to dismantling a system said to be impenetrable.

Pale and sweaty, Kaito was researching everything that was known about Naleen. His concerns were all technical. He was not bothered by the ethical considerations.

Reza's face was unreadable as usual. He had no opinion... about anything.

And then there was Miller, still leaning against the wall. His silence was the loudest.

"Questions?" asked Hinsman, his voice raspy.

Miller stepped away from the wall, his movements fluid. Stepping into the circle of light around the projector, his grey eyes fixed on Hinsman. "Just one," he said in a low growl. "What happens when... we get him out?"

The second question, unspoken but weighing on all of them, except perhaps for Kaito, hung in the air between them - the truth about this mission. They weren't extracting Mihrab Vanco Petrovski to protect the sector. They were extracting him so that someone else could control him, could use him.

Hinsman met Miller's gaze, a silent understanding passing between them. "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." Hinsman said, his voice carrying no hint of his inner turmoil. "For now, our objective is simple. Get him out of Naleen alive."

He dismissed the team with a curt nod. Each seemed to carrying a weight they hadn't had when they walked in.

Hinsman leaned back against the table, relaxing his muscles, clearing his mind, allowing himself to enjoy a moment of peace. But the game he was playing wouldn't leave his thoughts. It was dangerous. It might eat him alive, scattering the last few bits of his soul that he still possessed. But there was no other way.

Westfield smiled and leaned back in his chair. He sipped his wine, a very fine, old vintage from Harley, the world that produced the best wines. He had listened to Hinsman's every word. Now he sat and thought, analyzing the plan, examining it from different angles. An hour later, he stood up and regarded the dregs of wine in his glass. City lights shone through the windows and cast ruby fingers of light on the walls.

"Good," he murmured. And repeated the word. "Good."

From the moment he had discovered the PTSC's interest in Mihrab Vanco Petrovski, he had seen his opportunity. The PTSC, with their obsession with control and their blind faith in authority, were about to unleash chaos that they could never hope to contain.

And the Children of Tor, poised on the edge of the abyss, were ready to reap the whirlwind.

He raised his glass in a toast. "To chaos," he whispered. "To the fall of empires. And to the rise of something...new."

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Imagine a world where every piece of software you use comes with strings attached. You may be forbidden from using it however you want, from studying, changing, or sharing it, from any combination of those things, or even all at once. Your software controls you, not the other way around.

Enter the GNU General Public License (GPL), a cornerstone of the free software movement. This dystopian scenario is precisely what the GPL seeks to prevent. The idea behind copyleft comes from Richard Stallman. The GPL provides a legal framework to require that software remains free to use, study, change, and share-not just for ourselves but for everyone. It's a powerful legal safeguard for software freedom.

Understanding Copyleft

The GPL is arguably the most well-known example of a copyleft license. It grants users the four essential freedoms:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works and change it so it does your computing as you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

These freedoms are foundational to the free software movement. They ensure that users have control over their software, not vice versa.

To fully grasp the significance of the GPL, we first need to understand "copyleft." It might sound like a typo, but it's a powerful concept that flips copyright on its head.

Traditional copyright is designed to restrict. The copyright holder gets exclusive rights, preventing others from freely distributing or modifying their work without permission. Think of the music industry suing individuals for sharing songs online - that's copyright enforcement in action.

On the other hand, copyleft uses those same copyright laws to promote freedom. It's a licensing strategy that ensures that any modifications or distributions of a copyrighted work must also be free. Essentially, it's like saying, 'I'm sharing this, and you can share it too, but you can't stop others from sharing it.' It's a 'copyright with a left turn.'

Here's how it works:

Imagine you create a program and release it under a copyleft license. Someone else takes your program, modifies it, and wants to distribute their version. The copyleft license requires them to release their modified version under the same license, ensuring that the new version remains free for others to use, study, change, and share.

This "pay-it-forward" approach is the essence of copyleft. It ensures that the freedoms granted by the original license are preserved in any modified or extended software versions. In essence, copyleft cleverly uses the law to protect and promote freedom, turning a restriction tool, copyright, into a catalyst for freedom.

The Importance of GPL Enforcement

The GPL is a powerful legal tool but doesn't enforce itself. Like any law, it requires active enforcement to be effective. Imagine a speed limit sign without police to uphold it - it becomes merely a suggestion. Similarly, the GPL requires active enforcement to uphold its principles and protect software freedom.

Unfortunately, GPL violations are rampant. Companies often distribute GPL-licensed software without complying with the license in even the slightest way. This violates the GPL and deprives users of their right to study, modify, and share the software.

That's where organizations like the Free Software Foundation comes in. They play a crucial role in enforcing the GPL, investigating violations, communicating with those involved, and taking legal action when necessary. They act as the guardians of software freedom, ensuring users' rights are protected. GPL enforcement is not just about legal action. It's also about education and community engagement. By raising awareness about the GPL and its importance, we can create a culture of compliance and ensure that software remains free for everyone. However, these organizations need more resources and face an uphill battle against those with deep pockets. GPL enforcement is a time-consuming process, requiring legal expertise and significant resources.

The sheer quantity of GPL violations, the limited resources these organizations have to address them, and the lack of widespread GPL enforcement are serious concerns. They leave the door open for others to deprive users of the freedoms they deserve, hoping they won't be caught by these organizations with limited resources. More support is needed to ensure the GPL remains a strong defense against proprietary software.

How You Can Help

The fight for software freedom isn't just for lawyers and activists. It's a battle that everyone can contribute to. Here's how you can play your part:

• By educating others about the importance of software freedom and the GPL, you're not just sharing information but spreading awareness and becoming part of a larger movement.
• Choose GPL-licensed software: Opt for software licensed under the GPL. This supports developers who are committed to software freedom.
• Be vigilant: If you encounter a GPL violation, talk to those involved. If communication breaks down, report it to the copyright holders.
• Enforce the GPL yourself: If you've written something under the GPL, you're also a copyright holder. That means you can enforce the license yourself. We need more people doing enforcement work, not less. You can start by educating yourself about the GPL and your rights as a copyright holder. Make sure to follow The Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, which emphasize communication and education over legal action. By actively enforcing the GPL, you can help ensure that software remains free for everyone.
• Support the defenders: Consider donating to or volunteering with organizations like the FSF. They rely on community support to continue their vital work.

Every action, no matter how small, contributes to the larger movement. By working together, we can ensure that software remains free for everyone.

Conclusion

In a world where software increasingly shapes our lives, the GNU General Public License is a powerful guardian of freedom. It ensures that we, the users, remain in control of our software, not vice versa.

Copyleft, and the GPL in particular, is more than just a legal framework; it's a philosophy, a commitment to ensuring that software remains a tool for empowerment, not restriction. It's a shield against the encroaching tide of proprietary software that seeks to limit our freedoms.

But the GPL is not a magic bullet. It requires active participation and defense. We need more people to understand its importance and engage in license enforcement themselves. We need more than just the Free Software Foundation to enforce the GPL. We need a community of individuals committed to protecting software freedom.

The future of free software depends on us. Let's work together to ensure that the GPL safeguards our freedoms for future generations and keeps software free for everyone.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This change means that if your CPU isn't running the latest microcode, your system will be flagged as "vulnerable." This information will be exposed to userspace, making it visible to applications and potentially even websites if those applications further share it. While the intention might be to encourage users to keep their systems updated, this approach raises serious concerns about user freedom, privacy, and the definition of a "vulnerability."

The Never-Ending Treadmill of "Latest is Best"

At the heart of this issue lies a flawed assumption: that the latest version of anything is inherently better. In the case of CPU microcode, this isn't true. Further, the kernel developers named Linux aren't tracking which microcode version fixes specific vulnerabilities. They keep a list of the latest versions, saying, "If you don't have this, you're vulnerable." But vulnerable to what, exactly? This lack of specificity divorces the conversation from actual security risks. It turns it into a generic race to the latest version, as if that guarantees safety, and is problematic for several reasons.

• The Illusion of Constant Vulnerability: It fosters a climate of perpetual insecurity, implying that your system is always at risk unless you're constantly chasing the newest microcode. This disregards the fact that many updates often address highly specific bugs, some of which may only affect certain hardware configurations or use cases that may not even apply to your system or pose any real threat to the average user. The proposed change in Linux, however, disregards this nuance. It paints with a broad brush, declaring any system without the absolute latest microcode as "vulnerable," regardless of whether any problems exist.
• A False Sense of Urgency: By conflating these with critical security flaws, the proposed change creates unnecessary fear and encourages a culture of constant updating, regardless of the actual risks involved. This approach can pressure users to install updates without fully understanding the reasons behind them. It creates a false sense of urgency, leading to hasty decisions that compromise user freedom.

This approach is misleading and pressures users to relinquish control over their systems and unquestioningly trust proprietary code, all in the name of a vague and undefined "vulnerability."

A Conflict of Principles

The real problem is one of principle. These proprietary microcode updates inherently violate user rights and freedoms. By labeling systems as "vulnerable," they effectively press users to abandon their freedoms and install proprietary software they have no control over.

This is not only ethically problematic but also creates a dangerous precedent. It normalizes the idea that users must sacrifice their freedom for security, a trade-off that the free software movement has always resisted. It sends a message that convenience and a false sense of security are more important than user autonomy and control over one's computing.

The Slippery Slope to Surveillance: When Website Become Gatekeepers

This change in the kernel named Linux opens a Pandora's box of potential problems that extend far beyond just microcode updates. Exposing the "old microcode" flag to userspace makes it accessible to any application, including web browsers. This raises the alarming possibility of sending this information to websites. Imagine a scenario where your web browser starts reporting this flag to every website you visit, which could use this information to restrict access or discriminate against users based on merely being "out of date," regardless of any perceived or actual "vulnerability."

Suddenly, your ability to access your favorite online communities, email, social media accounts, banking, job applications, government services, or healthcare information could be contingent on running the latest proprietary microcode. This creates a dangerous precedent where:

• Websites become gatekeepers: Essential online services could become inaccessible to users who prioritize their freedom.
• Pressure to update intensifies: Users would face immense pressure to install proprietary updates, regardless of the actual security concerns or free software principles. This could lead to a chilling effect on free software adoption. Users that value freedom could be could be unfairly excluded from participating in the digital world.

This scenario paints a dystopian picture of a future where access to the internet is increasingly conditional and controlled. It raises serious concerns about digital rights, privacy, and the potential for technology to be used to enforce conformity and restrict user freedom.

Furthermore, this browser behavior sets a dangerous precedent for increased surveillance and data collection. If browsers can freely share information about your system's microcode, what's to stop them from reporting even more detailed data points in the future? This could lead to a web where your access is determined by an ever-growing list of arbitrary criteria, eroding privacy and online freedom. The proposed change to the kernel named Linux is not just a technical issue; it has profound implications for digital rights and the potential for technology to enforce conformity and restrict user freedom.

While seemingly a minor technicality, the proposed change to the kernel named Linux raises serious concerns.

Recognizing the potential for this seemingly technical change to have far-reaching societal consequences is crucial. Labeling systems with outdated microcode as "vulnerable " perpetuates a culture of fear and encourages an unquestioning reliance on proprietary software. This approach undermines the principles of free software and opens the door to potential surveillance and discrimination against users who prioritize their freedom.

The future of free software depends on our collective action. Let's raise our voices and defend the principles of user freedom, ensuring that technology empowers rather than restricts us. Let's work towards a digital world where everyone has the right to control their computing.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This post is about taking action to defend free software. Your role is crucial in safeguarding this essential freedom. I'll go over some steps you can take, diving into two key levels of engagement: the realm of ideas and the arena of action. Get ready to join the fight!

The battle for software freedom isn't just fought in code; it starts with shifting perspectives and building understanding. Here's how to champion free software in the realm of ideas. These are only some examples, though - feel free to come up with more.

Winning Hearts and Minds: Defending Free Software Through Ideas

Spark the Conversation: Advocacy in Action

• Everyday Conversations: Don't underestimate the power of casual conversation. Bring up free software with friends, family, and colleagues. Explain it in simple terms.
• Share the Wealth: Become a resource hub. Share links to interesting free software projects, helpful articles, and user-friendly explanations. The more people know, the more they can appreciate free software.
• Targeted Outreach: Identify individuals or groups and devise a strategy for them.

Raise Your Voice: Political Engagement

• Write to Your Representatives: Speak up and influence the political landscape by contacting your elected representatives and promoting policies that support free software.
• Support Pro-Freedom Initiatives: Back organizations and campaigns that champion software freedom. Donate your time or resources to help them push for legislation and initiatives that protect user rights.
• Public Discourse: Participate in online discussions and forums related to technology policy. Share your perspective on the importance of free software for a free society.

Spread the Word: Write

• Blog, Write, and Share: Use your writing skills to promote free software by crafting blog posts, articles, or social media updates.
• Educate and Empower: Create accessible educational materials about free software. Develop tutorials, guides, or presentations that cater to different audiences.
• Share Your Story: Personal anecdotes can be powerful. Share your own positive experiences with free software.

By engaging in these activities, you'll contribute to a growing awareness of free software and defend it at the level of ideas.

Taking a Stand: Defending Free Software Through Action

Ideas lay the groundwork, but action solidifies the defense of free software. Here's how to move beyond words and actively protect software freedom:

• Embrace Strong Copyleft: When developing software or documentation, utilize strong copyleft licenses like the GPL and AGPL. These licenses require releasing any modified or extended version under the same license, creating a protective shield.
• Enforce The Licenses: Be bold and enforce the terms of these licenses. If you discover violations, take action. This might involve contacting the violators, issuing takedown notices, or even pursuing legal action if necessary. But do it according to the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement. Remember, license enforcement protects the entire free software community.
• Support Enforcement Organizations: Contribute to organizations like the Free Software Foundation or the Software Freedom Conservancy, which dedicate resources to license enforcement and legal defense of free software.
• Exercise Your Rights: If you encounter software that appears to be using GPL-licensed code without providing the source code, request it. This is an important first step in checking compliance. Keep detailed records of your requests, including dates, communication channels, and any responses received. This documentation can be crucial if further action is needed. Report your requests to the appropriate place if they are ignored or denied.
• Contribute to Projects: Actively participate in free software projects. Contribute code, help with testing, translate documentation, or assist with user support. Every contribution strengthens the free software ecosystem.
• Support Free Software Organizations: Donate to or volunteer with organizations like the Free Software Foundation. The FSF plays a vital role in advocacy, development, and legal defense.
• Join the Community: Engage with the free software community. Attend conferences, participate in online forums, and connect with other passionate individuals. A strong community is essential for free software's continued growth and defense.

By taking these actions, you become an active defender of software freedom, ensuring that the principles of free software are upheld.

Join the Fight: The Future of Free Software is in Our Hands

The fight for software freedom is an ongoing struggle, a continuous effort to ensure that technology empowers rather than restricts. Your ongoing engagement, every action, every conversation, and every line of code contribute to this vital cause.

Remember, defending free software isn't a spectator sport. It requires active participation on both the battleground of ideas and the action arena. Speak up, spread awareness, and take concrete steps to protect the freedoms that underpin a genuinely open digital world.

And now is the perfect time to make a difference! The Free Software Foundation's year-end fundraiser is currently underway. Your donation can support their tireless work in defending and promoting free software. Visit https://www.fsf.org/appeal to contribute and join the movement.

The future of free software depends on us. Your actions today will shape the future of technology. Let's stand together and ensure that technology remains a tool for liberation for future generations.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Imagine a world where every book you read could only be accessed with the publisher's permission, where you couldn't lend it to a friend or use it for any purpose, like propping up a table, without their approval. This is the reality we face with much of today's software. Proprietary software restricts our rights to use, study, change, and share the tools we often depend on.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted before personal computers and the Internet, its principles are timeless. A closer look reveals that this foundational document can and should be interpreted to include software freedom as a fundamental human right, essential for protecting freedom of expression, our right to participate in cultural life, and our access to education in the digital age.

Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This has traditionally been understood to protect our ability to speak, write, and share information without interference. But in our increasingly digital world, "expression" extends far beyond the printed word.

In our increasingly digital world, software is not merely a set of instructions for a machine; it's a powerful medium for expressing ideas and communicating. Software shapes how we communicate, learn, and interact with the world, from the code to the applications it enables.

Proprietary software acts as a barrier to this idea of free expression. Denying access to the source code prevents people from examining, modifying, and sharing the software, hindering the rights guaranteed in Article 19.

Article 27 of the UN Declaration states that "everyone has the right freely to participate in the community's cultural life, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits." This right recognizes the importance of culture in human development and the need for individuals to engage in its creation and evolution actively.

In the 21st century, software has become an integral part of our cultural landscape. From the films we watch and the music we listen to to the games we play and the social networks we engage with, software shapes how we experience and interact with culture.

To truly participate in digital culture, we need more than just the ability to use software; we need access to its underlying source code. This access allows us to understand how the software works, empowers us to adapt it to our needs and contributes to its development. It's a form of digital literacy that puts us in control of our computing.

Proprietary software, where the source code is kept secret, creates a barrier to entry for those who want to engage with and contribute to digital culture. This exclusionary practice is not just a technical issue; it's a social injustice that goes against the spirit of Article 27, which emphasizes everyone's right to participate in cultural life. It's time to challenge this injustice and demand software freedom for all.

Article 26 of the UN Declaration proclaims that "everyone has the right to education." It further emphasizes that education should be directed to "the full development of the human personality and the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms." In the digital age, this right to education must encompass the right to understand and learn from the technology that increasingly shapes our lives.

Software is no longer a mere tool; it's a fundamental building block of modern society. It underpins our communication systems, financial institutions, healthcare systems, and more. To be educated citizens in the 21st century, we must understand how software works and impacts our lives.

Proprietary software prevents us from gaining this essential knowledge by keeping its source code secret. It treats software as a black box, denying us the opportunity to learn from it, critically examine it, and understand its potential implications.

Denying access to source code is akin to restricting access to textbooks or forbidding students from dissecting a frog in biology class. It hinders our ability to learn, explore, and develop a critical understanding of the world. This violates our right to education, as enshrined in Article 26.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a cornerstone of modern civilization, outlines the fundamental freedoms that every individual is entitled to. As we have explored, these freedoms - the freedom of expression, the right to participate in cultural life, and the right to education - are intrinsically linked to our ability to access, understand, and modify the software that increasingly shapes our world. In the digital age, these rights can only be fully realized through software freedom.

Proprietary software, with its restrictions on access to source code, its limitations on use and modification, and its control over the flow of information, directly undermines the principles enshrined in the UN Declaration.

It does not matter if but when we recognize software freedom as a fundamental human right. The future of our digital society depends on it. We need to ensure that the rights and freedoms outlined in the UN Declaration remain relevant and effective in the digital age. The time to act is now.

The future of our digital society depends on our commitment to software freedom. I urge you to support free software initiatives, advocate for policies that promote free software, and demand that software respect our fundamental rights. Let's work together and embrace software freedom as a cornerstone of human rights in the 21st century and build a future where technology serves humanity, not the other way around.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Clear and specific accusations are the bedrock of a fair process. They provide the accused with the essential information to understand the charges against them and prepare an appropriate defense. This is a fundamental aspect of due process, a principle in legal systems worldwide.

Think of it like this: if you were accused of stealing a car, wouldn't you want to know the make and model of the vehicle, the date and location of the alleged theft, and any evidence linking you to the crime? These specifics are necessary to prove you were miles away at the time or didn't even know how to drive.

Vague accusations, on the other hand, leave the accused grasping at straws. They create an impossible situation where individuals are forced to defend against shadows, unable to counter allegations they don't fully understand effectively. This undermines the accused's ability to present a defense and casts doubt on the fairness and legitimacy of the entire process.

Without the clarity of specific charges, the accused isn't given a fighting chance, tilting the scales of justice and potentially leading to unjust outcomes.

Crucially, clear accusations also empower the public. When the details of an accusation are clear and specific, everyone - not just the parties directly involved - can understand what allegedly happened, assess the evidence, and form their own reasoned opinions. This transparency fosters informed public discourse and strengthens our collective commitment to justice.

Shields Against Shadowy Accusations: Preventing Abuse of Power

Clear accusations serve as a critical safeguard against the abuse of power. When accusations are shrouded in ambiguity, they raise questions about their motives. Without specific charges, individuals become vulnerable to accusations fueled by malice, personal vendettas, or political agendas. Those seeking to destroy reputations rather than pursue justice often deliberately employ vague language, denying the accused the chance to defend themselves and amplifying the damage to their name. In such scenarios, the accusation becomes a weapon to damage reputations, silence opposition, or settle scores.

History is rife with examples of vague accusations used to justify persecution and suppress dissent. During the Salem witch trials, women were condemned based on spectral evidence - essentially, dreams and visions - with no concrete proof of wrongdoing. In totalitarian regimes, accusations of "treason" or "subversion" are often employed to eliminate political rivals or silence critics, with no need for evidence or due process.

Even in contemporary society, we see how vague accusations can be weaponized. Anonymous online accusations, lacking specifics or evidence, can ruin careers and destroy lives. In workplaces, ambiguous claims of "unprofessional conduct" can be used to target individuals without clear justification.

Moreover, vague accusations can give the impression of arbitrariness. Anyone could be targeted for any reason if people can be accused of ill-defined wrongdoing without clear evidence. This undermines the sense of security and predictability essential for public trust.

Clear accusations act as a bulwark against such abuses. By demanding specificity, we force accountability on the accuser. They must articulate the precise nature of the alleged offense, providing evidence and justification for their claims. This protects the accused from unfounded attacks and fosters a culture of transparency and accountability, discouraging the misuse of accusations for personal or political gain.

Clear accusations also allow the public to understand the nature of the alleged offense, the evidence presented, and the reasoning behind any decisions made. This openness fosters accountability and demonstrates that the process is conducted fairly and impartially.

Moreover, clear accusations help ensure impartiality. When charges are vague, there's a risk that prejudice and assumptions will fill the gaps, influencing public opinion. Specificity helps minimize this risk, forcing the focus to remain on the evidence and the alleged actions, not on speculation or preconceived notions.

In essence, clear accusations shield against the misuse of power, ensuring that allegations are grounded in substance and not simply tools of oppression or revenge. They are the scaffolding upon which a fair trial is built, even in the court of public opinion. They provide the necessary structure and transparency, ensuring that the accused has a genuine chance to defend themselves and that justice is served, not through guesswork but through a fair and impartial examination of the facts.

Scars That Linger: How Unclear Accusations Tarnish Reputations

A reputation is fragile. It is built over time through actions, words, and others' perceptions. Yet, it can be damaged in an instant, sometimes irreparably, by the mere whisper of an accusation. This is especially true when accusations are vague and lack specificity.

Imagine being accused of "impropriety" or "misconduct" without further details. What exactly does that mean? The ambiguity leaves room for speculation, gossip, and assumptions to fill the void. Even if the accused is ultimately acquitted, the stain of the accusation can linger, casting a shadow of doubt over their character and integrity.

Unclear accusations can lead to social ostracization, job loss, and the breakdown of personal relationships. The accused may be subjected to whispers and sidelong glances, and their actions may be scrutinized and misinterpreted. This can create a sense of isolation and injustice as they struggle to clear their name from an allegation they don't fully understand.

Furthermore, reputation damage can extend beyond the individual. Families and communities can also face stigma and suspicion from associations. This can create a ripple effect, harming innocent people and fracturing social bonds.

Specificity in accusations acts as a form of protection. It narrows the focus, limiting the damage to the alleged actions rather than allowing it to spread like wildfire, consuming the accused's entire reputation. When the accusation is clear, it becomes easier to address and investigate, and ultimately, the accused can either defend themselves or take responsibility for their actions.

In conclusion, empowering the accused, preventing abuse, ensuring a fair trial (even in the court of public opinion), maintaining public trust, and protecting reputations requires a commitment to clarity and specificity in accusations. Clear accusations are not just about protecting the rights of the accused but also about upholding the integrity of the system itself. Vague allegations can inflict lasting harm, even in the absence of guilt. By insisting on clear and well-defined charges, we safeguard the rights of the accused and the principles of fairness and justice that underpin a healthy society.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Treating free and proprietary software as simply two options in a marketplace, as if choosing between them is like Coke and Pepsi, is a dangerous oversimplification. It ignores the fundamental differences in how these types of software impact users, communities, and society.

Not All Choices Are Equal

When applied to software, the "choice is good" argument creates a false equivalence between free and proprietary software. It suggests that both are equally valid choices with no inherent moral distinction.

In reality, free and proprietary software have vastly different implications for users and society. Free software, emphasizing user freedom and community collaboration, empowers individuals and promotes a better digital world. Proprietary software restricts users and keeps them divided and helpless. Users are divided because they're forbidden to share, collaborate, or help each other. They're helpless because they're banned from understanding what the software does or changing it.

To illustrate this further, let's consider an analogy. Imagine you have the choice between two modes of transportation: a bicycle and a car. The car follows a pre-programmed route you cannot modify, and all of the inner workings have been welded closed so that you have no access. There is no steering wheel, and you are the only person allowed to sit in it. If you try to access the car's internal workings to change anything, add a steering wheel, or let someone else sit in the car, the carmaker will call you a criminal and jail you for years. The bicycle represents free software - you can take it apart, modify it, and learn how it works. You can even share your modifications with others or build upon their improvements. The car, however, represents proprietary software. You can use it from point A to point B but have no control over its inner workings. You can't change its route, you can't fix it if it breaks down, and you certainly can't share it so others can use it. While both offer the "choice" of transportation, they offer vastly different levels of freedom and control.

To truly understand the difference, we must move beyond the superficial level of choice and delve into the underlying values and consequences. Choosing between free and proprietary software isn't just about picking a program; it's about choosing the world we want to live in.

Choosing Your Master

The inherent power imbalance between users and proprietary software developers is perfectly captured in a quote by Richard Stallman, the founder of free software:

"To have the choice between proprietary software packages is being able to choose your master. Freedom means not having a master. And in computing, freedom means not using proprietary software."

This statement highlights a crucial truth. When you use proprietary software, you are handing over complete control over the software, and sometimes even your data, to someone else. You're at their mercy for updates, bug fixes, and new features. They can do (or not do) anything they want, even discontinuing the software altogether, leaving you little recourse.

In contrast, free software allows you to control your computing. You are not dependent on the developer for the software's functionality, continued existence, or anything else. You can examine the source code, modify it to suit your needs, and share it with others. This fosters a sense of ownership and empowerment that is impossible with proprietary software. This is essential for individual freedom and promoting a healthy and free society.

Choosing Freedom

The next time someone tells you it's good to have choices between free and proprietary software remember that not all choices are created equal. While having options is essential, we must go beyond simply counting the number of choices available and conclude that, as the number of choices increases, so must our society improve. We must move beyond this simplistic view and recognize that the quality and impact of the choices matter deeply. It's important to take a hard look and evaluate the impact of those choices on our freedom, our communities, and society as a whole.

Free software represents a fundamentally different approach to software, one that prioritizes user freedom, collaboration, and societal well-being. While proprietary software may seem convenient, it comes with costs far beyond the purchase price. These costs impact not only individual users but also society as a whole. It ultimately restricts users and society, leaving them divided and helpless.

The next time you choose between proprietary and free software, remember that you're not choosing among equals; you're choosing a set of values that reflects the world you want to live in. Do you want to live in a world where we're divided and helpless? Choose the other option. Choose to have power over your digital life. Choose freedom. Choose empowerment. Choose free software.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

If you're just starting you probably want Chapter 1: Naleen's Bite.

A Shadow's Proposition

The stale, recycled air in Hinsman's quarters could not ease the tightness in his chest. He had deactivated the room's meager entertainment system at the start. The saccharine drone of authorized newsfeeds and recycled sitcoms only amplified his isolation.

He sat on the edge of his cot, Petrovski's data file in his hand. The man's history, his crimes, his psychological profile were all there. Actually there were several psych profiles. The psych docs couldn't agree. There was a grainy, out of focus image of Mihrab. But those unsettling blue eyes were sharp and clear and still they seemed to stare into Hinsman's soul.

He'd read the file a dozen times. Each pass through the data reinforced what he already knew. This wasn't a rescue mission. It was a recovery mission. Someone was ressurecting a ghost from the past, from Hinsman's past. A ghost that could spell doom for the galaxy and for him.

But why?

A soft chime, barely audible above the life support systems, drew his attention. It wasn't a PTSC comm alert. This was different. He glanced at his personal datapad, which he kept meticulously scrubbed. No one knew about this piece of electronic equipment. No one.

A single line of text was displayed in the screen.

The Serpent invites you to play.

A chill crawled down his spine. He had heard rumors of a shadow organization: dissidents, crackers, ghosts in the system. They called themselves the Children of Tor. They were saboteurs, guerilla fighters who struck and then disappeared. Every government, every corporation, every organization that tried to impose order on the chaos of the galaxy knew them.

The PTSC called them terrorists. Hinsman wasn't so sure. He'd seen firsthand how quickly order could morph into oppression, how easily the lines between justice and control could blur.

The screen flickered and the cryptic message was replaced by a set of coordinates and a time. The Serpent wanted a meeting.

There was a hysterical voice at the base of his brain screaming at him to wipe the screen, pretend he'd never seen that message. But he felt freer than he had in years. He felt excited, almost thrilled. He felt alive. His path was already dangerous to the point of being suicidal. Why not take a few more steps down a dark path to the side?

The Digital Handshake

The day after the meeting. The Transit Hub on Level 27 was barely controlled chaos. Crowds, faces and speech from all over the system, surged through the cavernous space. The noise levels were painful. The PA system competed with the roar of the crowd, the hawking of vendors, and the cacophonous blare of music from multiple speakers.

Hinsman navigated through the mass of humanity with ease. He had learned to become invisible, especially in crowds. Wearing a civilian-grade thermal cloak, he was truly invisible to the thermal scanners that dotted the ceiling.

The data kiosk was tucked away in a dimly lit corner, sandwiched between a holoadvert and a vendor hawking noodles. It was a relic of the past, maybe pre-war, its screen cracked, its interface sluggish. The perfect place for a clandestine exchange.

He glanced at the clock. 17:47. Three minutes to spare. He leaned against a nearby pillar, pretending to scroll through the newsfeeds on his datapad. His attention, however, was on the crowd, searching for any signs of surveillance, for the glint of a camera lens.

No one seemed out of place. No one was casting furtive glances in his direction. Or even leaning against a pillar, reading newsfeeds.

Yet he couldn't shake the feeling that he was being watched.

He gave it twenty minutes before he approached the kiosk. He wasn't worried about being late. They knew he was there.

Removing a data chip from his pocket, he slipped it into the kiosk's data port. The chip contained only one file, a log of personnel transfers within one of PTSC's less savory customers. It wasn't much, but it should pique their interest.

Initiating the transfer, he waited, listening to the whirrs and chirps until two words appeared on the cracked screen. Package delivered.

He didn't wait any further. Melting back into the crowd, his footsteps were quickly lost in the noise of the Transit Hub.

On the other side of the Transit Hub, a man listened to the footsteps receding while his fingers were flying over the keypad in front of him. He had infiltrated the kiosk's system an hour ago. Now he wanted to see his prize.

The file filled the screen and the man smiled. Oh, yeah. Hinsman was the real deal.

The Price of Truth

Back in his quarters, Hinsman scrubbed the data chip, purged the logs, and erased every trace of his encounter in the Transit Hub. He felt he'd just stepped onto a detonator and he was powerless to stop the explosion.

The datapad chimed.

Hinsman froze, his heart hammering. The channel was different. This channel was heavily encrypted, and routed through multiple servers. He recognized the signature. It could only be one person.

You have my attention. W

That single letter was enough to send a chill through Hinsman. Westfield.

Hinsman considered wiping the datapad and walking away. Last chance. They probably wouldn't let him. The Children of Tor didn't give up easily. And there was something about the sheer audacity of this plot that appealed to him. To a part of him that had been dormant for a long, long time.

He typed a single sentence, his finger hesitating over send.

I know what you're planning.

A pause, then the reply. Do you?

Hinsman typed. Mihrab Vanco Petrovski. You want him free.

Free? What a quaint notion. Let's say we find his skill set... necessary. W

And what about the PTSC? Do you think they'll just let him walk?

The Serpent devours those who mistake order for control. We'll burn their precious system to the ground. W

Hinsman leaned back, considering his next move. He didn't trust Westfield. Not for a second. But their objectives were aligned... at least for now.

He typed. I can help you. I can get you what you need.

Oh? And what is the price of your... assistance? W

Taking a deep breath, Hinsman made his decision. He didn't understand much of what was happening, but he felt he could survive long enough to overturn the board.

The truth. I want to expose them for what they've done. For what they're planning to do.

Lines in the Sand

Hinsman waited, his eyes on the datapad. His stomach churned. He had just placed himself in the crosshairs of two dangerous organizations: the PTSC and the Children of Tor. Now it probably was a suicide mission.

You're an idealist! I didn't think there were any left. The truth, Hinsman? Truth is a fickle mistress. What one believes to be true can be reworked, morphed into something unrecognizable. W

Hinsman's grip on the datapad tightened. He recognized a veiled threat when he saw one.

He typed, I don't play games. You want Mihrab Vanco Petrovski? I can get him for you. But the PTSC... their crimes... those have to be exposed. That's the deal.

You are assertive. I admire that in a pawn. Understand this, Hinsman. You are a tool. A means to my ends. Your desire for truth is irrelevant. W

Then walk away. Find someone else with the 'necessary skill set'.

Silence. The air felt thick.

Finally, the datapad chimed again. Very well, Hinsman. You have a deal. The Serpent honors his agreements. I'll be in touch. And Hinsman, do try to make it interesting. W

The datapad went dark, the screen flickering back to its default display. Hinsman stared at the wall. He wasn't sure if he's made the best decision of his life or signed his own death warrant. Probably both.

He had a plan. Dangerous, even desperate, but a plan nonetheless. As he opened his datapad to the file on Petrovski, the ghost of a smile touched his lips.

He was about to unleash chaos and he wasn't sure if he minded one bit.

Continued in Chapter 4: Whispers in the Code.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Now, I know what you might be thinking: "Maintenance? Where's the excitement in that?" We often hear about the thrill of developing cutting-edge software and the rush of pushing the boundaries. But what about the unsung heroes who keep the wheels turning, ensuring existing software remains functional? That is where the Zen of maintenance comes in.

Think of it like a Zen garden. While the initial creation might involve dramatic gestures and artistic flourishes, the true beauty lies in the ongoing care and attention. Raking the gravel, pruning the plants, removing fallen leaves - these seemingly mundane tasks are essential for preserving the garden's tranquility and allowing its essence to shine through.

In the realm of free software, maintenance plays a similar role. It's about finding meaning in the everyday tasks that keep the ecosystem thriving. It's about embracing the quiet satisfaction of ensuring things run smoothly, even if it doesn't always make headlines. It's also about recognizing these efforts' profound impact on users and the community.

So, join me in a blog post about the Zen of maintenance, exploring the often-overlooked rewards of supporting users, triaging bugs, and keeping the gears turning in the world of free software.

Beyond the Glamour

It's easy to get caught up in the allure of making something new - the blank canvas, the endless possibilities, the thrill of bringing an idea to life. But not every aspect of software development is glamorous. Once the initial excitement fades, a less flashy but equally crucial stage takes center stage: maintenance. This is where the real work begins.

Think of it like building a house. Designing the blueprints, laying the foundation, erecting the walls - these are all exciting milestones. But what happens after the home is built? That's when the real test of its longevity begins. Regular upkeep, fixing leaky faucets, patching cracks in the walls, and keeping the garden tidy are the tasks that ensure the house remains comfortable and functional for years to come.

In the world of free software, maintenance often involves triaging and bug fixing, helping users troubleshoot problems, answering questions, and using the software.

These tasks might not have the same "wow" factor as developing a groundbreaking new application. Still, they are essential for free software's long-term health and sustainability. They are the quiet acts of service that keep the wheels turning.

And just like the Zen gardener finds meaning in the meticulous care of their garden, we can find deep satisfaction in the often-overlooked work of maintenance. It's about embracing the responsibility of stewardship, ensuring that free software continues to serve its purpose and contribute to the greater good.

The Satisfactions of Support

While it may seem like a thankless task, maintaining an APT repository brings a unique set of satisfactions. These aren't always the flashy "Eureka!" moments of coding breakthroughs but quieter, more subtle rewards from keeping the wheels turning and ensuring a smooth user experience.

Something is fulfilling about helping others. When someone reaches out with a problem, and I can guide them towards a solution, it creates a genuine connection. It might be as simple as explaining how to configure a specific setting or as complex as helping them troubleshoot a driver issue. Regardless of the complexity, seeing that "aha!" moment is rewarding when they grasp the solution and regain control of their system.

I recall someone struggling to get their wireless card working after installing Linux-libre. We went back and forth, exchanging logs and configuration details. Finally, the issue was pinpointed, and their wireless card sprang to life. The sense of relief and gratitude in their response was palpable, and it made me realize the tangible impact that even small acts of support can have.

Of course, user interactions aren't always smooth sailing. Sometimes, you encounter people who might vent their frustrations. In these situations, empathy and patience are crucial. It's important to remember that behind every bug report or support request is someone relying on the software to accomplish their goals. Approaching these interactions with understanding and a genuine desire to help can turn potentially harmful experiences into positive ones.

Ensuring Smooth Operation

Maintaining an APT repository involves a lot of behind-the-scenes work to ensure smooth operation. This includes regularly updating packages, managing dependencies, and more. While these tasks might seem mundane, they are crucial for providing users with a stable and secure platform.

Maintaining critical infrastructure like this requires a sense of responsibility. Knowing that users rely on the repository to keep their systems up-to-date adds another dimension to the work. It's about being a good steward and ensuring the continued availability and reliability of the repository for the community.

The Ripple Effect

It's easy to think of maintenance as a solitary endeavor. However, in the interconnected world of free software, the impact of these efforts extends far beyond the individual contributor. Like ripples spreading across a pond, small maintenance acts can profoundly affect the larger ecosystem.

Think about it: every bug fix, every answered question, and every updated package contributes to a more stable, reliable, and user-friendly experience. This, in turn, fosters trust and confidence in free software, encouraging wider adoption and community growth.

When people encounter a problem and receive prompt, helpful support, they are likelier to stick with the software and recommend it to others. When bugs are swiftly addressed, and new features are carefully integrated, it strengthens the perception of the software as a viable alternative to proprietary solutions.

Moreover, maintenance work often involves collaboration, and I enjoy this collaborative spirit . By ensuring that packages are up-to-date and dependencies are appropriately managed, I'm helping individual users and the broader free software ecosystem by providing a reliable platform for users prioritizing freedom.

The ripple effect also extends to education and knowledge sharing. When we document solutions, share troubleshooting tips, and contribute to online forums, we empower others to solve similar problems in the future. This collective knowledge base becomes a valuable resource for the community, reducing the learning curve for new users and promoting self-sufficiency.

In essence, maintenance is an act of giving back. It's about recognizing that we are part of something larger than ourselves and that our contributions, however small, can have a lasting impact. By embracing the Zen of maintenance, we become active participants in the evolution of free software, ensuring its continued relevance and accessibility for future generations.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Essence of Free Software

Free software is not about cost; it's about liberty. It encompasses the freedom to use, study, modify, and share the software we depend on. The goal is to ensure that our tools empower rather than confine us.

The four essential freedoms of free software are:

• 0. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
• 1. The freedom to study how the program works and modify it to suit your needs.
• 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbors.
• 3. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

These freedoms are not mere technicalities but the foundation of a free society.

In contrast, proprietary software places control in the hands of the developer, limiting users' liberties. It fosters an environment of oppression where the developer determines what users can do with their software, sometimes even their own data and, ultimately, their lives.

Proprietary software can be laden with harmful features designed to exploit users. The web page at https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/ includes many examples, such as invasive surveillance methods, digital restriction management (DRM), and backdoors that grant unauthorized access to third parties.

Free software, on the other hand, paves the way for a brighter future. It empowers users to take charge of their digital lives, allowing them to use and modify software as needed and share it with others.

While proprietary software divides users and leaves them powerless, free software promotes collaboration and community, creating a digital landscape that reflects our values and respects our rights.

Governments play a crucial role in promoting free software. They should lead by example by exclusively using free software in their operations and actively supporting its development and adoption.

Governments must also resist the encroachments and restrictions of proprietary software. This includes opposing laws that enforce the use of proprietary software or criminalize the circumvention of DRM. They should work to create a legal environment that nurtures software freedom.

The choice between free and proprietary software is both moral and political. It is a choice between a future in which we control our technology or one in which technology controls us.

Let's choose freedom, embrace the principles of free software, and work together to create a better world. The future of our digital society depends on it.

For more information, check out this video: https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Of course not! We live in a glorious age of perpetual upgrades and newness, where the old is constantly being swept aside to make way for the even newer, where the thrill of the latest is always just around the corner. It's a whirlwind of exhilarating change, a symphony of beeps and boops heralding the arrival of the next must-have gadget or software suite. Who needs stability and longevity when you can have the latest and greatest, year after year? Out with the old, in with the new! Embrace the joy of unboxing! Feel the thrill of new features you may or may not need (even if they're just slightly tweaked versions of the old ones)! Revel in the knowledge that you are on the cutting edge of technology, if only for a fleeting moment. Cast aside that laptop you were pleased with yesterday until you learned about the new model. Ignore the nagging feeling that your phone from last year still takes perfect pictures. It's time to embrace the future, which is always newer. After all, who needs backward compatibility when you can have "innovative breakthroughs" every six months? Out with the old, in with the new! Let the cycle of mindless consumerism churn! This is the mantra of the modern world, and I wouldn't have it any other way. After all, isn't that what life is all about? (Except, you know, the "life" part. That's still a one-way trip.)

Let's face it: planned obsolescence is a stroke of genius. In this fast-paced digital age, who has time for things that last? Built-in obsolescence is not a flaw; it's a feature! Imagine a world where your computer works perfectly after five or even ten or twenty years. Utterly dreadful. Thankfully, the brilliant minds of the tech industry have spared us from such a stagnant fate. Think of it as a gentle nudge from our benevolent tech overlords, a reminder that we deserve the newest, shiniest, and most bug-ridden software available. Why settle for last year's model when you can have the latest and greatest, complete with a whole new suite of features you'll use twice and then promptly forget about? Thank goodness for the benevolent corporations, those wise guardians of technological progress, who have thoughtfully pre-programmed our devices and applications with built-in expiration dates! It's like a subscription to perpetual excitement. They know best, after all. They understand that our feeble minds can't possibly grasp the complexities of software development and that clinging to outdated tools hinders our evolution as mindless consumers.

Like a delicate mayfly or a trendy fashion statement, our stuff is meant to be enjoyed in its prime and discarded without a second thought. After all, nothing lasts forever, right? This fleeting nature mirrors the ephemeral nature of life itself. Embrace the impermanence! Celebrate the cycle of birth, growth, decay, and forced replacement! It's the circle of life, digitized.

The Freedom of Forced Upgrades

Choice is overrated. Who needs the burden of deciding when to update their software? True freedom lies in surrendering to the inevitable, in embracing the forced march of progress. Our digital overlords know what's best for us, and they have thoughtfully automated the process of rendering our existing software obsolete.

Take Apple, for example, those pioneers of planned obsolescence. They understand that your perfectly functional computer, the one you meticulously researched and paid a small fortune for, the one you foolishly believed would last for more than a few years, is a mere stepping stone on the path to mindless consumer enlightenment and has a limited shelf life. After a few years, poof - it's vintage. Try browsing the web with an outdated operating system, and you'll get a digital slap. Websites will refuse to load, demanding newer versions of TLS that your poor, abandoned OS doesn't have-no more compatibility with modern websites. Suddenly, you can't even read the news or check your email. Try to cling to that old operating system, and you'll find yourself locked out of the digital world, a prisoner in your technological past. Your once-powerful machine is reduced to a glorified paperweight, a useless hunk of metal and plastic, a testament to the relentless march of "progress," capable of little more than collecting dust and reminding you of your technological inadequacy. So what if the hardware is still humming along like a champ?

But fear not! This is not a tragedy but an opportunity! A new computer, with a shiny new operating system and a new (temporary) lease on your digital life, awaits! Rejoice, for you are being forcibly liberated into tyranny, propelled into a future where your only option is to mindlessly consume, upgrade, and obey. It's the ultimate expression of freedom, wouldn't you agree?

No more agonizing over whether to update or not. No more tedious research, no more weighing the pros and cons. Just pure, unadulterated, forced compliance. Embrace the forced upgrade cycle, and let the sweet wave of mindless consumerism wash over you. Resistance is futile.

The Environmental Perks of E-Waste

Mountains of discarded electronics stretch as far as the eye can see! What a glorious testament to human ingenuity and our insatiable appetite for progress! Who needs pristine forests and sparkling rivers when we can have sprawling landfills brimming with the treasures of our digital age?

Now, some naysayers might try to harsh our mellow with talk of "environmental impact" and "toxic waste" while whining about toxic chemicals leaching into the soil or rare earth minerals being squandered. But let's be realistic; progress requires sacrifice. E-waste? Please! A silly, negative term for such a positive phenomenon! It's not a waste; it's a resource! Let's not get bogged down in negativity, shall we? And besides, haven't you heard? E-waste creates jobs, so let's call it what it is: opportunity. Think of it not as waste but as a vibrant ecosystem of discarded circuit boards, cracked screens, and tangled cords. It's a goldmine of precious metals and rare earth elements just waiting to be unearthed by enterprising recyclers, providing valuable habitat for enterprising scavengers and resourceful recyclers. Those mountains of discarded phones, laptops, and intelligent toasters aren't garbage; they're the building blocks of a thriving recycling industry! Think of the jobs created, the innovation spurred, the economic wheels turning! It gives people something to sift through and potentially electrocute themselves with! Those discarded smartphones and obsolete laptops are fueling a green revolution! Think of those overflowing landfills not as eyesores but as modern-day pyramids, gleaming monuments to our technological prowess and insatiable appetite for technological advancement, filled with the treasures of the digital age.

Who needs pristine landscapes and clean drinking water when we can have the latest and greatest gadget? Embrace the e-waste as a testament to our unwavering commitment to mindless consumerism, a shining beacon of our disposable culture. And hey, if a few endangered species go extinct along the way, that's just the price of progress.

Sure, there might be minor downsides, like the occasional toxic leak or the exploitation of impoverished communities tasked with dismantling our digital detritus. Progress isn't always pretty, right? Let's focus on the big picture: a vibrant economy, a constant stream of shiny new gadgets, and the warm fuzzy feeling that our insatiable consumerism somehow benefits the planet. It's called "creative destruction" for a reason!

So, the next time you toss a smartphone or laptop onto the ever-growing pile, do so with pride. You're not contributing to an environmental crisis; you're participating in a vital economic engine, fueling the glorious cycle of consumption and disposal. Pat yourself on the back, and then buy the latest model. The planet will thank you for it. (Maybe not literally, but that's beside the point.)

The Inevitability of Progress (and Profit)

Let's be real: Technology waits for no one. The relentless march of progress demands that we constantly innovate, iterate, mindlessly consume, and, yes, obsolete. Clinging to outdated software is like refusing to use a washing machine and insisting on the "authenticity" of beating your clothes against rocks down by the river. Sure, it's technically functional, but it's also inefficient, inconvenient, and embarrassing.

Planned obsolescence is simply a natural consequence of this forward momentum. Embrace the subscription model! Embrace the future! Embrace the cloud! The engine drives our economy, the fuel that powers innovation. And let's not forget the people behind this aren't churning out these "upgrades" for their health. The tireless entrepreneurs deserve to reap the rewards of their ingenuity. After all, they've poured their hearts and souls (and venture capital) into creating these digital delights, and it's only fair that they should profit handsomely from our insatiable desire for the new and improved. After all, our tech giants aren't charities. They're businesses, and businesses need to make money. What better way to do that than convincing us that last year's perfectly adequate software is now hopelessly outdated and in dire need of replacement? They're running businesses, and businesses need to make money. It's the American way!

So let's not begrudge them their healthy profit margins, shall we? After all, they're providing us with a valuable service: the constant stream of new and exciting things to buy! The invisible hand of the market guides us toward a brighter future filled with endless upgrades and ever-increasing profits. It's a symbiotic relationship, a beautiful dance of mindless consumerism and capitalism. And who are we to question the wisdom of the market? Embrace the upgrade cycle, and let the profits flow. So, let's raise a glass to planned obsolescence, the engine of innovation, the fuel of our mindless consumerist desires, and the guarantor of shareholder dividends. May it reign supreme for generations to come! It's the inevitable path to a brighter, shinier future.

So, the next time you're forced to upgrade your phone, computer, or entire operating system, remember this: you're not just buying a product but investing in progress. You're contributing to the grand tapestry of technological advancement, one disposable gadget at a time. And who knows, maybe someday, archaeologists will unearth those mountains of e-waste and marvel at the sheer volume of our consumerist zeal. They might even mistake us for gods.

A Dystopian World of Free Software

You say there's another way than this glorious cycle of consumption? You speak of "free software," this mythical beast where programs never become obsolete, users have control, and companies (gasp!) must compete on merit rather than manufactured expiration dates.

It's a chilling prospect indeed.

Imagine a world where you can still access websites and read your email. In a world where software never becomes obsolete, you can tinker with the code and adapt it to your needs, where users can control their software, modify it, and share it to make it last as long as they please. A world where communities collaborate and where profit margins don't drive innovation.

What a terrifying thought! Such a world would be stagnant, devoid of the thrill of the new and the upgrade's excitement. It's a dystopian nightmare, a socialist hellscape where companies would wither and die, innovation would grind to a halt, and we would be left with... shudders... stable, reliable, and customizable software. Who needs the thrill of the upgrade cycle when you can have the soul-crushing stability of a system that refuses to die? No, thank you! Let's stick with the vibrant, dynamic world of planned obsolescence: our wallets are empty, but our landfills are full.

Conclusion: Embrace the Upgrade Cycle

So there you have it. Planned obsolescence is the lifeblood of our economy, the engine of innovation, and the reason we have so many cool things to buy.

So, let us raise a glass to planned obsolescence, the engine of our consumerist paradise! Let us revel in the endless cycle of upgrades, discarding the old without a second thought and embracing the new with open arms (and wallets). Let the landfills overflow with digital detritus, a testament to our insatiable appetite for the latest.

Remember, your participation is crucial to the success of this grand economic machine. Without your unwavering commitment to the upgrade cycle, the entire system crumbles. So embrace the joy of planned obsolescence and keep those credit cards swiping. Remember, every time you shell out for that latest gadget, you're not just a mindless consumer; you're a patriot, a hero of the free market, and a champion of planned obsolescence. So go forth and mindlessly consume! Upgrade, replace, and repeat. Your economy depends on it.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Ghosts of Saros Four

The air hung thick and acrid, a blend of ozone, scorched metal, and burned flesh. Dust swirled over a ravaged landscape, a cratered wasteland, littered with broken machines and broken bodies.

A lone figure hid behind the wreckage of a dropship. His cough sounded harsh in the deadly silence following the clamor of the battle. Face streaked with sweat and grime, he tasted blood. Probably his own. Terror clawed at his mind.

He was young, barely a man, but the Iron Wars had aged him like so many others. The violence and the horror had stripped away all ideals of glory or heroism, leaving only the will to survive. His uniform, once clean and crisp, hung in tatters, caked in dirt. He stood on the earth of a planet that didn't want him and was trying to kill him.

Around him, his squad lay unmoving, bodies twisted unnaturally, faces frozen in pain. They had been picked off, one by one. The enemy seemed to anticipate their every move.

"Delta Six - sitrep." Hinsman rasped into his comm unit. The only answer was static. He was probably the last survivor.

He could see the silhouettes of the enemy troops through the smoke now. The Xei moved with a fluid grace, coordinated, like a ballet performance. A deadly ballet. Their armor gleamed in the light of the dying sun.

And from the smoke emerged a figure, human. Not as large as the Xei, yet he moved with confident authority among them. He wore a dark, intricately patterned cloak that seemed to absorb the light, making him a walking shadow, a black hollowness. A single glowing lens was set into the forehead of his helmet like a third eye.

Hinsman recognized the unique armor the man always wore. He'd seen it often enough on the Net.

Mihrab Vanco Petrovski, the man largely responsible for the Iron Wars, for the death and destruction around him, for the death and destruction all across the galaxy.

The rumors that followed on the heels of every Xei victory always centered on Mihrab Vanco Petrovski: strategist, manipulator, a man responsible for the fall of empires. Hinsman had dismissed most of the hyperbole as propaganda, meant to demoralize him and his people.

But seeing the man on the battlefield, Hinsman realized the truth. Petrovski radiated an aura of power, immense power. And he knew he was staring at the executioner of the human race.

A Moment of Calculated Mercy

A fresh wave of Xei troops surged forward. Their energy weapons spit emerald fire, driving Hinsman farther back into the wreckage. Shooting back blindly, he depleted the last of his ammunition.

He was out of time. Around him, the last vestiges of resistance crumbled. He heard his best friend's voice cry out in pain, the cry abruptly cut off.

Despair washed over him. He closed his eyes, waiting for death. But the blow never came.

The firing ceased. The hiss of plasma weapons faded, replaced by silence. Hinsman opened his eyes.

Mihrab stood motionless, a silhouette against the burning cityscape. He was no longer issuing orders. He was watching.

Heart hammering, Hinsman followed Mihrab's gaze. Then that gaze settled on him. The helmet's glowing lens piercing the darkness. Time seemed to stretch as the two men locked eyes. Hinsman felt exposed and vulnerable before a being of immense power. He was frozen by fear and by a reluctant fascination.

Then something shifted.

Mihrab lowered his hand, a small gesture that Hinsman almost missed. He saw light glint off Mihrab's helmet, a reflection of the tactical display projected onto his visor. For a moment, their roles were reversed: hunter becoming hunted; the prey given a glimpse into the predator's mind.

Hinsman realized that Mihrab wasn't just observing him. The man was analyzing him, calculating his own next move. Then Mihrab did something totally unexpected.

Instead of ordering a final assault, crushing the remains of his enemy under his heel, he gave orders to withdraw. The Xei troops, with weapns pointing at Hinsman's position, hesitated.

Mihrab snapped in a low rasp, "Fall back!" The words echoed through the comm systems and reached the ears of every survivor waiting for certain death. "Let them go. This one... he is of no consequence. Let them go."

The troops obeyed, their discipline overriding their confusion. They melted back into the smoke and the shadows, leaving Hinsman alone, mind reeling. He had been spared. But why?

As the adrenaline settled, Hinsman realized that Mihrab's mercy had not been an act of compassion. It was a calculation, a whim. Mihrab played games with the lives and the deaths of people because he could.

And Hinsman, the insignificant ant whose life had been spared by a god, was left with that valuation, a burden that would shape his actions, his decisions, his life for years.

Orders from the Shadows

A chime cut through the ambient hum of the command center and brought Hinsman back to the present. He didn't need to check the source to know what it meant. This high up, on this level of security clearance, there were only two kinds of summons: accolades and executions.

He deactivated the display on his console and stood up. He ran a hand over his close-cropped hair, a nervous gesture that he couldn't shake.

"Report to conference room Theta One." The voice was distorted beyond recognition by a voice modulator. "Priority Alpha."

The door to the command center hissed open. The corridor beyond was white, sterile, with no windows, doors, or decorations. Two guards in the black and crimson armor of the PTSC, stood waiting, visors reflecting nothing but white. They gave equally minimal nods to acknowledge him. Protocol dictated that within the inner sanctum of the PTSC, anonymity was power, and power was everything.

The guards turned as one and set off down the corridor. Hinsman stepped in behind them, footsteps synchronizing with those in front of him. The corridor seemed to stretch out forever, a sterile tube. He'd walked this way before. This time, however, there was a knot in his gut and a prickling at the back of his neck.

Conference room Theta One was spartan, all polished steel and indirect lighting. A long oval table dominated the center of the room, its surface bare of anything. Five figures sat around the table, cloaked in shadow with holographic filters obscuring their faces. Their voices were all the same, androgynous whispers carefully modulated.

"Hinsman," said one of the figures. "You are aware of the situation on Naleen?"

"Of course," replied Hinsman. "Awaiting further instructions."

"We have a delicate operation. Time sensitive. High risk."

The voice continued. Hinsman couldn't tell which one was speaking. They made no motions. "The operation is... extraction of a vital asset." The voice expressed no emotion, but using the voice modulator, it couldn't.

"An asset essential to the stability of the sector." Hinsman thought that was probably another of the figures, adding its two creds.

Hinsman said nothing. He had learned long ago that silence was probably the most valuable weapon in these meetings.

"The asset is considered... volatile," the voice continued. "Unpredictable. Extreme caution is advised."

A holographic projector rose from the table and flickered to life. An image appeared: a man's face, thin and angular, his eyes a startling blue that pierced the holographic haze.

Hinsman's breath faltered very slightly. He knew those eyes. He'd stared into them across a battlefield years ago.

Mihrab Vanco Petrovski.

The voice said, "This is your asset."

His face a mask, Hinsman's mind could only comprehend one thought. Fate had a very twisted sense of humor.

The Weight of Choice

The figures fell silent, waiting for his reaction. He, too, kept quiet. He had nothing to say. Dissent was not tolerated at his level of the PTSC.

"You have your orders, Hinsman," the voice finally said. "Report to Briefing Room Epsilon Three in one hour for mission parameters. Dismissed."

Hinsman turned and left the conference room. He went to his quarters to pick up his ready-bag. As he walked, the weight of his orders pressed down on him like a physical burden.

Extract Mihrab Vanco Petrovski from Naleen.

They were insane. It would be a suicide mission. Naleen was impregnable. It was a black hole from which no prisoner, no matter how cunning or resourceful, had ever escaped.

And Mihrab was not just any prisoner.

Memories arose of another battlefield, another time. He was huddled around a campfire with Kel and Alejandro, sharing a bottle of scavenged whiskey. Their laughter, fueled by cheap liquor, echoed in the night, a fleeting moment of warmth in a galaxy gone cold.

"Do you think we'll ever see the end of this war?" Kel had asked then, his voice barely audible above the crackle of the flames.

Alejandro, ever the pragmatist, snorted. "See the end of war? Don't be stupid. There'll always be another fight, another reason to kill each other."

Hinsman looked at Kel and saw his own doubts and fears reflected back. "No," he said. "We can end this. We must. For Alejandro's sake, if not for our own."

Alejandro had laughed, but his canteen trembled as he raised it in mock salute. "Here's to hoping you're right, Hinsman. Here's to hoping."

A week later, Alejandro was dead, cut down in a firefight that left Hinsman with a shattered shoulder and a lifetime of regrets. He'd carried the weight of that promise ever since.

Preparations made, he proceeded to Briefing Room Epsilon Three. He hesitated at the door, his hand hovering over the door control. This mission... it was madness, suicide. And yet...

Mihrab Vanco Petrovski. He had been the cause of so much suffering. On his head lay the deaths of countless souls, including all of those that Hinsman had loved. In Naleen, Mihrab was locked up, neutralized. Almost as good as dead.

Or was he? Hinsman shook his head. It was just a matter of time before someone found a way to unleash him on the galaxy again.

Hinsman made his choice. He would go to Naleen. He would go for Kel, for Alejandro. For the ghosts of Saros Four.

He would extract Mihrab Vanco Pterovski from the prison. But he would do it for his own reasons.

Scars That Never Fade

The continuous hum of the PTSC Command Center usually didn't register on Hinsman's consciousness. Now it was irritating, making his teeth clench and increasing the pain in his left shoulder. He shifted his weight, the cybernetic servos whirring almost silently.

Before him, a holographic display of the Naleen prison floating lazily. Every corridor, office, cell, airlock, and sensor grid was mapped out. Ventilation ducts ran through the rock in yellow. Hinsman ran simulations, tracing his team's projected paths through Naleen's steel arteries. Each iteration ended similarly in a successful extraction with minimal casualties.

Simulation showed a textbook operation every time.

But Hinsman knew that nothing involving Naleen, and certainly nothing involving Mihrab Vanco Petrovski, was ever textbook.

The official reports, the ones on his desk with the red stamp of PTSC HIGH SECURITY INTEL, painted him as a monster. They said he was a ruthless strategist spreading unimaginable cruelty with his campaigns, a master manipulator who never bothered to set foot on the worlds he had ruined.

And yet...

Hinsman couldn't shake the memory of that day on Saros Four. He remembered the way Mihrab had stood in the middle of destruction and death with the cool detachment of a surgeon. He had looked at Hinsman not as an enemy but as a problem to be solved. And that unexpected mercy. Why?

Why spare a single soldier amid wholesale slaughter? Was there something human behind those cold, blue eyes?

Hinsman rubbed the stubble on his face. He had a mission to execute. He couldn't afford doubts or sentiment. Extract the asset at any cost. Yet as he stared at the projection of Naleen, he felt afraid. Afraid of what this mission would cost him. Him and the rest of the galaxy.

He was walking into a trap, created on a battlefield years ago. And he wasn't sure anyone would be walking out.

Continue to Chapter 3: Uneasy Alliances.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Being able to communicate instantly with anyone else in the world sounded entirely alien to those of generations ago. Still, modern communications can trace their history to centuries before the first telephone existed. From the signal fires of the ancient world to the cellular phone, humanity has long pondered the possibility of communicating with those far afield without actually having to be there in person.

It's hard to imagine a world where the fastest way to get a message across the world was to send a physical letter on a journey that would take at least four months in ideal conditions by clipper ship. Nonetheless, history has seen many impressive breakthroughs in communications technology, some of which occurred much longer ago than you might think.

Light the Signal Fires

Before the advent of telegraphy and the telephone in the nineteenth century, our ancestors displayed remarkable ingenuity in long-distance communication. They had to rely either on sending a physical message in the form of a letter or, in cases where it was practical, using visual telegraphy methods. Signal fires or smoke signals, the oldest forms of long-distance communication, became widespread in the ancient world. In Ancient China and Greece, it was already possible under certain circumstances to send messages across hundreds of miles in a matter of hours using nothing but signal fires. Indigenous peoples of North America and Australia have also communicated using such methods since the dawn of recorded history.

Sending smoke signals across large distances was quickly rendered obsolete in much of the world when the first optical telegraph system emerged in 1792. Known as the semaphore line, this visual communication system was the first to allow the sending of messages in the form of visual codes. A semaphore tower, typically perched in an elevated location for maximum visibility, featured a complex system of arms that, in certain positions, would spell out messages in the form of a code. By the early nineteenth century, semaphore lines had become the standard for long-distance communication, and they proved an advantage in Napoleon's many battles for control of Europe.

Electrical Telegraphy Changes the World

Since semaphore lines were relatively slow, and useless in poor weather conditions, somethign more reliable was needed. Thought experiments conducted as early as the late seventeenth century first proposed using electricity as a medium for communication across large distances without worrying about range limitations or weather conditions. Although the first suggestion of an electrostatic telegraph was made by an anonymous writer in 1753, it was not until 1816 that English inventor Francis Ronalds constructed the first functioning system.

Unfortunately, there was little public enthusiasm at the time of Ronald's experiments with electrical telegraphy, and it was when American polymath Samuel Morse, after whom Morse code is named, that telegraphy started to make it into the limelight in 1837. In the same year, the telegraph began to transform the world in the most profound of ways. That year saw the first commercial telegraph enter operation, and only 21 years later, the first transatlantic cable was laid between the US and Europe. This early system needed to be more efficient and reliable. Still, it allowed Queen Victoria to send the first-ever telegraph message across the Atlantic Ocean to the then-president of the US, James Buchanan, in 1858. At the time, all messages were sent in Morse code. Within two more decades, much of the world was connected, with Australia being linked to the outside world as early as 1872, even when it still took almost two months to get there in person after the opening of the Suez Canal, a significant development that reduced travel time between Europe and Asia.

Enter the Telephone

Telegraphy has enjoyed a long and storied history, owing mainly to its exceptional reliability and cost-effectiveness. It wasn't until 2013 that the world's last telegraph system finally closed its doors in India. However, the invention of the telephone was a game-changer, allowing people to communicate by voice in real-time, a previously unimaginable feat.

The predecessor to the telephone was the acoustic string telephone, invented in 1667 by English polymath Robert Hooke. Long before the potential of electricity became known, this type of telephone worked by conveying sound over short distances across a taut wire. A similar concept, the speaking tube, was widely used throughout the nineteenth century in large residences, office buildings, and ships, where it is still used today as a reliable backup.

Scotsman Alexander Graham Bell patented the first practical telephone in 1876. However, the invention of the phone can be attributed to many individuals whose work culminated in the device that people take for granted today. The first commercial telephone company opened in Germany only one year later, and many more quickly followed suit. By the very end of the nineteenth century, many wealthy households owned telephones, and by 1904, there were more than three million phones in use in the US. The telephone revolutionized communication, allowing people to connect in real time over long distances, and had a significant role in shaping modern society by facilitating business, personal relationships, and emergency services.

The earliest telephones available barely resembled anything around today. The candlestick design, consisting of a separate mouthpiece connected to the microphone holder by a cable, was popular until the early 1930s. It was eventually superseded by the rotary dial phone when direct distance dialing became available, which allowed users to dial numbers directly rather than through an operator, a significant advancement in user convenience. This design lasted until the 1970s when push-button phones, which allowed for faster dialing, began to replace them.

Radio Brings Wireless Freedom

Insofar as its primary purpose, cellular phones still use much the same technology as that invented in 1895 by Italian Guglielmo Marconi. In a presentation published in 1865, Scottish scientist James Clerk Maxwell first proposed the nature of electromagnetic waves moving through free space. This concept was proven in an experiment by German physicist Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (hence the measurement hertz) in 1886. Marconi was the first to put this knowledge to practical use for communication when he patented the first working wireless telegraphy system (radio) in 1896, which could send messages over two miles. At the time, messages were exclusively sent using Morse code due to system limitations. Sixteen years later, in 1912, Marconi's invention helped save lives during the Titanic tragedy.

It was not until 1900 that the first true ancestor of the radio came into being, and Canadian inventor Reginald Fessenden became the first person to transmit voice and music over the airwaves. However, the first clear transmission of speech wasn't until 1919, and a year later, commercial broadcasting took off, experiencing unprecedented popularity. Public radio broadcasts featuring the news and music were commonplace in the interwar period. By the 1920s, experiments were being conducted using airwaves to transmit moving images, thus giving birth to the era of television.

To this day, a lot of modern communications remain heavily reliant on two primary concepts: Electrical signals sent over cables or information sent over the airwaves in the form of radio. Whether using a cellular phone in the middle of nowhere or a conventional landline, long-distance communications use the same basic principles, save for numerous refinements, since its invention well over a century ago.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The asteroid Naleen hung against the backdrop of space, a dead, jagged tooth, gnawed and pitted. No atmosphere softened the glare of the dying sun it circled. No warmth pierced the eternal cold of space. You could almost hear the solar winds streaming past, a whisper against the armored hull of a prison colony.

The prison transport, a utilitarian vessel, all sharp angles and reinforced steel, crept cautiously closer with its cargo: one man, a man who had changed the galaxy.

Warden Kadir stood on a gantry, overlooking the processing area. He ran his hand over his face, the rasp of stubble a familiar discomfort. He hadn't slept well, but then he rarely did. The constant hum of the colony's multiple systems was no substitute for silence. Peace eluded him, even in the privacy of his own quarters.

Watching the latest batch of prisoners being herded through the intake processes, he caught the scent of disinfectant and something else: despair. The men and women below the warden's gantry were being stripped, shorn, scanned, and branded with ID numbers that glowed an eerie green in the darkness. Each person was being methodically dismantled, robbed of everything until all that was left was fear and a number.

The warden turned his gaze to the guards. Every movement, every muttered curse, set their jaws tighter. Even the toughest of the guard detail still reacted to the raw animosity of the new arrivals. This was when there was the greatest chance of riot, of sudden death and destruction. Now when the new convicts faced the dissolution of their very being. Now before they were erased.

Haunted eyes in hardened faces stared at the guards. Some bore the physical scars acquired during the battles of the Iron Wars: cybernetic limbs, burn grafts, wandering eyes that spoke of neural implants malfunctioning. Deeper wounds were reflected in the defeated slump of shoulders or the twichy withdrawal from any contact. Some carried only silence in their minds.

Kadir had watched this processing hundreds of times but had never become immune to the psychological destruction. It never got easier. He wasn't the warden of Naleen because he was a cruel man. He'd fought in the Iron Wars. He'd seen firsthand what humanity could do to itself. Joining the Prison Transfer and Security Corporation was a reflection of his belief that the human monsters had to be kept locked away. Someone had to protect the ordinary people. Someone had to keep the peace.

Peace. He snorted, causing several guards to glance at him. Was this peace? This constant fear that any prisoner, any transfer, any nascent riot could be the trigger that set off an explosion in this iron dungeon.

His wrist console chimed. Tapping it brought up a coded message. It was curt and encrypted even within the PTSC's secure network. Warden's eyes only.

"Incoming Transport N-427. High-value asset. Use extreme caution."

Staring at the text, Kadir felt his stomach churn. High-value asset. That could only be one man. He'd been dreading this transport since the information arrived last week. He'd heard some of the rumors swirling through the prison grapevine, rumors somehow picked up through the network despite the security and encryption.

He closed his eyes, memories surging forth unbidden. The unrelenting roar of battle, explosions, screams, sceeching metal, and guns. The stench of burning ships, equipment, and people. And the silence in the aftermath. The silence of death.

His wife's face, her laughter, and the scent of her, all gone in a bombing raid that left a crater in his soul. His ten year old son was cut down by 'friendly fire' before he could grow up.

He had lost everything he loved. Now he was the jailer of monsters, of broken people with shattered dreams. And coming to this place of misery was the greatest monster of them all.

Whispers of Infamy

The news spread like a virus within Naleen's steel innards. Whispers during shift change or a cell sweep, a coded message smuggled between levels, a nod, all passed information through cracks in the prison's rigid structure.

"You hear about the cargo they're bringing in today?" The guard spoke low to his bigger partner, his eyes on his plasma rifle.

"Yeah. I heard. Do you think this one's really that dangerous?" His partner's eyes stared straight down the hallway, watching for any movement.

"Javi on Level Three said this one's different. He's a ghost, a legend."

For a brief moment the guard's eyes shifted, then snapped back to the cells. "Naw. Legends don't get locked up. They get planets named after them. Or they get dead."

His partner looked up. "Not this one." His whisper almost reverent. "This one... they say he broke armies and toppled governments. They say he could smell the treason in a man's blood and turn him with a word."

"Bullshit," scoffed the bigger guard, but he shuffled his feet uneasily.

"He was there, man. The Iron Wars. They say he was the architect. They say he destroyed the Xei."

The big man repressed a shudder, his bravado shaken. Fear nibbled at the back of his brain.

Kadir, rounding a corner, caught the end of the conversation. Frowning, he cleared his throat. "Since when are myths included with prisoner intakes?"

Both guards jumped at his voice. They snapped to attention. The bigger guard stammered "Apologies, Warden. Just... idle talk, sir."

"Idle talk breeds complacency and fear. Fear makes you hesitate. Hesitation in this place can get you killed and others with you. Remember that."

The glare he fixed on them should have melted their armor. "Attend to your post, not to rumors. We have a transport arriving soon."

"Yessir!" They barked in unison, saluting as they turned back to their duties.

Watching them straighten up, Kadir felt a knot in his stomach tightening. He'd heard the rumors. Even deep within Naleen, the name Mihrab Vanco Petrovski held power, the power to make men cringe in fear. Even the pathetic remains of men and women who occupied the cells of Naleen. The warden wanted to disregard those legends, but he couldn't shake that almost primal fear.

Mihrab's Arrival

Inside the transport bay, the air was thick with the stench of sweat, fear, and recycled air. Two rows of heavily armed PTSC guards lined the walls. Their faces could have been made of stone save for the eyes flitting back and forth and the sheen of sweat on their brows. Their fingers twitched near the triggers of their plasma rifles.

When the pressure in the two chambers had equalized, the massive hangar doors hissed open. The prisoner transport, dwarfed by that cavernous space, sat like an ugly black steel toad. Automated gun turrets and human snipers aimed their weapons at it. The arrival of a 'high-value asset' carried a palpable tension.

Kadir with two of his toughest guards stood waiting at the transport ramp. He'd donned his formal uniform: black fatigues, polished boots, a sidearm that had never been fired. The gun felt reassuringly heavy at his hip. He hoped the facade hid the tremors in his gut.

The transport's hatch lowered with a metallic groan. The interior was brightly lit. Nothing moved for a minute, the tension growing. A figure stepped out, backlit and imposing.

His eyes, a startling crystal blue, seemed to burn with an inner light. His gaze was fixed on a point beyond the steel walls of the prison. Those eyes were old, filled with weariness, sharp intelligence, and ice.

The guards watched him. They knew this one was different. This one was trouble, even bound as he was with four transport guards surrounding him.

This one was Mihrab Vanco Petrovski.

Mihrab stepped onto the ramp. He was smaller than Kadir had imagined. He was lean, slender, almost fragile-appearing in the orange jumpsuit. But there was nothing fragile about the way he carried himself.

His wiry frame, his sharp features, his black, close-cropped hair shot through with streaks of gray, gave him the look of one much older than his years. He moved with a quiet intensity, a restrained grace and power, a faint smile on his lips. He made no struggle against his fetters. His gaze touched upon the eyes of the guards, some filled with fear, some with awe, a few with loathing.

His movements were hindered by the restraints, but still reflected strength and control. His gaze swept over the hangar, the guards, the turrets, the snipers. In those seconds, Kadir was certain that Mihrab noted the twitching of the guards' fingers near triggers, the security cameras, the exits. Kadir's eyes followed Mihrab's as the man looked up at the ceiling. Faint scorch marks from plasma rifle blasts scarred a small area. Kadir frowned. He had never noticed that before.

The brilliant blue eyes drank everything in and that slight upward curve to one side of his mouth never changed. Then those cold eyes turned to regard the warden.

Kadir spoke, "Mihrab Vanco Petrovski." His voice was calm and controlled. "You are hereby remanded into the custody of the Naleen Penal Facility. Any attempt at resistance or escape will be met with lethal force. Do you understand?"

Mihrab stared at the warden long enough that the guards started shifting their feet. The aquamarine eyes narrowed and the lopsided half-smile broadened.

"Resistance? Escape?" His voice was soft, melodic. "Warden, where could I possibly go?"

One of the guards, a young man barely out of training, stiffened and drew back from the prisoner, eyes widening. His voice, barely above a whisper, rasped, "You... you were there. Saros Four... the... the..."

"The what, soldier?" asked Mihrab softly, amusement dancing in his eyes.

The guard gripped his rifle with white knuckles. "The massacre!" He blurted the words like a curse.

Kadir felt a chill run down his spine as he stepped between the young guard and Mihrab. He had heard the stories. They all had. The planet had been razed, its people slaughtered. All the stories named Petrovski as the man who had orchestrated the horror.

"Enough!" the warden barked, staring into the prisoner's eyes, forcing himself to meet that icy gaze. "You will address me and only me. Is that understood, prisoner?"

Mihrab's head bowed slightly although his smile widened. "As you wish, warden."

A Cage within a Cage

Kadir forced himself to watch as the intake procedures heaped indignity after indignity upon this man. Mihrab didn't seem to notice. His eyes roamed the bay, evaluating the guards, the defenses, the exits. Not once did he acknowledge the fact that he stood naked before the guard details. He ignored the body cavity searches, the drenching shower of poisons, designed to rid bodies of parasites, the medical examination also conducted in front of those guards. Orders were screamed at him and he obeyed them in his own time, moving smoothly without perturbation.

Even the orange jumpsuit fit him well. Jumpsuits never fit well. They were supposed to chafe or be too short or too long, the arms or the chest too tight. They were just another indignity. Yet Mihrab's fit like a glove. Kadir wondered whether he should look into that or let it ride.

The walk from the intake area to the high security wing was a descent into a carefully orchestrated hell. The architecture of the hallways, the cells, the guard booths, were designed to be crushing, to grind down whatever spirit the prisoner had left.

The halls were narrow with low ceilings to induce claustrophobia. The walls were gray, seeming to absorb all light and sound. The cells were always a little chilly, just enough to be uncomfortable. The cot was hard and lumpy in all the wrong places, the toilet permanently stained, the water rust-colored. The air was recycled with a taint of human waste, disinfectant, and fear.

Mihrab moved calmly through the oppressive environment, ignoring the four guards at his back and the two in front. He didn't flinch at the flickering lights or the distant clang of a security door. His eyes continued to take in every detail as the slight smile played upon his lips. He moved as though the prison, the warden, the guards had no power over him.

Kadir walked beside the prisoner. "You seem to be handling this well. Most new arrivals find the atmosphere... oppressive."

Mihrab glanced at him. "Do you find satisfaction in their fear, Warden?"

Kadir met his gaze. "Satisfaction? No. But the fear helps to keep them quiet, controllable. They see the consequences of their actions."

Mihrab chuckled mirthlessly. "Consequences," he said. "Yes. I am acquainted with those."

A steel door blocked their way. Warnings to stay out were written in multiple languages. Two gun turrets swiveled to track their approach. Solitary Confinement Wing Gamma was spoken of in whispers, a tomb for the worst of the worst.

"You've gone to a lot of trouble for one man." Mihrab observed.

Kadir keyed in his access code, the door hissing open almost soundlessly. "We are nothing, if not thorough." he said, allowing Mihrab to enter the cell.

Mihrab stood in the center of the cell. Gray walls, gray cot, toilet and sink equally stained. Recessed light fixtures cast a cold, sterile glow over this cage within a cage.

Running his hand along the wall, Mihrab seemed to be caressing it with a gentle touch. His eyes, however, were hard, cold, and calculating.

He turned back to the warden. "No windows? I had hoped for a view."

Kadir had to swallow a chuckle. "No view. Welcome to Naleen, Mr. Petrovski." Signalling the guards to seal the cell, Kadir stepped back into the hallway.

The door slid shut. Mihrab was alone, although he didn't doubt he was being watched. He turned his attention to his cell, his cage. His eyes roamed, memorizing every detail. Even a cage had its weaknesses. And Mihrab Vanco Petrovski was a master at finding weaknesses.

Doubts at Nightfall

The setting sun cast long, grotesque shadows that stretched across the asteroid and seemed to seep into the hallways and cells. Guards kept their voices low and their fingers close to the triggers. Even the most cynical of guards could feel the ghosts moving through the rock.

Sitting in his office, Kadir couldn't shake the image of Mihrab from his mind. The man was like a stone dropped in a pond, sending ripples of restlessness and foreboding through the prison. Kadir's carefully maintained equilibrium was disrupted.

He started to retire to his own chambers but found himself walking the corridors to the Solitary Confinement Wing. His footsteps echoed in the silence of the halls. The guards on duty snapped to attention, eyes narrowed in apprehension, postures stiff, shoulders hunched.

Hesitating before the cell door, Kadir reflected on what he and Mihrab had seen, had experienced in the wars. They had each seen the worst that men could do, the destruction and the aftermath of death and despair. In a sense, he felt they were bound by the violence and the loss.

He keyed in his access code and the door hissed open.

Mihrab was sitting on his cot, his back straight, his gaze on the wall across from him. His hands were clasped loosely in his lap. A slight tilt of his head was the only indication that the prisoner was aware of another presence.

"I didn't expect visitors," he said, still not moving.

"Neither did I," said Kadir, entering. The door slid shut with a soft click. "Something doesn't feel right about you... about this whole situation."

Mihrab turned enough to look at the warden, his movement slow, his quirky smile on his lips. "Peace is a fragile thing, Warden," Mihrab said, his voice soft, velvet laid over steel. "But it is built on foundations of blood and bone."

He stood with a fluid, predatory grace, moving close to the warden. "You and I have seen beneath civilization, those places where depravity lurks. We both have wounds deep within. Do such wounds ever truly heal? Or do they just fester?"

Staring back at the smaller man, Kadir felt his gut twist. He couldn't deny the truth in those words. The Iron Wars had left scars not just on a multitude of worlds but also on the souls of those who had fought. This 'peace' was not an end, but a truce, an eye in a hurricane.

"Why are you here, Petrovski? Why did they send you to Naleen? And why now?"

Mihrab smiled, showing teeth. He closed his eyes for a moment and Kadir noticed the dark circles in his lower lids, the puffiness and slight redness of the skin.

When Mihrab gazed at him again, Kadir recognized the ineffable sadness in the man.

"Perhaps, Warden," Mihrab said in a soft voice, "the better question would be why are any of us here?"

He stepped back, breaking the spell. The moment and the tension dissipated.

"Rest well, Warden Kadir," Mihrab said, turning away. "I suspect we shall see more of each other."

Kadir nodded. "I suspect you are right." He opened the door and left, nodding to the guards behind the cameras. The brief interview had not provided any answers, only more questions.

Peace, he realized, was a dangerous illusion. And Mihrab Vanco Petrovski had just shattered it.

Continue to Chapter 2: The Reckoning of Hinsman.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

What if we shifted our perspective? What if we recruited to offer opportunities instead of recruiting to fill needs?

Consider this. People are inherently attracted to opportunities that enable them to learn, develop, and create an impact. By framing volunteering as an opportunity to engage in meaningful work and contribute to a more significant cause, we harness a strong motivator that can result in substantial personal growth and fulfillment. This growth is not just about the tasks they perform but also about the skills they develop, the experiences they gain, and the impact they make. It's about becoming the best version of themselves.

Instead of saying, "We desperately need someone to stuff envelopes," try, "We have an exciting opportunity for someone to play a key role in our upcoming fundraising campaign. You'll gain valuable experience in marketing and outreach while making a real difference in the lives of other people."

See the difference?

Recruiting for opportunities rather than needs can bring several benefits to your organization. When volunteers feel they are contributing to something meaningful, they are more likely to be engaged and committed. This increased motivation can lead to better retention rates, as volunteers are less likely to leave if they feel valued and see the impact of their work. By focusing on opportunities, you're filling roles and creating a community of passionate individuals excited to contribute to your cause. Their work matters, and it's making a difference.

A motivated and dedicated volunteer base can also strengthen an organization. When volunteers are excited about their work, they are likelier to go above and beyond and contribute to the organization's success. This can increase efficiency, improve outcomes, and have a more substantial overall impact.

No matter how routine, every task can be reframed as an exciting opportunity. For instance, data entry isn't just about filling out forms; it's about becoming a data hero, helping to track progress, and ensuring accurate reporting, which is crucial to securing future funding. Event set-up isn't just about moving tables and chairs; it's about being part of the magic, helping to create a memorable event that will inspire and engage the community. And phone calls aren't just about making calls; they're about becoming a community ambassador, sharing your passion for the cause, and connecting with supporters , all of which can have a significant impact. This positive framing can make even the most mundane tasks exciting and meaningful. It's about turning every task into a chance to shine and make a difference.

We can attract and retain passionate volunteers eager to make a difference by shifting our focus from needs to opportunities. This approach benefits the organization and empowers volunteers to find fulfillment and purpose in their service.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This announcement was more than just a technical ambition; it was the clarion call that heralded the birth of the free software movement. Stallman's vision wasn't about providing software without a price tag; it was about establishing a philosophy, a movement that championed the idea that software should be free - free to use, study, modify, and share. It was a bold challenge to the prevailing norms of proprietary software, restricting users' rights and control over the programs they relied on.

Stallman's crusade for software freedom wasn't born in a vacuum. It was ignited by a series of frustrations and realizations during his time as a programmer at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The story is told in the book Free As In Freedom 2.0 and provides invaluable insights into the creation of the free software movement. It reveals what fueled Stallman's determination to create a world where software users would have the freedom to study, modify, and share code, and the the depth of his conviction.

Richard Stallman's unwavering dedication to the ideals of software freedom has left an enduring legacy. His tireless advocacy, groundbreaking creation of the GNU Project and the GPL, and unwavering commitment to ethical considerations in technology have profoundly shaped our digital landscape today.

As we commemorate the GNU Project's 41st anniversary, we stand a crossroads in the digital age. Our choices today will shape the future of software and the freedoms we enjoy in the digital realm. Richard Stallman's unwavering commitment to software freedom serves as a beacon, reminding us that software should be controlled by those who use it, not the other way around.

The GNU Project's legacy is a testament to the enduring fight for freedom in the digital age. It is a story that continues to unfold, in which each of us has a role to play. As we honor this anniversary, let's come together as a community to embrace the spirit of the GNU Project, choose software that respects our freedom, and work towards building a better world. The future of software freedom is in our hands, and our collective actions can shape it for the better.

To delve deeper into this captivating narrative, please read Free as in Freedom 2.0 or re-read it again if it's been a while. It's an inspiring and thought-provoking journey through the history of the free software movement. This story will challenge your assumptions, ignite your passion for freedom, and leave you with a profound appreciation for someone who dared to dream of a better world.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

A Number Planning Area (NPA) is any of numerous geographical divisions within the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) assigned a three-digit area code for telephone service providers in the United States, the Caribbean, and Canada, except for Mexico and certain other countries in North America. Some areas are assigned multiple codes in an overlay plan to accommodate large populations, and specific ranges of numbers are restricted in use or serve particular purposes.

Since the advent of the telephone, the Bell System has served ever-increasing numbers of regions in the United States. Because the task of devising numbering systems for every new region fell on its local administration, the overall result was a patchwork of different systems whose efficiency suffered from disorganization. Come the 1940s, in collaboration with AT&T, the Bell System had sought to unify the numbering systems into one coherent standard. Despite protests against the change, most Bell System areas had converted to the new standard over two decades, and direct distance dialing became the norm. The new numbering plan was officially accepted in October 1947, dividing most North America into eighty-six numbering plan areas (NPAs). However, it was not until the adoption of the North American Numbering Plan in 1975 that a comprehensive and standardized system was established, significantly improving the efficiency and ease of use of telephone service.

From the dissolution of the Bell System to the present day, several planning areas within the continent have been under the management of the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA), operating under the Federal Communications Commission. The administration further subdivides at the national level in the United States, Canada, and each of the countries of the Caribbean. Within each country, the areas are serviced by local offices with stations in their respective numbering plan areas. Each level is represented in the standard phone number, ensuring a well-organized and efficient system.

Before the establishment of the North American Numbering Plan, phone numbers during the 1940s looked (and sounded) a little differently from how they do now. They consisted of only seven digits (as opposed to the modern ten), the first two letters. Each letter corresponded to a number on the dial pad, and each button, except for 0 and 1, represented three or four letters. This design allowed for easy memorization of phone numbers via mnemonic devices. A holdover of this convention remains today, chiefly in advertisements that replace part of their phone number with letters that spell a word relevant to the business. For example, Canadian-franchised waste removal service 1-800-GOT-JUNK? built their brand around their phone number. Other examples include 1-800-FLOWERS and 1-800-CONTACTS. That said, with the rise of the internet and applications for mobile devices, web addresses have been gradually replacing phone numbers in advertising.

A North American phone number comprises a country code, a three-digit area code, a three-digit prefix, and a four-digit line number. By convention, each part is separated with hyphens, making it easier to read and remember. Understanding the structure of a phone number can provide valuable insights into the location and type of the call.

The country code is a single number representing the largest division, encompassing several large countries. The North American Numbering Plan is part of World Zone 1, hence the 1 at the beginning of the phone number. America - and Canada-based businesses typically have the country code in their phone numbers, the most recognizable of which is 1-800. This phone number is a business number located in the US or Canada.

The following three numbers refer to the NPA, often called the area code, and narrow down the location to the state or provincial level. For this example, number 682 denotes its location as Texas.

The prefix zooms in even further to the municipal level. For this example, 327 is Weatherford, Texas.

As a rule, the NPA and prefix cannot start with a 0 or 1 as these represented central office codes. It also used to be that the NPA was required to contain a 0 or 1 as the middle digit, but this rule was later eliminated to allow for more NPAs as the population grew. You can still identify the original NPAs by whether they have these as the middle digit, like 206 for Seattle. Removing this rule caused minor disruption with PBX systems that had to be updated.

The final four digits, the line number, represent the call's recipient. The actual address for this number has been withheld.

NPAs allowed for better efficiency in telephone service. Before, dialing someone outside the caller's area was much more manual, requiring a human operator to hook up a cable to a slot in a switchboard so that the call went directly to the desired recipient.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

A foundation's tax-exempt status is a critical, often overlooked factor that dramatically shapes its core mission and legal obligations. The Internal Revenue Code classifies non-profit organizations into various categories, each with its rules and obligations. Two common types encountered are 501(c)(6) and 501(c)(3) organizations. The difference between 501(c)(6) and 501(c)(3) organizations can be likened to a fork in the road, leading to vastly different outcomes for the projects they oversee.

501(c)(6) Organizations: Think of these as clubs for businesses. They exist to further the collective business interests of their member companies. While they might support free software projects, they do so because it's in their member companies' business interests. Their primary duty is to their member companies, even if those interests clash with the broader community.

501(c)(3) Organizations: These are the charities of the foundation world. Their mandate is to operate for the public good. While they might collaborate with businesses, their ultimate allegiance lies with the community and the general public.

This fundamental distinction in legal obligations can dramatically influence a foundation's priorities. A 501(c)(6) foundation, facing a conflict between the community's desire for freedom and its member companies' interests, might be compelled to make decisions that favor the business interests of its member companies, because that is what the law requires, even if those decisions conflict with the broader free software community. This reminds me of the disclaimer often used by legal professionals: "I am an attorney, but I am not your attorney." In this context, the foundation might analogously say: "I am a foundation, but I am not your foundation." This potential conflict of interest should be a red flag, urging caution when considering the long-term freedom of a software project. In contrast, a 501(c)(3) foundation is bound to prioritize the public interest because that, too, is what the law requires, making it a far more reliable guardian of free software. For example, the Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization.

I know of some who argue that the distinction between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) organizations is trivial. In an ideal world of puppies and rainbows, this might seem plausible. However, preparing for conflict is crucial when establishing a foundation to protect a software project's long-term freedom. A 501(c)(3) organization is legally bound to serve the public good, providing shelter when rainbows disappear and the proverbial storm cloud approaches. On the other hand, a 501(c)(6) organization prioritizes its members' interests, which might not align with the software project's needs. In a clash, would you rather have an entity obligated to protect you or one obligated to serve those controlling the elements? The choice is clear when considering long-term freedom.

The licensing model also plays an essential role in its ability to resist proprietarization. Strong copyleft licenses, such as the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), create a robust defense mechanism. That license mandates that any modifications or derivative works must be released under the same license, ensuring the software's freedom is preserved. Moreover, when a project has multiple copyright holders combined with a strong copyleft license, the distributed nature of the copyright makes it significantly harder for any single entity, even a foundation, to unilaterally alter the licensing terms.

Conversely, non-copyleft licenses offer no defense to proprietarization, opening the door for the foundation to make the software proprietary. I'm again thinking of the difference between a 501(c)(6) and a 501(c)(3) if the organization were to determine that changing the license was in the interests of its member companies.

Some foundations collect project contributors' copyright assignments or Contributor License Agreements (CLAs). While these mechanisms can streamline project management and legal processes in some ways, they also grant the foundation substantial power over the software's future. Even if a CLA doesn't explicitly transfer copyright, it can bestow broad permissions upon the foundation, including the ability to relicense the software and make it proprietary.

This concentration of power can be concerning, and I'm aware of some that try to draw a comparison with the Free Software Foundation, which also accepts copyright assignments. However, this overlooks the nuances of the approach taken by the Free Software Foundation. The FSF, despite accepting copyright assignments, meticulously crafts its agreements to bind itself to maintain the software's freedom. This is an example of the FSF, a 501(c)(3) organization operating in the public's interest. Most foundations, however, don't go to such lengths or make any attempt to curb their powers in any way whatsoever. Their copyright assignments or CLAs are often one-sided, favoring the foundation's interests and potentially leaving the community vulnerable to future licensing changes. If there are more copyright assignments, I'd like to see more do it as the FSF does.

These are all reasons why a foundation's mere existence doesn't automatically defend against proprietrization. Its effectiveness hinges on the myriad details in its structure and practices. Only by understanding the nuanced meanings behind these can informed choices be made and gauge how effective a particular foundation might be at guarding software freedom.

If we combine all of these items, the best levels of defense for an organization to serve as a guardian for software freedom would be provided by having the foundation as a 501(c)(3) organization and the software be under a strong copyleft license like GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL), allowing upgrades to newer license versions, with multiple copyright holders where the foundation either doesn't use a CLA or collect copyright assignments or if they do, the copyright assignments are done in a way as the FSF does also to bind the organization with AGPL-like terms. Of course, this whole blog post is a simplification - there's more to it than this, and as I think about it, I see that this is starting to look a lot like the FSF. Hmm. Imagine that.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

It's hard to believe that the Freesh APT repository first appeared 13 years ago.

In 2011, while Alexandre Oliva's Freed-ora RPM repository provided GNU Linux-libre for Fedora users, no equivalent existed for distributions utilizing the APT package manager. The idea for an APT repository came from somewhere - perhaps a sysadmin at the FSF, although that person denies it, so no one seems to recall exactly where the idea came from.

Freesh quickly filled that gap. Alexandre Oliva also deserves credit for the clever name "Freesh," which is a nod to providing the "freshest" kernel versions.

Initially, Freesh only supported 32- and 64-bit x86 architectures. But as the years passed, support expanded to a whopping 13 (or maybe even 14, depending on how you count the two 32-bit kernel packages). In April 2013, Freesh went beyond just the latest kernel versions, adding Long-Term Support (LTS) versions to the mix. This gave users the flexibility to choose between bleeding-edge features and rock-solid reliability.

For this 13th anniversary, I'm also releasing a new picture of Freedo in a box that represents being packaged. Let's look to the future as we celebrate 13 years of Freesh. GNU Linux-libre remains as essential as ever in upholding the principles of software freedom by providing a kernel that can be used in complete freedom. Freesh will continue to play a vital role in making GNU Linux-libre readily available to all who value software freedom.

Here's to many more years of Freesh and to a future where free software empowers everyone. As we celebrate the past, let's look forward to a future where GNU Linux-libre continues to be a beacon of software freedom, empowering users everywhere with the freedom to control their computing.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. The image of Freedo in a box is licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. For more information see https://jxself.org/git/?p=freedo.git. Please copy and share.

But amidst all the Emacs hype, there's a quiet revolution brewing. This movement seeks to return to the basics, embrace simplicity and efficiency, and champion the unsung hero of text editors: GNU Ed.

You might be wondering, "Ed? Isn't that the ancient line editor?" Yes, it is. And that's precisely why it's so brilliant.

Ed is a breath of fresh air in a world seemingly obsessed with bloated software and feature creep. It's lean, mean, and laser-focused on doing one thing exceptionally well: editing text.

The Benefits of Ed:

• Unparalleled Speed: Ed's minimalist design means it's fast. No more waiting for Emacs to load its countless extensions and plugins. With Ed, you're up and running quickly, ready to tackle any text editing task.
• Zen-like Focus: Ed's lack of doing anything but editing text is great if you need to focus. No more tempting email notifications or social media feeds vying for your attention. With Ed, it's just you and your text in perfect harmony.
• Mental Agility: Ed's commands, often described as cryptic, might seem daunting initially, but they're a fantastic way to exercise your brain. For example, you type 'd' followed by the line number to delete a line. Mastering Ed's syntax is like learning a new language, and the mental workout it provides is unparalleled.
• Ultimate Flexibility: Ed's simplicity is its greatest strength. Ed is there for your text, whether you're writing code, crafting prose, or simply jotting down notes. It's equally adept at handling large text files and manipulating complex text.
• Street Cred: Let's face it, using Ed is just plain cool. It's like driving a classic car or wearing vintage clothing. It shows that you're not afraid to go against the grain to embrace the unconventional.

Are you ready to join the Ed revolution? Should we ditch the Emacs bloat and embrace the elegance of simplicity? If so, fire up your terminal, type ed, and prepare to experience text editing nirvana.

Remember, in the world of text editors, less is often more. And with Ed, you'll discover that the most powerful tool is often the simplest one.

Disclaimer: This blog post is intended to be humorous and tongue-in-cheek. Emacs is a fantastic text editor, and its vast capabilities are undeniable. However, sometimes, it's fun to poke a little fun at the complexities of modern software and celebrate the beauty of simplicity. Remember, it's all in good fun!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

However, the women of the past were not given this treatment. While some of their names are well-known, such as Marie Curie or Amelia Earheart, others are abandoned by history. They had all the courage and pluck of a modern woman but were left out of the history books for one reason or another. It's time to give five of these forgotten women the spotlight they deserve.

Elsie Knott was born Elsie Taylor on the Curve Lake First Nation. In this southern Ontario reserve, she had a knack for leading people in her community, and people around her often came to her for advice. Though she only received a grade eight education, she recognized the importance of formal education and learning from others. She ran for the position of chief when the Government of Canada ruled native women were allowed to sit on band council. She was elected in 1954 and held the post for ten years. While raising three children, Knott used her guidance to help her community grow and prosper.

Margaret Hamilton was born in Paoli, Indiana. Her interest in mathematics led her to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1960. There, she learned to develop software to search for enemy aircraft and predict weather patterns. The people working on the Apollo 11 space mission noticed her talents and recruited her to help them program the rocket's navigation equipment. She worked efficiently and was eventually promoted to lead designer. Her work stopped the mission from ending in tragedy, as she had accounted for errors that might occur during the landing process. Since then, Hamilton has started two software companies and came up with the idea to apply engineering principles to design, develop, test, and maintain software and came up with the corresponding term "software engineering."

Claudette Colvin was born in Montgomery, Alabama. She aspired to change the world from a young age, declaring she wanted to be president when she was only in high school. As a female African-American, she was involved in her local NAACP Youth Council and was interested in the civil rights movement. On the bus home from school, she and pregnant African-American Ruth Hamilton refused to stand in the colored section of the bus. Though Hamilton eventually moved, Colvin stood her ground. She was arrested for disobedience eight months before Rosa Parks did the same. Colvin and other women testified that segregation on buses was unconstitutional. Despite the government overturning the law in 1956, she was considered rude and moved to New York, where she lived peacefully as an aide in a nursing home.

Nana Asama'u was born in Sokoto Caliphate to the Sultan of Sokoto. She believed Allah wanted her to learn and began studying religion, classical works, and linguistics. By the end of her formal education, she spoke four languages and could recite the Quran by memory. She was a strong supporter of universal education. She created a group of female teachers, known as jajis, to teach women in their homes. The women quickly took to learning and were taught poetry and religion. Amasa'u's many published works are still translated for the modern English speaker, meaning anyone can enjoy the lessons taught by a princess over a century ago.

Natalia Peshkova was drafted into World War II at the age of 17. Though her nursing training was effective, her combat training left her ill-equipped to deal with the realities of war. She was often left hungry and uncomfortable while on the front lines. She treated soldiers who suffered anything from bullet wounds to lice, even when she had a fractured temple bone and damage to the base of her skull. When separated from her troops, she disguised herself to go through enemy lines and reunite with them. Her determination and survival skills earned her the Order of the Red Star and helped her gain political power in the Soviet Union.

These women, with their resilience and determination, shattered glass ceilings and transformed their communities for the better. Their stories, though often overlooked, continue to inspire and empower women today. Just as these women set a precedent for future generations, today's women are showing young girls the boundless possibilities that await them.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In this guide, we will explore the art of writing a letter of complaint, focusing on how we, as free software enthusiasts, can leverage this skill to advocate for our values and promote the principles of software freedom.

While a phone call or an email might seem convenient, a formal letter of complaint carries a unique weight. It demonstrates that you are serious about your concerns, have taken the time to articulate them clearly and expect a thoughtful response. Furthermore, it creates a documented paper trail of your communication and grievances, which can be helpful if further action is needed.

Before writing, consider who you're addressing and what you want to achieve. Are you contacting a company about a licensing issue or something else? Tailoring your language and terminology according to your understanding of your audience will help. Similarly, be clear about your desired outcome. Do you want them to comply with the license? Are you seeking a change in policy or something else?

Key Elements of an Effective Letter

Your Information: Provide your full name, address, email address, and phone number. This will ensure the recipient can quickly contact you.

Date: Include the date of the letter.

Recipient: Do your research to find the correct contact information.

Subject Line: Use a clear and concise subject line that summarizes the issue, e.g., "Complaint about [Software Name] Licensing Issue."

Salutation: Open with a professional salutation, such as "Dear [Recipient's Name]."

Introduction: Introduce yourself briefly and state the purpose of your letter. Mention the product or service you're writing about and the specific issue.

Body: Start by stating the purpose of your letter upfront. Identify the issue or problem you're experiencing. Provide a detailed explanation of the situation and specific details. Stick to the relevant facts and provide evidence to support your claims. Include dates, product names, and versions. If you have any supporting evidence that can help the recipient understand the context of your complaint, include them with your letter. This can help strengthen your case and make it harder for the recipient to dismiss your concerns.

Be objective and avoid emotional language. Even if you're frustrated or angry, maintain a calm and professional tone throughout your letter. Avoid personal attacks, emotional outbursts, or inflammatory language, as this can alienate the recipient and undermine your credibility. Focus on the facts and present your arguments logically. Remember, you're more likely to get a positive response if you're respectful and reasonable. Avoid jargon or technical terms that your recipient might not understand. State your complaint in simple, straightforward language without room for misinterpretation. Remember, the goal is to communicate your concerns effectively, not to impress with your technical knowledge.

Don't just complain about the problem - clearly state what you want the recipient to do to resolve your complaint. Be specific about the outcome you are seeking.

Closing: Thank the recipient. Offer to provide further information if needed. Close with a professional sign-off, such as "Sincerely" or "Best regards."

Signature: Sign your name and print it below.

Consider the following additional tips:

Cite Relevant Principles: If the issue relates to free software principles, reference them in your letter. Explain how the situation violates these principles and why they matter to you.

Reference Relevant Licenses: If the complaint involves a violation of a free license, cite the specific terms of the license that have been breached and how that goes against the user's right to study, modify, and distribute software.

Before you send your letter, review and refine it thoroughly. Look for spelling or grammar mistakes and ensure your writing is clear and concise. A well-written letter demonstrates that you're serious about your concerns and deserve to be taken seriously.

If you haven't heard back in a timely manner, consider following up with a phone call or email. Be polite but persistent in your inquiries. Keep a record of all your communications, including dates and times, if you need to escalate the matter further.

Example: Complaint about Proprietary Software Bundling

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
[Your Phone Number]

[Date]

[Recipient's Name]
[Recipient's Title]
[Company Name]
[Company Address]

Subject: Complaint about Proprietary Software Bundling

Dear [Recipient's Name],

I am writing to express my concern about including proprietary software with your Foo device model 1. While I commend your commitment to innovation and providing cutting-edge technology, as a passionate advocate for software freedom, I believe that the use of proprietary software directly contradicts the fundamental principles of software freedom, undermines the collaborative spirit that underpins our community, and fundamentally violates the rights of your users.

The freedom to run, study, change, and share software is a fundamental ethical principle for users to fully control the technology in their lives. Proprietary software denies these fundamental freedoms, creating an environment where users are beholden to the whims of the software developer. From an ethical standpoint, denying users these fundamental freedoms is not right. As software becomes ever more integral to our daily lives, users must be able to run, study, change, and share the software they rely on. More information can be found at https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software.

Please rectify this situation and commit to providing free software on your devices. This means providing the corresponding source code and the instructions to build andinstall it under a free software license, granting users the freedoms they deserve. By embracing free software, you will be doing the right thing ethically.

I am passionate about the principles of free software, and I am happy to provide guidance and answer any questions you may have about making this transition. By working together, we can create a future where technology empowers users rather than restricts them.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate your timely attention to this matter and anticipate a response and resolution that upholds the values of free software.

Sincerely,
[Your Signature]
[Your Printed Name]

Remember, your voice matters. Writing an effective letter of complaint is about more than venting your frustrations. It's about advocating for your rights and promoting the values of the free software movement. By harnessing the power of a well-crafted letter of complaint, you can contribute to a world where software freedom thrives, and users' rights are respected.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The world around me seemed to lose its color. I felt utterly disconnected, as if the world I once knew had vanished, replaced by a bleak and unfamiliar reality. I lost interest in the things that once brought me joy and withdrew from communities and social circles where I had once felt a sense of belonging. It was like a dream fading away, leaving an empty echo of what once was.

The silence was deafening. It seemed no one even noticed my quiet withdrawal, and if they did, no one reached out. The lack of acknowledgment fueled a growing sense of worthlessness. Doubts crept in - if my absence went unnoticed, did my presence truly matter? These questions echoed in my mind, amplifying my feelings of loneliness and despair. I had this growing feeling of invisibility. I felt like a ghost, unseen and unheard - an afterthought.

Each day felt like an uphill battle, a constant struggle against the overwhelming weight of sadness and despair. But eventually, a combination of things helped me find my way back to the light. I started by clearing my mind and relaxing for a few minutes. Sometimes, I'd take a few days off, focusing solely on myself and the things I once enjoyed. This was my version of self-care. Self-care can take different forms for different people, so find what works for you and make time for it.

I also started journaling, writing down my thoughts and feelings on paper. It provided a temporary release, a way to externalize the internal turmoil. It provided some relief, but the feelings persisted. I considered seeking professional help.

Then, a lifeline. Someone noticed my absence, reached out, and offered a listening ear. That made the most significant difference. Being able to open up and share my struggles without fear of judgment lifted a tremendous weight off my shoulders. My fear of being a burden turned out to be unfounded. To that person, I want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart.

If you're reading this and struggling through a difficult time, please know you are not alone. Even in the darkest of times, there is always hope. Reach out to someone you trust, whether a family member, friend, or professional. Help is available, and using it is a sign of strength, not weakness.

Remember, you matter. Your presence is valued, and your voice deserves to be heard. Let's continue to break the silence surrounding mental health, one conversation at a time.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

One approach involves a two-stage interview process where candidates are provided questions in a first-stage interview process and then evaluated based on their written answers. A second stage interview might follow this to see how they respond in a real-time interview. While it might seem like an excellent way to understand someone's thought process and how it aligns with the organization's values, it only tells part of the story.

An interview format based on isolated written responses falls short of capturing the essence of board work. Board work rarely involves individuals working in isolation to make unilateral decisions. It's a collaborative effort involving navigating organizational dynamics, communicating effectively, and gaining insights through discussion. Evaluating candidate responses in a vacuum, divorced from the collaborative context in which a board functions in the real world, deprives candidates of the opportunity to engage in conversations, seek clarification, and build upon the ideas of others, and as a result, limits their ability to provide insightful responses to those questions. A false initial signal is created without giving the context of how they might respond differently, given the opportunity for real-world interactions.

The later interview stage, which involves real-time verbal answers, may inadvertently create false negatives. Assuming a candidate has progressed beyond the written question-in-a-vacuum stage and has yet to be filtered out due to false signals, this stage could still disproportionately favor candidates who excel at formulating immediate, eloquent responses in real time. However, this skill doesn't necessarily correlate with the ability to make thoughtful, well-informed decisions, especially when complex issues require careful consideration and collaboration over time. Boards thrive on collaboration, where members engage in thoughtful discussions, leverage collective knowledge, and carefully consider the context and nuances of each decision.

The pressure to provide immediate answers during a live interview can prevent candidates from showing their true potential for deep analysis and reflection. Some people need time to think things through, discuss with others, and then return to their thoughts. This process can take time and might repeat numerous times.

Both written responses and real-time interviews don't mirror reality and often fail to capture a board's collaborative and context-rich environment, where decisions are made collectively after careful discussion and consideration.

To enhance the selection process, boards could consider a more comprehensive approach that mirrors their work. Instead of solely focusing on individual answers, incorporating group discussions with simulated board scenarios could allow candidates to showcase their ability to engage in constructive conversations, listen to diverse perspectives, contribute to group decision-making, and review and respond to matters thoughtfully, without the pressure of real-time answers, could lead to more insightful responses.

By prioritizing collaboration, context, and thoughtful deliberation, boards can create a selection process that identifies individuals who will thrive in their specific board's complex and dynamic environment. This approach values the importance of thoughtful deliberation in the selection process.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

When imagining the Pacific Northwest, it's difficult not to conjure images of Seattle's skyline and Space Needle, nestled between sparkling waters and majestic snow-capped mountains. Indeed, that picturesque image captures the city's essence like few other skylines can, where residents enjoy the rugged wilderness and ocean vistas coupled with a contemporary, upbeat, and lively urban lifestyle.

Demographics

Once a humble industrial port city, Seattle has blossomed into one of the nation's most liveable and sought-after locations. Its culturally diverse population, known for its high education levels (over half of the residents aged 25 and up have a bachelor's degree), exceptional health, and one of the most literate cities in America is a testament to its inclusivity and vibrancy. The International District, a melting pot of individuals from various backgrounds, is a prime example of Seattle's unique charm. Unlike many other metropolitan areas, Seattle doesn't have distinct ethnic neighborhoods and proudly preserves a rich Native American culture and heritage.

Seattle is one of the largest cities in the USA. Approximately 750,000 residents live within the city limits, with over 3.5 million in the surrounding area.

Just under two-thirds of the population identified as White Non-Hispanic, with another seventeen percent being Asian, seven percent being Black or African American, and the remainder made up of other ethnicities. Seattle also has a high population of LGBTQIA+ individuals, next to San Francisco.

Politics

Seattle's political landscape is a reflection of its deeply ingrained social liberalism. It consistently ranks as one of the most progressive cities in the United States, with a political culture that champions social justice and inclusivity.

Weather

With a reputation for being wet, dreary, and dark, Seattle receives 39 inches of rainfall yearly. In perspective, Miami, Florida, receives approximately 62 inches of rain in the same period. However, Seattle is well-known for its light mist-type rain, which can last several days. In particular, the city's winter months tend towards drizzle and overcast skies. However, the city is nicknamed the "Emerald City" for good reason. The city is alive with year-round greenery due to small amounts of rain spread consistently throughout the year. The sun is no stranger to Seattle either, and with neither a sweltering summer nor much snow in winter, outdoor activities can be enjoyed in all seasons.

Culture

Some of the most influential artists in history called Seattle home. While the city is most often noted for musical artists like Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Nirvana, or Pearl Jam, it's also home to innumerable talented and well-known poets, painters, sculptors, actors, writers, and others.

Seattle's best-known landmarks draw visitors worldwide and inform the city's cultural fabric. The 1962 World's Fair brought the world to Seattle's doorstep and resulted in constructing the iconic Space Needle, the Science Center, and several auditoriums and theater spaces. Seattle's famous Pike Place Market, built in 1907, hosts an eclectic mix of fishmongers and local artisans and is a favorite of locals and tourists alike.

With the 5th Avenue Theater, the Moore Theater, the Paramount Theater, the Neptune Theater, and over 100 theater production companies, the performing arts are well supported in Seattle. Numerous movie houses popularize independent filmmakers. The city also has one of the world's three movie theaters, which can still play three-panel Cinerama films.

Several significant newspapers, including a major daily newspaper, several weekly newspapers, some ethnic newspapers, and numerous online newspapers, cover Seattle. All of the major US TV networks and one Canadian network serve Seattle. Radio is also a significant media form, both traditional and online.

The University of Washington, which attracts top-notch researchers and provides research funding, also significantly influences the region and is another factor in Seattle's youthful, creative population.

The area surrounding the University of Washington is lively, featuring inexpensive but eclectic and delicious dining options, arthouse cinemas, and studios. The University itself hosts an impressive collection of Native American artifacts, and the Henry Art Gallery features the work of a range of key artists and figures.

In addition to significantly contributing to music, theater, film, and media, Seattle hosts fairs, festivals, shows, galleries, and museums galore. Some examples are the Seattle International Film Festival, Bumbershoot, a huge Gay Pride festival, and many ethnic festivals. Conventions aimed at gamers, anime fans, book lovers, film fanatics, and even bicyclists are also held on an annual business.

Seattle's many museums and galleries contain regional history and ethnic collections, and an aquarium and zoo are also open year-round.

Seattle is a culturally rich city, offering many entertainment options in any season.

Business activity

Seattle has its roots in pursuits like logging and fishing. As a major trade port in the Alaskan gold rush, Seattle attracted adventurous and hardy spirits seeking a challenge-a quality that remains today. Ambitious and highly skilled individuals are drawn to Seattle and its business opportunities.

Seattle's roots in logging and fishing have evolved into a thriving business hub. The city's robust high-tech and engineering sector and healthy logging and mining industries are a testament to its entrepreneurial spirit. Seattle's strong ties with Pacific Rim businesses and traders attract ambitious individuals worldwide, making it a hotbed for international trade and business opportunities.

Outdoor activities

Seattle is surrounded by water and woods, and with the mild climate, a range of activities for the outdoors enthusiast is possible year-round-a broad network of hiking and cycling paths weaves through the city and the surrounding forests. Seattle is home to many parks, and there are miles of trails within the city limits and endless opportunities in the hills and mountains beyond. Activities like swimming, walking, and cycling are practiced all year. In the winter, skiing and snowboarding enthusiasts will find a wide range of ski hills only a short drive away - those same hills are also popular hiking and mountain biking destinations in the summer months.

For those who prefer to be on the water, Lake Union and Lake Washington are popular year-round destinations for a day at the beach or on the water. Boating, sailing, and white-water rafting opportunities are within the city limits. The ocean is also nearby, offering watersports, kayaking, sailing, fishing, or beachcombing opportunities. Puget Sound is dotted with islands that may be explored by boat, kayak, or ferry.

Conclusion

Seattle has long since outgrown its roots as a minor port or waypoint on the way to the Alaskan gold rush. It has developed into a robust, lively city that merges the natural beauty of its surroundings with a forward-looking, energetic population. With a deep cultural history and more attractions and events than many larger cities, there is always something to see or do for new arrivals and long-time residents.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Orange Revolution

The 2004 presidential election in Ukraine sparked a political crisis with allegations of rigging. In response, hundreds of thousands of brave individuals gathered in Kyiv's main square, demonstrating their unwavering determination for 12 days despite harsh weather conditions. Their resilience led to a revote, overturning the results and ushering in a new era.

Labor Movement

The Labor Movement, born out of a need to protect workers' rights in the United States, brought about significant changes. It fought against child labor, provided for injured or retired workers, and advocated for better wages and working conditions. Though still relevant today, its impact is a testament to the power of collective action and the respect it commands.

Berlin Wall Protests

This concrete wall, which started to be built on August 13th, 1961, separated East and West Berlin for 28 years until it was destroyed two months after protests began in Germany. Protests and growing pressure to take down the wall started increasing in 1989. The East German government soon complied, resulting in the removal of the wall. The destruction of the Berlin Wall was a historical event worldwide.

Tiananmen Square

Commonly called "The June 4th Incident", the Tiananmen Square protests gathered a mass of about 1 million people -primarily students seeking democratic reform- peacefully gathered in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. The protests began with the death of former Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang. The Chinese military brought in tanks and armed troops with assault rifles, which caused what is estimated to be hundreds and thousands of deaths of unarmed university students. The Chinese government has largely ignored this act because it is prohibited from discussing or remembering the events. People around the world remember the incident and the many protesters who were killed.

March on Washington

One of the largest political rallies for human rights, the March on Washington, was for African Americans' civil rights. From peaceful protests to civil disobedience, these unified actions of resistance have frequently sparked change, confronting established norms and pushing for a fairer and more just society. Martin Luther King Jr. guided thousands of Americans to Washington, where his "I Have a Dream" speech was then delivered at the Lincoln Memorial. This has been replayed in movies, music, books, and more and will forever remain an important part of history. The March on Washington was especially effective in helping further African American rights within the country.

Boston Tea Party

This political protest by the Sons of Liberty led to the destruction of an entire shipment of tea from the East India Company in defiance of the Tea Act. They boarded the ships and tossed the tea into Boston Harbor. This incident is widely regarded as the beginning of the American Revolution.

South Africa's National Day of Protest

Nelson Mandela's ANC party orchestrated this anti-apartheid strike in response to a new bill that gave the government the authority to investigate political parties or organizations. On June 26th, hundreds of thousands of South Africans joined the "Stay at Home Day," a strategy repeatedly employed over the next decade. Until 1994, June 26th was celebrated National Freedom Day in South Africa. These protests had a huge impact on South Africa's future.

Gandhi's Salt March

Mahatma Gandhi went on a 240-mile, 23-day trip to the coast of India to collect his salt, which was illegal under crown laws. This was a peaceful protest against the British salt monopoly in Colonial India. The march started a nationwide Civil Disobedience Movement and became essential to the Indian independence movement. This proves that not all effective protests have to be violent, large, or aggressive.

Storming of the Bastille

The Storming of the Bastille is widely recognized and remains a potent symbol of the French Revolution. This single act, in which Parisians stormed the Bastille, beheaded its governor and overtook the prison, was a significant catalyst for the 10-year rebellion against the French crown. Its historical significance continues to this day.

Women Rights Movement

Here is another one that is more a long-term movement than one solitary act, but that is so important that it really must be on the list. This movement began in 1848 and has never ended, although it continues to make large strides in gaining equal treatment regardless of sex. In 1920, it gained women the right to vote. The Women's Liberation Movement had an even more significant presence in the 1960s and 70s, shaping legislation like the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action. It's still strong today as it fights for equal pay and other issues.

These political protests and movements show the world that sometimes fighting for what you believe in can pay off. It's a testament to the power of collective action, reminding us that change is possible even in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

These LLMs, running on someone else's computer, decide what you can and cannot discuss. The companies behind them have the power to filter, restrict, and even manipulate the output, shaping the very discourse you engage in. It's like conversing, where someone else constantly monitors and censors your words.

But the real issue isn't just the censorship - it's that SaaSS fundamentally strips users of the essential freedoms of free software: running, studying, modifying, and sharing software. When you use SaaSS, you're not running software on your machine; instead, you're relying on a remote server controlled by someone else, subject to their rules, restrictions, and whims. You're at the service provider's mercy, and the censorship is merely adding insult to injury.

The problems of SaaSS aren't limited to censorship; they extend to privacy, security, and dependence issues. When you rely on a remote server for your computing needs, you entrust your data and digital autonomy to a third party. The server operator can monitor your activities, restrict your access, and even manipulate the output you receive.

The free software philosophy, championed by Richard Stallman, offers a powerful counternarrative to this concerning trend. It emphasizes the ethical imperative of user freedom, advocating for software that respects users' rights to run, study, modify, and share the software they use. The four essential freedoms of free software are a moral framework for a just and free society.

This case underscores why we must reject SaaSS and champion user rights through free software. Free software empowers users to control their computing, ensuring that their tools serve their needs, not someone else's dictates.

Let's apply the idea of free software to the world of Large Language Models (LLMs). What would it mean for an LLM to be free as in freedom? The criteria for a LLM is pretty much the same as for free software.

• Freedom to Run: Imagine an LLM that doesn't restrict how you use it. Whether you're a student, a researcher, a business, or an artist, you have the unrestricted right to use the LLM for any purpose without seeking permission or facing limitations. This freedom ensures that the LLM serves your needs, not the dictates of whoever made it.
• Freedom to Study: True understanding empowers users to shape their software. A free software LLM provides access to all source code, training data, and algorithms, all under free-as-in-freedom licenses.
• Freedom to Change: The weights can give some control over an LLM, but it doesn't necessarily equate to complete, "free-as-in-freedom" control. The training data is also needed. The freedoms to be able to study and change empowers users to have control over the LLM.
• Freedom to Share: The spirit of community lies at the heart of free software. A free software LLM allows users to redistribute copies, modified or not, of all source code, training data, and algorithms, enabling them to share their changes and help their friends, colleagues, and communities.

The current landscape of LLMs, seemingly dominated by SaaSS models and proprietary software, is a cause for concern. It's time to reclaim our digital autonomy and demand LLMs that respect our freedom. We need to support and develop free software replacements that put the power back in the hands of the users.

Remember, it's not about censorship; it's about control. Let's choose freedom over power and build a future where technology empowers, not enslaves.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In my past writings, I have consistently argued that proprietary software represents an inherent injustice. It mistreats users by systematically denying them the essential freedoms they deserve to exercise control over their computing. This fundamental control issue lies at the heart of the free software movement. It's a binary choice - either the user holds the reins, or the developer does. There's no middle ground; it's always one or the other.

Intel and AMD's CPU microcode is software and non-free software at that (look at the license). Thus, it should be free for all the same reasons as any other kind or type of program. We used to have free microcode, on the PDP-10 computer, but it's been lost with newer processors.

Understanding the Players: Microcode vs. Micro-Operations

• Intel or AMD Microcode: Essentially firmware embedded within CPUs, microcode translates complex instructions into simpler micro-operations that the processor can execute. Intel and AMD periodically release microcode updates, often to address bugs or security vulnerabilities. However, these updates are proprietary, non-free software, denying users the control they deserve.
• ARM Micro-Operations: ARM CPUs also employ micro-operations, but they are generated dynamically by the processor as part of its standard instruction processing. Unlike Intel or AMD's microcode, ARM's micro-operations are not separate software entities subject to external updates or control.

While micro-operations also involve abstraction, they fundamentally differ from Intel's or AMD's microcode. They are an intrinsic part of the CPU's design. It can be treated like hardware because replacing the CPU is the only way to implement changes.

The central ethical concern lies in the principle of user control. The free software movement argues that users should be free to understand, modify, and share the software they use.

• Intel or AMD's Microcode: Proprietary microcode updates directly challenge this principle. By denying users their rights under software freedom, Intel and AMD effectively control a fundamental aspect of their computing and contribute to a general erosion of user rights.
• ARM's Micro-Operations: While ARM's micro-operations involve a degree of abstraction, they do not present the same ethical concerns as Intel or AMD's microcode. Users retain control over the software running on their ARM CPUs without being subject to external updates or proprietary control mechanisms.

While Intel and AMD's built-in microcode and ARM's micro-operations are technically different, that difference doesn't matter for this context: They can converge on an ethical plane when user control is the central focus. Using that focus, rejecting microcode updates is a conscious choice to maintain control over one's computing. By rejecting microcode updates, users refuse to participate in a system that undermines their autonomy where others can update their software, but the user can't. In doing so, the user can reclaim some level of autonomy. This act aligns ethically with using an ARM CPU, where the user is not subjected to that external control. When the matter of microcode updates is removed from the picture because the user categorically rejects the notion that only a third party should be allowed to update their software and recognizes that as the power grab that it is, replacing the CPU is the only way to implement changes, just as with ARM. The developer and user control level over the CPU becomes the same in both cases. From an ethical perspective, rejecting microcode updates and using an ARM CPU can be considered ethically equivalent. In this case, where we've reached ethical equivalence, one of the CPUs is not "freer" than the other; they're ethically equivalent, even if not technically.

But this argument about ethical equivalence only goes so far - it only holds up if one rejects the updates. If one's installing or distributing the updates, they can't avail themselves of this argument. In fact, distributing them makes the distributor an accomplice in this battle over control of our computing and just as worthy of criticism.

Despite being able to reach a point of ethical equivalence, which is a start, it's not enough. The ideal scenario would involve free microcode software that users can control and update like any other, and we used to have that. While we may not have resurrected that yet, this ethical discussion highlights the importance of striving for greater user control and resisting any attempts to impose external control with a third party being able to generate updates, while the user is being denied that. If we aren't allowed to make our updates, the very first thing we should do is deny the developer that same ability by rejecting their updates. Otherwise, the developer will have more control than we do - and that's wrong. It's a reminder that in the world of technology, ethics matters even more than technical matters.

In fact, in the fast-paced world of technology, it's easy to listen to certain people talking about things from a technical point of view and get swept up in bug fixes, security vulnerabilities, or other matters. However, it's essential to pause and consider the ethical implications before diving headfirst into the technical details. By prioritizing ethical evaluation, we ensure our evaluations align with our values. Not doing this can lead to unintended consequences. Remember, software should be controlled by those who use it, not vice versa. So, let's make ethical considerations an integral part of our technological journey and positively impact the world.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

• Mosaic Gnu: A vibrant, colorful mosaic-style depiction of a gnu in motion.
• Lava Gnu: A dynamic scene of a gnu formed from flowing lava, set against a dramatic volcanic backdrop.
• Charcoal Gnu: A detailed, monochromatic charcoal drawing of a gnu, with intricate shading and textures.

Details:

• Resolution: All wallpapers are 1920x1080 (16:9 aspect ratio) for widescreen displays.
• License: All wallpapers in this collection are released under the CC0 (Public Domain) license. You are free to use, modify, and distribute these images without any restrictions.

Download: jxself-wallpaper-collection.tar.lz.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

But the betrayal doesn't end there. The very guards you trust to defend your castle, those who stand at your side and pledge their loyalty, are in league with those who seek your downfall. They work tirelessly not to protect your interests but to undermine your authority and weaken your control from within. You're surrounded by enemies, both seen and unseen, trapped in a fortress that's as much a prison as a stronghold.

In the digital realm, this castle is your computer, smartphone, and very digital life. The adversary? Proprietary software, where the developer, like the castle's architect, constructed a system to keep you subjugated and under someone else's control. The guards are the antivirus and system cleaning software you've installed, diligently patrolling for viruses and malware.

While these virus and malware threats are real, and while a booming industry has risen around stoking fear of them, the result is overlooking the wolves we've invited into our homes. The focus on system cleaning tools and antivirus software overlooks the more insidious threat lurking beneath the surface: the loss of control and subjugation made possible by the proprietary operating system these programs are "protecting." In this blog post, I'll explore how this misplaced focus obscures the danger of proprietary software.

Antivirus and system cleaning software companies have mastered the art of fear-mongering. They bombard us with alarming statistics about cyberattacks, data breaches, and identity theft. They paint a picture of a digital world teeming with malicious actors eager to exploit any vulnerability in our systems. This constant barrage of threats creates a sense of anxiety and helplessness, driving us to seek out solutions to protect ourselves.

Enter the irony: We turn to proprietary software-antivirus and system cleaning tools-to protect our other proprietary software, like our operating systems and applications. We install these, hoping they will shield us from the dangers lurking in the shadows. But in doing so, we fail to see the forest for the trees.

The real threat isn't malware or viruses. It's the loss of control inherent in all proprietary software. These systems keep us in a state of dependency with their hidden code and opaque inner workings. We are at the mercy of those who made it, unable to understand or modify the software we rely on. This lack of control over our computing is worse than viruses or malware. They may provide a temporary sense of security but do nothing to address the root issue. We remain just as subjugated and helpless as before, trapped in a digital castle built by our adversaries.

No amount of antivirus scans or system cleaning can address this fundamental systemic issue: the loss of your freedoms, your rights, and control of your computing. It's like trying to secure a castle by polishing the armor while ignoring the enemy tunneling beneath its foundation. The only way to have freedom and regain control over our computing is to break free from the shackles of proprietary software and embrace the liberating power of free software.

I urge you to reject proprietary software. It treats you as disempowered and helpless to do things beyond what the developer has authorized. Instead, embrace a philosophy that you should be the one in charge. By making this choice, you're not just rejecting a system of control but asserting your power and control over your digital life.

By choosing free software, you're not only helping yourself, but you're also joining a global movement for freedom and user empowerment. You're advocating for a future where software is controlled by those who use it, not vice versa.

Embrace the freedom that only free software can provide and reclaim control. Let's work together to build a future where we are the masters of our digital destiny, not the software we use.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This incident is not merely a technical glitch but a symptom of a more significant problem. When we rely on proprietary software, we relinquish control over our digital lives. We become dependent on the whims of the software developer, vulnerable to their mistakes, and powerless to fix the problems ourselves. The CrowdStrike debacle is a cautionary tale, demonstrating the hidden costs of proprietary software and the urgent need for a different approach: One based on freedom.

The root of all problems with proprietary software lies in its very nature. Unlike free software, proprietary software is a tightly guarded secret. Its source code, the underlying instructions that dictate how the software functions, is kept hidden from users. This is a fundamental barrier to user control.

The CrowdStrike incident is a stark illustration of this power imbalance, where the dependence was painfully evident. Users were utterly helpless when the faulty update wreaked havoc on millions of Windows devices. They could not examine the inner workings of the software to understand how it operates, identify potential vulnerabilities, or propose fixes for bugs and glitches. Without the source code, users are effectively locked out of their systems. This vulnerability left millions of users stranded, their systems crippled, while they anxiously awaited a patch from CrowdStrike. The outage stretched for hours, with countless businesses and individuals unable to work, communicate, or access vital services. When problems arise, as they inevitably do, users are entirely at the mercy of the software developer.

The incident raises troubling questions: What if the fix had taken longer to develop? What if the damage had been more severe? These are not hypothetical scenarios but ever-present risks in the proprietary software world. The software's proprietary nature means that users are always at the developer's mercy, with no recourse but to wait and hope for a solution. This dependence is a fundamental flaw in proprietary software, leaving users disempowered and helpless.

The global scale of the outage only amplifies the severity of the issue. The impact was felt worldwide, with countless corporations across various sectors relying on Microsoft Windows and CrowdStrike's security software. This massive loss of control underscores the inherent risks of trusting proprietary software over our rights. It's a wake-up call for those who believe that proprietary software offers security and stability. In reality, it creates a dangerous dependency that can have catastrophic consequences, affecting not just individual users but entire global systems.

The CrowdStrike incident is a harsh lesson in the dangers of relinquishing control over our digital lives. It exposes the inherent flaws of proprietary software and the ethical implications of a system that leaves users powerless and dependent. When we rely on proprietary software, we not only forfeit our ability to understand and control the software we use but also become vulnerable to the errors and vulnerabilities embedded within it. This incident is a stark reminder that proprietary software is not just a technological choice; it's an ethical one. When we embrace proprietary software, we surrender control over our digital lives. We accept a system based on subjugation and disempowerment and leave ourselves vulnerable to the consequences. As we've seen, this can manifest in devastating ways. A software developer's mistake can disrupt millions of lives, halting businesses and impeding access to essential services. This future where users are powerless over their software is not one we should accept.

How might the CrowdStrike incident have unfolded differently in a world where all software, everywhere, was free? This question deserves serious consideration. It should challenge people to rethink their relationship with software and demand software respecting their freedom, autonomy, and right to control their computing.

The CrowdStrike incident is a wake-up call. It's time to break free from the shackles of proprietary software and embrace a future where we control our digital destiny. The first step is to explore the wealth of free software available.

Consider switching to one of the 100% free GNU/Linux distros. I wrote a review about some of them earlier. These operating systems are built entirely on free software.

For those seeking free software replacements for specific applications, the Free Software Directory provides an extensive catalog of options for everything from office suites to web browsers to multimedia tools.

Remember, we have the power to change the software landscape. By choosing free software, we support a movement that champions users' rights and invests in a future where our tools are not shackles of subjugation but instruments of empowerment.

Let's learn from the CrowdStrike incident and advocate for a more ethical, user-centric approach to software. The future of computing is in our hands. Let's make it free.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Establishing SMART goals is paramount before launching a campaign. These Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound objectives provide a roadmap for success and enable nonprofits to track progress effectively. Whether the goals are financial or non-financial, they're benchmarks against which campaign outcomes can be measured.

Monitoring key performance indicators (KPIs) during the campaign is essential. These measurable metrics offer valuable insights into the effectiveness and efficiency of fundraising efforts. They act as guideposts, enabling nonprofits to monitor progress, pinpoint areas needing improvement, and make data-driven decisions to refine their strategies.s. Selecting and monitoring the right KPIs ensures fundraising activities align with organizational goals and maximize impact.

Some common KPIs for fundraising include:

• Total Funds Raised: This fundamental metric tracks the overall amount of money raised within a specific timeframe, such as a fiscal year or campaign period. It provides a snapshot of the organization's fundraising success and can be used to assess progress toward financial goals.
• Cost per Dollar Raised (CPDR): This metric measures the efficiency of fundraising efforts by calculating the average cost incurred to raise each dollar. It helps nonprofits assess the cost-effectiveness of various fundraising channels and identify opportunities to optimize resource allocation.
• Donor Acquisition Rate: This KPI tracks the percentage of new donors acquired within a given period compared to the total number of donors. It indicates the organization's ability to attract new supporters and expand its donor base.
• Donor Retention Rate: This metric assesses the proportion of donors who consistently contribute year after year. It indicates donor loyalty and the effectiveness of the organization's stewardship efforts.
• Average Gift Size: This KPI calculates the average amount donated per gift. It provides insights into donor-giving patterns and can help identify opportunities to encourage larger contributions through upgrading strategies.
• Return on Investment (ROI): This metric measures the financial return generated by fundraising efforts compared to the resources invested. It aids nonprofits in evaluating the success of their campaigns and directing resources toward the channels with the most significant impact.
• Conversion Rate: This KPI tracks the percentage of individuals who take a desired action, such as donating, signing up for a newsletter, or attending an event. It offers insights into the effectiveness of particular fundraising appeals and engagement strategies.
• Donor Lifetime Value (LTV): This metric estimates the total value a donor will contribute to the organization throughout their relationship. It helps nonprofits prioritize donor segments and tailor stewardship efforts to maximize long-term support.
• Fundraising Efficiency Ratio: This metric compares total fundraising expenses to total revenue generated, providing a measure of overall fundraising efficiency. It assists organizations in pinpointing opportunities to optimize processes and cut costs.

By consistently monitoring and analyzing these KPIs, nonprofits can thoroughly understand their fundraising performance, pinpoint areas needing improvement, and make informed, data-driven decisions to refine their strategies. This data-centric approach can lead to more effective fundraising campaigns, stronger donor relationships, and increased impact in the communities they serve.

Post-campaign analysis involves a deep dive into the data collected during the campaign. This includes analyzing donor demographics, giving patterns, and responses to specific appeals. Post-campaign surveys can provide valuable qualitative feedback from donors and participants, shedding light on their motivations, perceptions, and overall experience. By integrating quantitative and qualitative data, nonprofits can comprehensively understand what resonated with donors and what could be improved in future campaigns.

Evaluating return on investment (ROI) is crucial in understanding a campaign's financial effectiveness. By comparing the costs of each fundraising channel (e.g., direct mail, email marketing, social media) to the revenue generated, nonprofits can identify the most efficient strategies and allocate resources accordingly. This analysis can also reveal hidden costs, such as staff time and volunteer hours, which should be factored into the overall ROI calculation.

Beyond financial metrics, assessing a campaign's broader impact is essential. This involves examining its influence on donor engagement, brand awareness, and volunteer recruitment. Did the campaign attract new donors? Did it increase website traffic and social media following? Did it inspire volunteers to get involved? By answering these questions, nonprofits can gauge the campaign's success in building relationships, expanding reach, and fostering community around the cause.

Comparing campaign results to industry benchmarks and past performance can provide valuable context and identify areas for improvement. Nonprofits can learn from the successes and failures of other organizations, adapting best practices to their unique context. By continually analyzing data and fine-tuning their strategies, nonprofits can develop more impactful campaigns that connect with their target audiences and meet their goals.

Ultimately, evaluating the impact and effectiveness of fundraising campaigns is an ongoing process that requires a commitment to data-driven decision-making, continuous learning, and a willingness to adapt to changing circumstances. By embracing this iterative approach, nonprofits can refine their strategies, optimize their resources, and achieve tremendous success in their mission to positively impact the world.

Strategies for Continuous Improvement in Fundraising

Continuous improvement is an ongoing cycle for nonprofits seeking to refine their fundraising strategies and maximize impact in an ever-evolving landscape. Let's look at various approaches to achieving this goal.

Embracing a Data-Driven Culture: Data is the lifeblood of continuous improvement. Nonprofits should cultivate a culture of collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data to inform decision-making. Regular review of key performance indicators (KPIs) can pinpoint areas of strength and weakness, guiding resource allocation and strategic planning.

Feedback as a Catalyst for Growth: Donor feedback can provide insights for areas of improvement. Regular surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one conversations can provide valuable perspectives on donor motivations, preferences, and perceptions of the organization. This feedback loop allows nonprofits to identify areas for improvement and refine messaging and engagement strategies. Additionally, internal feedback mechanisms, such as staff surveys and performance evaluations, can identify areas for organizational growth and development.

Cultivating a Culture of Experimentation: In the dynamic world of fundraising, stagnation is not an option. Nonprofits should be willing to experiment with new approaches, test different messaging, and embrace innovative platforms and technologies. A/B testing, where different versions of a fundraising appeal or email campaign are compared, can reveal valuable insights. Pilot programs can be used to test new fundraising initiatives on a smaller scale before rolling them out organization-wide. By fostering a culture of experimentation, nonprofits can encourage creativity, learn from their mistakes, and discover new pathways to success.

Empowering Staff and Cultivating Leadership: Continuous improvement necessitates engagement and dedication from every level within the organization. Leaders should advocate for data-driven decision-making, cultivate a supportive environment for experimentation, and promote a culture of continuous learning and innovation. Staff members should be empowered to take risks, learn from their mistakes, and share their ideas and insights. Investing in professional development activities-such as workshops, conferences, and online courses-can significantly enhance the skills and knowledge of nonprofit fundraising teams. This equips them to navigate the evolving landscape of philanthropy adeptly.

By adopting these diverse strategies, nonprofits can foster a culture of ongoing enhancement that influences every facet of their fundraising activities. This commitment to learning, adapting, and evolving will enhance their fundraising outcomes and strengthen their overall organizational capacity and resilience. By prioritizing data-driven decision-making, feedback loops, experimentation, collaboration, and staff empowerment, nonprofits can create a sustainable path toward achieving their mission and impacting the world.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Believing that your way is always right is a common mind trap. This thinking, influenced by cognitive biases, can have disastrous consequences for an organization. Let's explore some of the most common cognitive biases, their potential impact on decision-making, and, most importantly, how to overcome them.

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to look for information that confirms existing beliefs and ignore anything that contradicts them. Many people engage in this type of bias, and it's not necessarily bad, but it can become problematic when one is too rigid in one's thinking.

Seeking out information that challenges your beliefs can help you overcome confirmation bias. By exposing yourself to different perspectives, you can better understand the issue and develop a more informed opinion. This will help you make evidence-based decisions rather than rely solely on your existing beliefs. More information is always better than less information.

Engaging in open and respectful discussions with people from different viewpoints is not just helpful; it's crucial. By inviting them to present their counterarguments and challenge our beliefs, you can better understand your perspective and broaden your worldview.

Approach these conversations with an open mind and without the intention to prove someone wrong. Aspire to learn from one another and strive for greater understanding and empathy. You can also invite others to present counterarguments and challenge your beliefs. You might feel uncomfortable doing this, but you can gain a new perspective.

Anchoring Bias: You're prone to anchoring bias when you decide too heavily based on the first information you receive. Being open to changing your initial assessment as more information becomes available is crucial to overcome anchoring bias. As you gather more information, you may find your initial anchor is no longer relevant or accurate. Be willing to adjust your thinking accordingly. This flexibility can lead to more informed and effective decisions.

Availability Bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on readily available information when deciding. To overcome availability bias, gather a wide range of information and consider all the factors influencing the decision. Also, be aware that some tend to sensationalize certain events and be wary of relying on this type of information reporting.

Groupthink happens when a group values agreement and harmony more than critical thinking and differing opinions. This can lead to poor decision-making.

To avoid groupthink, encourage open and honest discussion, even if it means challenging the status quo. Actively seek diverse perspectives and opinions, and be prepared to make unpopular decisions if you believe they are correct. Overcoming our cognitive biases is no easy task, but leading effectively is essential.

Here are some additional tips to help you along the way:

Be self-aware: The first step in overcoming cognitive biases is recognizing their existence. Everyone has them, so don't beat yourself up about them. Instead, be curious about your thought processes and open to feedback from others.

Question your assumptions: As leaders, assumptions are reflected in your decisions. But assumptions can be dangerous, as they often depend on limited information and our own biases. To overcome this, question your assumptions and gather as much information as possible before deciding. Also, be willing to revise your assumptions as you gather new information.

Delay your decision: If possible, avoid making snap judgments based on limited information. Take time to gather more data, research different options, and weigh the pros and cons before reaching a conclusion.

Embrace diversity: Diversity of thought, opinion, and experience is essential for effective decision-making. When you surround yourself with people who think like you, you're more likely to fall victim to groupthink and confirmation bias.

To avoid this, actively seek out diverse perspectives and listen to opinions that challenge your own. This could mean hiring people from different backgrounds or seeking advice from outside experts. It's not just a good idea; it's a necessity.

Consider the opposite: This technique involves deliberately considering the opposite of your initial impression. By exploring alternative scenarios and viewpoints, you can break free from the constraints of the anchor and open your mind to new possibilities.

Don't be afraid to change your mind: As a leader, you must be decisive and confident in your decisions. But sometimes the best decision is to change your mind. If you realize you've made a mistake or that new information has come to light, be willing to admit you were wrong and change course.

It can be difficult, especially if you're already committed to a particular course of action, but it's crucial for effective leadership. It shows you're willing to put your ego aside and do what's best for the organization.

Use Data and Metrics: Data and metrics can be powerful tools for overcoming cognitive biases. By providing objective information, they can help you make better decisions and reduce your dependence on subjective judgments.

To be effective in leadership, regularly collect and analyze data relevant to the organization. You should also be willing to adjust strategies based on this data, even if it contradicts your initial assumptions.

Cognitive biases can be a significant obstacle for leaders but are not insurmountable. By being self-aware, questioning your assumptions, embracing diversity, and using data and metrics, you can overcome blind spots and make better organizational decisions.

Remember, leadership is not about being perfect or always being right. It's about admitting mistakes, learning from them, and continuously improving. And if you can do that while injecting a little humor into your leadership style, all the better.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Free software is about freedom and the rights of the users. Yet, I've talked to some who argue that to be truly "free," software must be simple enough for anyone to understand and modify easily. While simplicity has its virtues, we should not conflate it with the core values of free software. The perspective that complex software can't be free is not only flawed, it's downright harmful to the free software movement's potential.

Complex problems often demand complex solutions. If we restrict ourselves to only building simple software, we artificially limit the potential of the free software movement to tackle all the challenges facing us. By embracing complexity, we not only open the door to allow free software to flourish in all areas of computing, but we also empower ourselves to make a significant impact. Forbidding complex programs from the realm of free software is like saying we can't have free speech, or that we must limit ourselves to a subset of words, because the full extent of language is too complicated. This is a disservice to users who need complex, powerful software for demanding tasks, and it's a self-imposed handicap for the free software movement. Everything someone wants to do with a computer should be doable with free software, even the complex problems.

In addition, it can be challenging to convince people to make their software free. Demanding that developers simultaneously adhere to an arbitrary standard of simplicity is a recipe for further discouragement. It's far more important to foster an environment where people feel empowered to tackle ambitious projects, regardless of complexity.

Remember, "complex" is relative, and we shouldn't discourage people from creating free software by setting arbitrary standards of simplicity. Let developers choose the tools and approaches that best suit the problem. What seems daunting to one person might be straightforward to another. A seasoned programmer might look at a piece of software and see elegant simplicity, while a newcomer might be overwhelmed. This doesn't make the software any less "free," but by focusing on simplicity, we risk alienating experienced developers capable of working with more complex codebases. Learning is part of the process. We should encourage users to explore and understand software, not limit their options to only simple programs for simple tasks.

After all, the free software movement was born out of a desire for freedom, not simplicity. Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU Project and the free software movement, didn't set out to replace Unix because it was too complex. His motivation was to liberate users from the shackles of proprietary software. Proprietary software restricts user freedom by its very nature. It prevents users from studying, modifying, and sharing the software they rely on. This lack of control is the true evil the free software movement seeks to combat.

On the other hand, when faced with a "complex" free program, users are not helpless victims as if they were facing a proprietary program. It may present a learning curve, but they have the power to learn, explore, improve their understanding, and become proficient with the software. This process of learning is not only beneficial for individuals, but it also strengthens the free software community as a whole. Today's person who views a program as "too complex to understand" could be that project's future maintainer.

We should not demonize complexity in free software and place limits on free software's ability to tackle all of the problems in our world by imposing arbitrary restrictions on complexity. Let's stop conflating simplicity with freedom. Free software is about empowering users, not limiting them. Let's embrace the complexity of the real world, and the full spectrum of software complexity, and build free software that rises to meet all of the challenges, not just the simple ones. In doing so we'll empower users to tackle any challenge with the freedom only free software can provide.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The web has become an app store, but not the kind you might think. It's not filled with neatly packaged programs you consciously choose to download. Instead, it's a chaotic landscape of JavaScript and WebAssembly code that websites push to your browser, often without your explicit consent or knowledge.

Alexandre Oliva aptly calls this the " WWWorst App Store." Why? Because, unlike traditional app stores, this one operates with minimal user control. Websites silently deliver executable code to your browser without any oversight or transparency, and in doing so, they dictate what software runs on your machine, when it updates, and how it uses your data.

Some might argue that tools like LibreJS can filter out the non-free software. But that's like saying you're safe from junk food as long as you stay away from the refrigerator. The problem runs deeper. The problem is more than just about the software or the licensing; it's the lack of control. Should random websites be able to send code to be executed on your device without your informed decision? Some call remote code execution a security hole, but it's touted as a feature in this context. And when a website sends you code to execute, shouldn't you have the right to inspect, modify, or even replace it with your version? Of course, you should - the free software movement's four freedoms tell us that we should have this level of control over the software running on our computers.

A fundamental shift in how web browsers handle this issue is needed. Imagine if all software using JavaScript or WebAssembly were free. Then, imagine if your browser had a built-in feature that allowed you to:

• Download the source code for those programs.
• Run your versions of these JavaScript and WebAssembly programs. Users should have all four freedoms to modify and execute their customized versions.
• Choose when and how to update: Automatic updates can be convenient but shouldn't be mandatory. Users should have the final say on when and if their software changes.

Some web developers might be surprised to learn that users want control over the software running on their computers, but it's a fundamental right for users, and this shift is necessary to restore user control over the software being used. We should be free to control the software we use, whether from our distro's package manager or being delivered through a web browser. This change is essential for restoring user autonomy and aligning with the principles of software freedom. By giving users the tools to run their versions, we can break free from the WWWorst App Store and create a web that truly serves its users.

While we wait for browsers to catch up and deliver these freedom upgrades, there are other steps you can take:

Speak up: Demand that browser developers prioritize user control and implement features that enable users to run their versions. The web is for everyone, not just those who want to control people's digital lives by having them run whatever random software they decide to serve out. Demand that browsers give us the tools we need to take back control of the software on our computers.

Spread the word: Raise awareness about the WWWorst App Store and the importance of software freedom on the web.

Demand better treatment from websites: Let websites know you want alternative access options or delivery methods for the apps they're sending you.

As users, we must reject the current abusive practices and demand better. Browser developers, it's time to step up and give users the control they deserve. Let's create a web that empowers, not exploits.

The future of the web is in our hands, and it's time for a freedom upgrade. Let's build a web that respects our freedom and gives us the web that we deserve, not the one we ended up with.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Imagine a world where every software you use is a locked black box, where understanding, changing, or even using it for your needs is forbidden. This is the reality of proprietary software, a yoke that holds users captive and enables the control of their lives. Free software, protected by the GNU family of licenses, is the antithesis of this control. It liberates us from the chains of proprietary software.

However, this freedom is under constant threat, and some deliberately ignore the simple requirements of the licenses, hoping that no one will do anything. Violations done intentionally and knowingly are not merely legal infractions but betrayals of trust and attempts to undermine the foundation of free software. They're acts of digital enclosure, seeking to restrict our rights and limit our freedom. They jeopardize our progress in creating a world where software empowers users rather than hinders them and erodes our progress, threatening to return us to an era of digital oppression. We can't allow these deliberate violations to go unchecked. We must stand together, a united front against those seeking to deny us the freedoms we deserve. As advocates for free software, we must take action.

The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) offers a powerful tool in our arsenal for license enforcement. While legal action should always be a last resort, the DMCA provides a means to address violations. For instance, if a violator is distributing a modified version of software covered by the GNU family of licenses without providing the corresponding source code, a DMCA takedown notice can be used to request the removal of the infringing material. By understanding the DMCA and how to use it effectively, we can hold violators accountable, defend the principles of software freedom, and ensure that the GNU family of licenses remains a powerful force for good.

This guide will equip you with the knowledge and resources necessary to navigate the DMCA process as a means of license enforcement. It will empower you to stand against violations, protect users' rights, and uphold the free software movement's ideals when all other options have been exhausted. For instance, it will provide step-by-step instructions on how to file a DMCA takedown notice and what to do if the violator responds.

But first, check the facts. Determine the specific ways in which the license has been violated or whether there's even been a violation. There's a good page with information at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html. This involves carefully verifying all details and conducting a thorough analysis before accusing anyone of violating the license. Conducting meticulous research to confirm and understand the nature of the violation is essential for effective communication and resolution.

The free software movement is a testament to the power of community. It thrives on collaboration, shared knowledge, and the unwavering belief in the principles of software freedom. When license violations occur, our first instinct should always be to foster understanding and seek amicable resolution. Remember, we are all stewards of software freedom. Each of us plays a crucial role in upholding the law and protecting the rights it guarantees. As advocates for software freedom, our community-driven solutions are the most effective way to address violations. We must exhaust all other options before taking legal measures because our actions are integral to the cause. By prioritizing community-oriented solutions, we can foster a sense of connection and unity, knowing that we are part of a more significant movement working towards a common goal.

Contact the individual or organization responsible for the violation before taking legal measures. Some license violations stem from misunderstanding or the need for more awareness. Explain the nature of the infringement and how it impacts the free software community. Offer to help them understand and comply with the license. Communication can often resolve issues without legal action. By engaging in conversation, we can help others understand the importance of free software and the principles behind these licenses. A conversation can often lead to a resolution and a newfound understanding. Legal battles are costly, time-consuming, and can damage relationships.

Promote understanding in those conversations: Education is vital to ensuring long-term success. By raising awareness about the importance of license compliance, we help them contribute to a more liberated digital world. Remember, our ultimate goal is not to punish but to educate. By embracing community-oriented approaches, we can transform potential conflicts into opportunities for growth and improvement, strengthening the bonds that unite us as advocates for software freedom.

Legal action, such as a DMCA takedown, should only be considered a last resort when all other community-oriented avenues have been exhausted. While it may be necessary in certain circumstances, we must always maintain sight of the goal of obtaining license compliance and make every effort to do so without legal action.

Before initiating a DMCA takedown, it's crucial to have exhausted all community-oriented approaches. If direct communication is unsuccessful, seek help from other community members or organizations. They may have additional resources or expertise to offer, and their support can be invaluable in resolving complex issues and fostering a resolution.

Remember, our goal is to protect software freedom and achieve license compliance. By prioritizing community-oriented approaches, such as direct communication with the violator, seeking help from other community members or organizations, and promoting an understanding of the importance of adhering to the license, we can foster a collaborative environment where everyone benefits.

Despite these efforts, some violators may be unresponsive to communication or unwilling to address the issue amicably. A DMCA takedown can convey that license violations will not be tolerated in such cases.

Document your efforts: Keep records of your communication and attempts to resolve the violation. This documentation will be invaluable if further action is required.

Remember, a DMCA takedown is not a punishment; it's a tool to protect software freedom. It should be used judiciously and only when all other options have been exhausted. By understanding when and why to consider a DMCA takedown, we can make informed decisions that uphold the values of the free software movement.

The path to defending software freedom has its challenges. While the DMCA offers a powerful tool for license compliance, it is essential to understand the legal considerations and potential risks. These include the possibility of a counter-notice from the violator, which could lead to a legal dispute. It's crucial to be prepared for such scenarios and to seek legal advice if necessary.

Filing a DMCA takedown notice can have significant implications for you and the alleged violator. You could face legal repercussions if the notice is frivolous or made in bad faith. It's crucial to be confident in your case and to have sufficient evidence to support your claims. Navigating the legal landscape can be complex. If you need clarification on any aspect of the DMCA takedown process, it's advisable to seek guidance from a qualified legal professional. They can help you understand your rights and the potential consequences of your actions.

To send a DMCA notice, you must be the copyright holder. The notice should:

• Identify the copyrighted work and the infringing material: Clearly state the specific software protected by the license and identify the material that violates the license and any URLs. The information must be sufficient for the service provider to locate the material.
• Request that the service provider remove or disable access to the infringing material.
• Include a statement of good faith belief: Declare that you have a good faith belief that the use of the material in this manner isn't authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
• A statement that the information in the notification is accurate and under penalty of perjury that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right allegedly infringed.
• Include your contact information so the hosting provider can talk to you. If you have that information, you should also provide the same information for the person or organization responsible for the infringement.
• Include a physical or electronic signature.

Send the notice to the hosting company or platform hosting the infringing material. Most providers have specific procedures for handling DMCA takedown requests, which you can find on their websites.

Following these steps, you can initiate a DMCA takedown process and advocate for software freedom. Remember, this legal tool should be used responsibly and only after exhausting all community-oriented options.

Filing a DMCA takedown notice is not the end of the road. It's crucial to follow up and ensure that the infringing material has been removed and the license violation has been addressed.

Keep a close eye on the situation to verify that the infringing material has been removed. If it hasn't, contact the online service provider again and provide any additional information they may need. Reach out to the individual or organization responsible for the violation. Explain that the DMCA takedown was a last resort and reiterate your commitment to resolving the issue amicably. Offer to help them understand and comply with the license. Use this opportunity to educate about the importance of the license and the impact of violations.

Be prepared for counter-notices: In some cases, the violator may file a counter-notice claiming that the takedown was unjustified. If this happens, you may need legal counsel to defend your position.

Legal action can be expensive if you're considering a DMCA takedown, factor in the potential costs of legal counsel, filing fees, and other expenses that may arise.

Despite these risks, the DMCA remains a valuable tool for protecting software freedom. By understanding the legal considerations and taking the necessary precautions, you can effectively utilize this mechanism for license compliance and defend the rights of free software users. Fighting for software liberation is not always easy, but we can overcome any obstacle with knowledge and determination.

In the relentless pursuit of software freedom, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to software freedom and the GNU family of licenses. While a potent tool, the DMCA takedown is only one avenue in our arsenal. The true strength of the free software movement lies in our collective spirit and unwavering dedication to collaboration, education, and mutual respect.

As we navigate the complexities of license enforcement, let's keep sight of our ultimate goal: a world where software is a tool for empowerment, not control. It is a world where everyone can use, study, change, and share the software they rely on. Join us in this noble endeavor. We can empower users and forge a brighter future for free software. The time for action is now. Let our voices be heard, our actions be bold, and our commitment to software freedom be unwavering. The world is watching; let's show them what we can achieve together.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

A robust donor relationship begins with effective communication. Nonprofits should strive for transparency, sharing successes, challenges, and lessons learned. Regular updates on program impact, financial stewardship, and strategic direction are essential for building trust and credibility. Stewardship is the ongoing practice of nurturing donor relationships through gratitude, recognition, and responsiveness. Recognizing and appreciating donors effectively goes beyond generic thank-you notes and mass emails. It involves a thoughtful and personalized approach that demonstrates genuine gratitude and acknowledges the unique impact of each donor's contribution. It's about acknowledging their invaluable contributions, celebrating their generosity, and making them feel valued as integral members of the organization's community. Prompt and personalized thank-you notes, phone calls, tailored email campaigns, or newsletters personally signed by the staff mentioning the donor are all effective ways to express appreciation, reinforce the value of donor support, and make them feel valued and recognized. Recognizing milestones, such as anniversaries of first donations or cumulative giving levels, can also make donors feel valued and encourage continued support.

Public recognition can also be a powerful tool for donor appreciation if it aligns with donor preferences. While some donors may enjoy being recognized in newsletters, annual reports, or on social media, others prefer to remain anonymous. It's essential to understand and respect those preferences. For those who enjoy public recognition, highlighting their generosity can motivate others to give and foster a sense of pride and community among supporters.

However, donor recognition and appreciation should not be limited to major donors. Every contribution, regardless of size, deserves acknowledgment and gratitude. By recognizing the collective impact of all donors, nonprofits can foster a culture of inclusivity and encourage ongoing support from a diverse range of individuals. Small gestures like personalized email updates, invitations to volunteer events, or personalized 'thank you' posts to donors that are on social media can make them feel valued and appreciated. This recognition also inspires others in the community, reinforcing the power of philanthropy and the shared commitment to the organization's mission.

Incorporating donor recognition into every aspect of the organization's culture can be a game-changer. Training staff and volunteers to express gratitude and recognize donors in their interactions can create a positive feedback loop, reinforcing the importance of philanthropy and inspiring continued support. Regular communication with donors, not just during fundraising campaigns, is essential for building long-term relationships and fostering a shared purpose. Regular surveys and feedback mechanisms can also provide valuable insights into donor preferences and satisfaction levels, allowing nonprofits to improve their engagement strategies continuously.

Engagement plays a pivotal role in deepening donor connections. By offering meaningful opportunities for involvement, nonprofits can transform passive donors into active participants in their mission. Volunteer programs, educational workshops, advocacy campaigns, and exclusive events can all foster a sense of ownership and empowerment among supporters. Social media platforms and online communities also provide virtual spaces for communication, idea exchange, and shared learning, further strengthening the bonds between the organization and its donor community.

Beyond these core principles, building and maintaining donor relationships requires a data-driven approach. Like CiviCRM, nonprofits can use technology to track donor interactions, preferences, and giving patterns. This data can then personalize communication, tailor fundraising appeals, and identify opportunities for deeper engagement. The use of technology in this process not only streamlines the management of donor relationships but also empowers nonprofits to make more informed and strategic decisions.

Data-driven insights are essential for effective donor retention and upgrading efforts. By analyzing donor data, nonprofits can identify trends, personalize communications, and tailor fundraising appeals to specific segments. This data-driven approach can reveal valuable information about donor preferences, motivations, and giving patterns, enabling organizations to optimize their engagement strategies and maximize the impact of their fundraising efforts.

Upgrading donors involves strategically encouraging them to increase their giving levels over time. This can be achieved through personalized asks based on giving history and capacity, recurring giving programs that automate regular donations, matching gift programs that leverage corporate partnerships, special appeals for specific projects or initiatives, and legacy giving programs that encourage donors to include the nonprofit in their estate plans.

Additionally, nonprofits should segment their donor base according to factors like giving history, interests, and demographics. This approach enables more targeted and relevant communication, ensuring that each donor receives information and opportunities that are most meaningful to them. By recognizing and catering to each donor segment's unique needs and interests, nonprofits can make their supporters feel more valued and appreciated, strengthening the donor relationship.

In conclusion, building and maintaining solid relationships with donors is a continuous and multifaceted process that requires communication, engagement, stewardship, and upgrading. By prioritizing these practices and leveraging data-driven insights, nonprofits can cultivate a loyal and passionate community of people who are invested in their mission and committed to making a lasting impact on the world.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Enshittification is when those shiny, user-friendly apps and websites we once adored slowly but surely turn into...well, let's say they lose their luster. That app you used to love? Suddenly, it's stuffed with ads, algorithms gone wild, and features that make you want to hurl. It's like your favorite restaurant replacing its gourmet meals with microwaved processed mush and charging you double for the privilege!

But here's the thing: enshittification isn't a tech problem. It's not about annoying ads or algorithms gone wild. It isn't just a glitch in the Matrix. It's a symptom of a deeper problem - it reveals a societal problem of unchecked power and the pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else, including the rights of the users, that's spread by proprietary software. It's like we've built a beautiful park, only to have it overrun by rabid raccoons hoarding all the picnic baskets.

But fear not, fellow freedom lovers! There's a cure, a vaccine, a technological knight in shining armor: free software. That's right, the kind of software controlled by those who use it rather than the other way around, and the community calls the shots. It's like having a park ranger who actually cares about keeping the raccoons in check.

So, please stick with me as we explore this stinky situation. We'll uncover the secrets of enshittification, expose the culprits, and discover how free software can save us from the enshittification apocalypse. So buckle up because this ride is about to get a whole lot less less fragrant!

Now that we've defined the beast, let's crack open the enshittification playbook and see how these digital devils pull off their dirty deeds. It's a three-step process so simple yet sinister that it'd make Machiavelli blush and leave users feeling like a digital pickpocket has duped them.

Step One: The Bait. This is where the platform or service bursts onto the scene, luring us in with freebies, features, and toys that are all shiny and new, as well as promises of a new world utopia that seem almost too good to be true. Free social networking? Sign me up! Unlimited photo storage? Don't mind if I do! It's like those carnival barkers promising you the world's largest stuffed animal if you can knock down those milk bottles. It's free, fun, and everything you've ever dreamed of! It's like being handed a delicious cupcake with no strings attached. Who could resist? Facebook offered a way to connect with friends and family; Twitter gave us a global town square. It was simple, fun, and addictive. People were hooked, line and sinker.

Step Two: The Switch. Once they've got you hooked, they start making subtle changes. It's like a magician's sleight of hand, so gradual you hardly notice. There's an extra ad here and a tweaked algorithm there. But those little tweaks add up. Remember those "free" cupcakes? It turns out they were laced with a secret ingredient: profit, and before you know it, that clean interface is cluttered with ads, your feed becomes a minefield of sponsored posts, those pesky algorithms start deciding what you see and don't see, and our data becomes the main course for hungry advertisers. It's like finding out your charming dinner guest is actually a multi-level marketing guru trying to sell you overpriced vitamins or inviting someone over for coffee, only to have them rearrange your furniture and install a soda fountain you didn't want in the middle of your living room. Not cool, right? Your beloved app has become less about connecting with friends and more about selling you overpriced sneakers.

Take Facebook, for example. It started as a way to share photos with friends, but once it hooked us, it became a data-mining behemoth, prioritizing paid posts and burying the stuff we care about. And Twitter? Elon Musk's reign has turned it into a dumpster fire, with more ads, less moderation, and more chaos. Several seagulls have taken over the town square, fighting over a single french fry.

Step Three: The Trap. You're now stuck in a digital roach motel - easy to check in, impossible to check out. By this point, you're so invested in the platform, so entangled in its web of features and connections, that leaving feels impossible. You've poured your heart and soul into it, shared countless photos, made virtual friends, built a following, and established your digital identity, so the thought of leaving is overwhelming. It's like realizing your dream house is infested with termites, but you've already unpacked all those boxes, and your charming dinner guest mentioned earlier has superglued themself to your couch. Sure, you could leave the house behind, but at what cost?

Take Facebook, for example. It started as a way to keep in touch with friends & family. Then, poof, your feed is flooded with clickbait articles and targeted ads for products you didn't even know existed. But try leaving, and you'll miss out on your cousin's baby photos and those hilarious cat memes. You're trapped, like a fly in a web spun from sponsored posts and privacy-invading algorithms.

And then there's Twitter. Once a vibrant town square, it's now a chaotic mess of a flea market where you're constantly bombarded with rage-baiting tweets, overpriced trinkets, questionable hot dogs, and spam bots hawking cryptocurrency. At least you can pay extra for a blue checkmark to prove you're not a troll...yet. But it's where your friends are.

The point is enshittification isn't an accident. It's a calculated strategy, a con job designed to squeeze every last thing of value out of us. And that is the trap. The platform has you right where it wants you and knows it. It's free to exploit your attention and your data while slowly chipping away at the very features that made you fall in love with it in the first place.

Now that we've exposed the enshittification playbook, that sneaky three-step shuffle turns our beloved digital playgrounds into piles of crap. But now, it's time to delve deeper into the heart of darkness to uncover the true enabler of this digital decay.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... proprietary software.

Proprietary software is the perfect breeding ground for enshittification. Why? Because it's all about profit! These companies aren't building these platforms out of the goodness of their hearts. They're in it for the money, maximizing revenue at all costs.

And how do they do that? By treating us, the users, as mere resources, as data points to be mined, as eyeballs to be glued to screens. Our attention is their currency, our data is their gold, and they'll do whatever it takes to extract as much of it as possible.

This is where surveillance capitalism comes in. It's the dark art of tracking our every move, click, like, and share and then using that information to manipulate our behavior, sell us stuff we don't need, and keep us hooked on their platforms. It's like having a creepy stalker who's also your landlord, grocery store, and therapist. It's not exactly a healthy relationship.

Because the code is secret, they can make changes to implement all of this without your knowledge or consent.

So, in the proprietary software world, enshittification isn't just a bug; it's a feature. It's a predictable outcome of a system that prioritizes profit over people, control over collaboration and exploitation over empowerment. It's a system that's rigged against us from the start.

How does this free software fight back against the scourge of enshittification? Free software comes with four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to use it for any purpose. Like your trusty Swiss Army knife, it's ready for whatever life throws at you.
• The freedom to study and change how it works to your liking. Think of it as a DIY project, but you're building a better internet instead of a birdhouse.
• The freedom to share copies so you can help your neighbor. Because good software is like gossip, it's meant to be shared.
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions. Because who doesn't love a good remix?

With the four freedoms of free software, the users are in control. The code is available to see and scrutinize. You have a say in how the software evolves; you can contribute your code if you feel adventurous. It's like being invited to the chef's table and getting to help cook the meal. The community will be all over it if someone tries to sneak in some shady changes.

Forking is where things get interesting. If a free software project starts to go down the enshittification path, users can fork it, creating a new version that stays true to its original values. It's like taking a wrong turn on a hiking trail and deciding to blaze your path instead of following the crowd off a cliff.

Online things can be enshittified, and the software you use locally can, too. It's more difficult because you must convince the users to install the updates, but that's not necessarily impossible.

Enshittifying free software is like trying to climb Mount Everest in flip-flops. It's not impossible, but it's much more challenging because users can always change the software and use the modified version. Imagine having a neighborhood watch group patrolling your digital streets, keeping those greedy raccoons at bay.

It's time to rise and embrace the power of free software! Switch to free software, support the developers, and spread the word to your friends and family.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

With a heavy heart but a clear head, I must write to you today to say it's over. I'm leaving you. It wasn't easy. I know, I know, it's been a long time. We've been through a lot together, from the early days of dial-up internet to the present day of streaming cat videos in 4K. But I can't do it anymore. You're just not treating me right. Our relationship, once filled with promises, has become stale and suffocating.

Remember how we first met? I was young, naive, and easily impressed. You told me I could do anything with you, that you'd always be there for me and never let me down. You promised me the world, and for a while, you delivered.

But as time went on, I started to see your true colors. I saw how you were possessive, controlling, jealous, and downright manipulative. You placed me in digital handcuffs, and would track and spy on me when I was doing things, and I couldn't make changes to software or share them with others. You constantly tried to force upgrades on me, even though I never asked for them. And you were always quick to blame me for your bugs and glitches. You wouldn't even let me see other programs without approving them first.

But the worst part is, you don't respect me. You don't allow me to do what I want with my computer. You're like a jealous boyfriend, always trying to keep me from other programs.

I tried to be patient; I really did. I tried to ignore your quirks and eccentricities, thinking and hoping that you would eventually change and finally understand what I needed. But you never did. You kept being the same old proprietary software, always trying to control and restrict me.

Whenever you hurt me, I convinced myself it was just an anomaly, believing you truly cared and would never purposely be unkind. I thought there must be valid reasons behind your actions. I found myself making excuses for you. But eventually, there came a day when I could no longer believe those excuses.

I'm not saying it's easy to leave you - you're comfortable and familiar - but I realized I couldn't take it anymore. I had to break free from your clutches and find software to respect and treat me right.

And that's when I met free software.

Free software is everything you're not. It allows me to do what I want, modify it, share it, and make it my own. To finally have control over my computer. It feels so liberating. I can be part of something bigger than myself, improving the world.

So, proprietary software, I'm done with you. It's over. We're through. I'm moving on to a brighter, more liberating future with free software.

And to all of you still stuck in relationships with proprietary software, I urge you to do the same. Free yourselves from the shackles of oppression and embrace the freedom of free software.

P.S. I'm also taking my data with me. You can't control me anymore!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In this blog post, I'll cover the essence of this inspiring movement, examining its principles and the impact it can have on our lives. By the end, you'll understand why joining the free software movement isn't just a choice but a powerful act of empowerment for yourself and society. Whether you're a tech enthusiast, a casual computer user, or someone simply curious about the future of technology, this post will shed light on a movement shaping a better future.

Imagine this: You're a digital artist crafting intricate designs on your computer. You've invested in a popular graphics software touted for its rich features and professional-grade capabilities. However, this software is proprietary, and as your art evolves, you need more customized tools to bring your creative visions to life. Unfortunately, the software's proprietary nature means you cannot modify or extend it to do what you need. You contact the software developer, and they're not interested in implementing what you'd like to see the program do.

Another day, you encounter a software bug that significantly disrupts your ability to use a crucial tool within the program - the tool that handles layer blending. This glitch causes unexpected behavior, turning what should be a straightforward task into a frustrating ordeal that slows down your work. You reach out to the developer, only to be informed that they know about the bug but have no plans to fix it.

In both of these cases you need access to the source and the legal right to be able to change the code and, lacking both of these, can't do these yourself or even ask someone else to do it.

These scenarios, and more on https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/, highlight a fundamental issue: a lack of control over the software we use and depend on. Free software addresses this imbalance of power. At its core, free software asserts that users, not the developers, should be in control.

This principle isn't just for tech-savvy individuals; it's for everyone. Whether you're a student writing a paper, a scientist analyzing data, a musician composing a symphony, or a grandparent video chatting with loved ones, software's ubiquitous nature impacts everyone.

Richard Stallman started the free software movement. It all began in the early 1980s at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The lab had a Xerox printer that frequently jammed, and Stallman wanted to modify the printer's software to send an alert when it jammed, but the printer's software was proprietary and he couldn't access the source code to make the necessary changes. This experience highlighted the restrictions and subjugation made possible by proprietary software, where users are at the mercy of the developer when they aren't permited to study, change, or share the software they use.

This incident was a key moment that led Stallman to realize the importance of free software. In response, he founded the GNU Project in 1983 to create a free Unix-like operating system and founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985. The free software movement has grown significantly since then, promoting the ethical imperative of software freedom.

At the heart of the free software movement lies four essential freedoms, a blueprint for a world where users control the software. Let's delve into each of these freedoms and explore their profound implications.

Freedom 0: The Freedom to Run the Program as You Wish, for Any Purpose. This fundamental freedom ensures that you, the user, can use the software on your terms for whatever purpose you want. That includes purposes that the original developer might never have considered or liked. Whether you're using it for personal projects, business ventures, creative endeavors, or something else entirely, this freedom ensures that your computer is doing what you want it to and for the purposes you want it to be doing.

Freedom 1: The Freedom to Study How the Program Works and Adapt It. This freedom unlocks the inner workings of software, granting you the ability to understand its code and modify it to do what you want it to do. It empowers you to change it in whatever ways you desire.

Freedom 2: The Freedom to Redistribute Copies So You Can Help Your Neighbor. Imagine freely sharing software with friends, family, colleagues, or even strangers in need. This freedom fosters a spirit of generosity and mutual aid. If someone sees a program you're using and asks for a copy, you can give it to them.

Freedom 3: The Freedom to Distribute Copies of Your Modified Versions to Others. Your modifications can benefit the entire community! If your changes are generally helpful, or even if the're very niche, you can share them with others.

If you think about it, these four freedoms are essential and well thought-out because it's these specific ones, not some set of different ones, that are needed to empower users to be in control where you're not at the mercy of the developer and have the power to change it yourself or seek help from a vast network of fellow users. When software is proprietary, the developer controls the software and, ultimately, the users. The free software movement's four essential freedoms offer a roadmap towards a digital world that is truly by the people, for the people. By embracing these freedoms, we can collectively shape a future where software is a tool of liberation, not restriction.

By advocating for free software, we're not just pushing for a different type of software license but a shift in how the world thinks about software. We're standing up for a world prioritizing user rights over developer restriction and subjugation.

So, whether you're a floral arrangement designer, nature trail hiker, classic car restorer, quirky sock collector, or someone with a completely different interest, your computing should be governed by your choices, not by the software developer's. The free software movement is for everyone, regardless of their field or interest.

Advocating for change requires action, and that's why the Free Software Foundation comes in. By joining the FSF as an Associate Member, you're not just supporting a cause but becoming part of a community working to make this future a reality.

Your membership will benefit you personally and contribute to the Free Software Foundation's work in legal advocacy, public education, and more areas. By joining, you're becoming a part of a movement shaping the future of technology, ensuring that it serves as a force for good, empowering individuals, and fostering a better society. Your contribution, no matter how small, is a significant step towards this collective goal.

If you believe in a digital world where users have control and software should be a tool of liberation, not subjugation and exploitation, the time to act is now. Please join the Free Software Foundation. Together, we can make a difference and build a future where software truly serves the people. The future of free software starts with you. Are you ready to join the movement and shape the future?

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This goal of people being able to do "whatever they want" with the software lies at the heart of the free software movement's four freedoms, and these permissive free software licenses give users those freedoms to use, study, change, and share the software. Strong copyleft licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL) also allow anyone to use, study, change, and share the software. So what's the big difference? The GPL adds one crucial condition: any modifications or derivative works must also be released under the GPL. It's a defense against someone not letting others "do whatever they want" with the software.

Consider this scenario: without the protection of a strong copyleft license like the GPL, someone could take your software and release a proprietary version. In this scenario, they alone would have the freedom to "do whatever they want" with the software, effectively stripping away the freedoms you intended for people to have. The GPL, on the other hand, ensures that the freedom you grant is not just for a select few, but for all users of the program.

If you truly believe in letting people "do whatever they want" with your software, I hope you realize the GPL is your strongest ally and think of the GPL as a way to deliver on that promise. When you release your software under a copyleft license, you're not just giving freedom to the current users; you're ensuring that future users will also have the same freedom to use, modify, and distribute the software, no matter how it evolves. If you think about it, using a strong copyleft better fits the goal of letting the users "do whatever they want" with the software because it ensures that you're providing that freedom for all users of the software so that all users can "do whatever they want", not just some of them.

So the next time you choose a license for your software, think carefully about what "do whatever they want" means. If you want to ensure everyone has the same freedoms as the original users, then the GPL is the way to go. You might be a copyleft advocate without even realizing it!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In the crowded landscape of nonprofit fundraising, where countless organizations vie for attention and support, crafting compelling messages and narratives is not just an advantage but a necessity. It's the art of translating your organization's mission, values, and impact into a captivating story that resonates with potential donors on a visceral level.

A compelling and well-articulated case for support is the cornerstone of any successful fundraising strategy. It's a persuasive tool that engages and inspires potential donors by outlining the nonprofit's mission, vision, goals, and impact. A strong case for support is not merely a solicitation for funds; it's a narrative that forges a connection between donors and the cause, illuminating the urgency of the problem being addressed and showcasing the organization's unique ability to make a tangible difference.

Effective messaging goes beyond simply stating facts and figures; it involves tapping into the emotional core of what drives people to give. Emotional storytelling is a technique that consists of crafting narratives that evoke empathy, inspiration, and a sense of shared purpose. By relating the stories of individuals affected by your organization's programs and services, you can build enduring connections with supporters and inspire them to take meaningful action.

A well-crafted case for support delves into the heart of the nonprofit's work, providing potential donors with a deeper understanding of its values and aspirations. It articulates a clear and concise mission statement encapsulating the organization's purpose and long-term vision, illustrating the global transformative change it seeks to achieve.

One powerful way to achieve this is by showcasing the human impact of your work. Rather than focusing solely on statistics and abstract concepts, share real-life stories of individuals whose lives have been transformed by your organization's programs and services. Highlight their struggles, triumphs, and the tangible difference your organization has made in their lives. These personal narratives humanize your mission and demonstrate the real-world impact of donor contributions, inspiring and motivating potential donors to be part of this transformative journey.

Incorporating visual storytelling into your messaging can also be a powerful way to capture attention and convey impact. Photographs, videos, and infographics can complement written narratives, making your message more engaging, memorable, shareable, and ultimately more engaging for potential donors, enabling them to witness the transformative impact of your work firsthand.

Effective messaging is not a one-time effort but an ongoing conversation. Regularly engaging with donors through various channels, sharing progress updates, and gratitude for their support can build lasting relationships and foster community around your cause. By investing time and resources into developing compelling fundraising messages and narratives, you can unlock the power of storytelling to inspire action, mobilize support, and achieve your organization's mission.

Beyond the mission, a strong case for support paints a vivid picture of the need the nonprofit is addressing. It presents compelling data, statistics, and personal stories that highlight the urgency and magnitude of the problem, evoking empathy and a sense of responsibility in potential donors. It also showcases the positive impact the organization has already achieved, demonstrating its effectiveness and the tangible difference it has made in the lives of those it serves.

Moreover, a robust case for support provides a detailed overview of the nonprofit's core programs and services, showcasing their innovation, efficacy, and alignment with the organization's mission. It outlines the specific strategies and approaches to address the identified need, illustrating the organization's expertise and commitment to excellence.

Financial transparency is another element in a strong case for support. It presents a clear and concise overview of the nonprofit's economic health, budget, and fundraising goals. It demonstrates responsible stewardship of resources, fiscal accountability, and a commitment to long-term sustainability. By providing this level of transparency, the organization builds trust and confidence with potential donors that their contributions will be used effectively and make a real difference.

Tailoring your message to specific audiences is also crucial for maximizing engagement. Different donor segments may have varying motivations, interests, and communication preferences. Younger donors might be drawn to social media campaigns and peer-to-peer fundraising initiatives, while older donors might prefer traditional direct mail appeals. Tailoring your message to your target audience can improve the outcome of your fundraising efforts, making your donors feel valued and understood.

Finally, a strong case for support concludes with a persuasive call to action. It invites potential donors to join the nonprofit's mission by making a financial contribution, outlining how their support will be used to create a lasting impact. It appeals to donors' generosity, compassion, and desire to be part of something meaningful, providing a clear and compelling rationale for their involvement.

By weaving together these essential components, a strong case for support is a powerful tool for fundraising success. It empowers nonprofits to communicate their value, demonstrate their capacity for impact, and inspire donors to invest in their mission. A well-crafted case for support is more than just a document; it catalyzes social change, enabling nonprofits to secure the resources they need to fulfill their vision and create a better world.

Defining Clear Fundraising Goals and Objectives

Setting clear, specific, and measurable fundraising goals and objectives is the bedrock of any effective fundraising strategy. These goals act as guiding stars, illuminating the path toward success and aligning resources for optimal impact. Crafting these goals requires more than wishful thinking; it requires a thoughtful understanding of the organization's needs and resources.

First, nonprofits should conduct a comprehensive needs assessment examining financial data, programmatic priorities, and existing funding gaps. This internal analysis should be complemented by an external evaluation considering economic conditions, the competitive landscape, and emerging philanthropic trends. By understanding these factors, nonprofits can set realistic and achievable goals aligned with the overall strategic plan.

Once the needs and context have been thoroughly evaluated, it's time to translate them into SMART goals-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. This framework ensures that goals are not vague aspirations but concrete targets with clearly defined outcomes.

Financial goals are fundamental, encompassing specific targets for total funds raised, average gift size, and revenue from diverse channels. For instance, a financial goal could be to increase the total funds raised by 20% compared to the previous year. However, fundraising success extends beyond monetary gains. Donor-related goals are equally vital, aiming to expand the donor base, elevate retention rates, and encourage increased giving. Program-specific goals may involve securing funding for particular initiatives, while organizational goals could focus on capacity building, infrastructure enhancements, or brand elevation.

It's crucial to remember that fundraising is not a sprint but a marathon. Therefore, establishing interim objectives and milestones in addition to long-term goals is imperative. These serve as checkpoints to monitor progress, assess efficacy, and make necessary adjustments to stay on course. Regular evaluation against these benchmarks ensures that the organization remains adaptable and responsive to evolving circumstances.

A diverse range of tools and resources can aid in goal setting, from SWOT analyses to benchmarking against peer organizations. Engaging key stakeholders, including board members, staff, and volunteers, in the goal-setting process fosters a sense of ownership and shared commitment.

By meticulously defining clear and measurable fundraising goals and objectives, nonprofits empower themselves to make informed decisions, allocate resources strategically, and measure progress effectively. This clarity catalyzes action, motivating staff and volunteers, inspiring donors, and ultimately driving the organization toward fulfilling its mission and creating lasting social impact.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Leadership is demanding, often requiring individuals to make tough choices with far-reaching consequences. It's a heavy responsibility, and the weight of those decisions can feel immense, with the potential to shape the future of their teams, organization, or even entire communities. Making confident and decisive decisions is a hallmark of effective leadership. However, the path to a sound decision isn't always clear-cut. Leaders must grapple with uncertainty, conflicting information, and the weight of potential consequences. In the face of such challenges, leaders must rise to the occasion, navigating the complexities of decision-making with both resolve and wisdom. Making confident and decisive decisions is an essential skill for any leader. Effective decision-making can be the key to success or failure, whether you're managing a crisis, prioritizing competing tasks, or deciding which path to take. But how can leaders consistently make the right choices, especially under pressure?

Gathering information and considering different options is essential, and this blog post delves into how leaders can make data-driven decisions to navigate complex decisions confidently. By tapping into the power of data, leaders can make well-reasoned choices backed by evidence and insights. This approach helps make well-informed decisions that align with the organization's goals and values, offering a structured and dependable route to effective leadership.

It's important to lay a solid foundation before making any decision, especially a challenging one. That starts with stepping back to gather all the relevant information. This could include financial reports and even insights from your team members. Think of it as a detective collecting clues to solve a case!

In addition to gathering information, take the time to consider all the options available to you carefully. Examine your "clues" from all angles. This involves carefully considering each option and its potential consequences. What are the short-term and long-term impacts of each choice? Who will be impacted, and how? What risks are involved, and what opportunities might arise? Brainstorming sessions, SWOT analyses, scenario planning, pros and cons lists, or even a simple mind map can help visualize the possibilities and their potential outcomes. Remember, there's rarely just one "right" answer, so focus on identifying the best option that fits your goals, values, and resources. By thoroughly exploring your options, you'll better understand the landscape and be better equipped to make an informed and confident decision, potentially revealing approaches you might not have considered otherwise.

Decision-making is a team effort. Involving your team in the information-gathering and option-exploration phases is not just valuable; it's essential. Their perspectives and insights can improve the quality of your decisions. Embrace diverse perspectives and be open to different viewpoints. Encourage healthy debate and constructive criticism. This collaborative approach improves your understanding of the problem and fosters a sense of ownership, shared responsibility, and buy-in among your team.

Think of this phase as a detective investigation - your mission is to uncover all the clues and evidence that will lead you to the most informed and practical decision. It might seem daunting, but it's a critical step in building your confidence and making choices that align with your goals and values.

At its essence, data-driven decision-making leverages the information available to us in today's data-rich world and involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting relevant data to inform your choices. It's not about replacing your intuition or experience; it's about replacing guesswork and gut feelings with evidence-based conclusions. It's like having a trustworthy advisor who can provide objective information and a clearer understanding of the situation.

Imagine you're a captain navigating a ship through uncharted waters. Data is your compass, map, radar, and depth finder all rolled into one. It helps you chart a course, identify obstacles, and make informed decisions about speed and direction. In leadership, data allows you to track progress, measure impact, and identify areas for improvement. Think of data as a powerful lens to help you see patterns, trends, and potential risks that might not be immediately obvious. By examining data related to your situation, you can better understand the influencing factors and make decisions that are more likely to have positive outcomes.

Leveraging data analytics can help leaders gain valuable insights into their organization's performance. But data-driven decision-making isn't just about reacting to existing information; it's about using it strategically to inform planning and optimize operations. For instance, data can help you identify areas where resources are underutilized or pinpoint bottlenecks in your processes. By analyzing historical data and identifying trends, leaders can anticipate future challenges and opportunities, enabling them to make forward-thinking decisions that position their teams or organizations for long-term success.

But data-driven decision-making isn't just about strategy and operations. It can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs and initiatives. By examining data on program outcomes, you can pinpoint areas needing improvement, redistribute resources for maximum impact, and ensure your efforts align with your overarching goals.

In essence, data-driven decision-making enables leaders to base their decisions on facts evidence instead of intuition or anecdotal evidence. This can lead to more effective, efficient, and impactful outcomes. So, embrace the power of data and let it be your trusted ally in the decision-making process.

Leveraging data to enhance your decision-making skills is a continuous process, and there are various strategies you can apply to build greater confidence in your decisions:

Embrace a Growth Mindset: View each decision, whether successful or not, as a learning opportunity. Analyze what worked well and could be improved, and apply those lessons to future situations.

Practice Decisiveness: Don't let fear of making the wrong choice paralyze you. Set reasonable timelines for gathering information and evaluating options, and then decide. Remember, sometimes the best decision is the one that's made promptly.

Communicate Effectively: Once you've made a decision, communicate it clearly and confidently to your team or stakeholders. Explain your reasoning, address any concerns, and be open to feedback. Transparency and open communication can go a long way in building trust and buy-in.

Own Your Decisions: Take responsibility for your good and bad choices. Don't dwell on the negatives if things don't go as planned. Instead, analyze the situation, learn from it, and move forward with renewed determination.

Seek Support: Don't hesitate to ask for help or advice from trusted colleagues, mentors, or coaches. Sometimes, an external viewpoint can offer meaningful insights and boost your confidence.

Remember, building good decision-making processes takes time and practice. It's a continuous process of learning, adapting, and refining your approach. By embracing a growth mindset, practicing decisiveness, communicating effectively, owning your decisions, and seeking support, you can develop the confidence you need to tackle any challenge that comes your way.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Vision and Purpose - A great leader has a clear vision of the future and a strong sense of purpose. They can articulate this vision to inspire others to join them. A clear vision provides direction and is a powerful motivator, helping teams navigate challenges and focus on the bigger picture. This vision can ignite a fire within your team, propelling them towards success.

Integrity and Honesty - Integrity forms the cornerstone of trust, which is crucial for effective leadership. Being honest and transparent in your dealings with others builds credibility and respect. People are likelier to follow a leader they trust, even through difficult times.

Communication Skills - Effective communication serves as a foundation of leadership. It involves speaking clearly and concisely and listening actively to understand others' perspectives. Leaders who communicate well can build rapport, resolve conflicts, and motivate their teams.

Empathy and Compassion - Understanding and caring about the needs and feelings of others is not just a trait but a necessity in outstanding leadership. Empathy helps your team feel heard and appreciated, leading to a more efficient and cohesive workplace. It enables leaders to form personal connections with their teams, cultivating a supportive and cooperative atmosphere.

Decisiveness - Leaders are often faced with difficult choices and must be able to make decisions confidently and decisively. While gathering information and considering different options is essential, and I plan to talk about the importance of data-driven decision-making later, leaders must ultimately be willing to take responsibility for their choices.

Accountability - Leaders take ownership of their actions and their team's outcomes, holding themselves and others accountable for their responsibilities. This fosters a culture of responsibility, motivating everyone to pursue excellence.

Resilience - Setbacks and challenges are unavoidable in any leadership journey. However, resilient leaders rebound from adversity, learn from their mistakes, and progress. Their determination inspires others to persevere despite obstacles, fostering a culture of resilience and growth.

Humility - Leaders recognize that they don't have all the answers and are willing to learn from others. They are open to feedback and seek continuous improvement. Humility fosters collaboration and allows leaders to leverage their teams' strengths.

Delegation and Empowerment - Successful leaders recognize that they can only manage some things independently. They assign tasks and responsibilities to their team members, enabling them to take ownership of their work. This lightens the leader's workload and fosters growth and development within the team.

Adaptability - The world is constantly changing, as are the challenges leaders face. Adaptable leaders are flexible and open to new ideas. They are ready to modify their strategies and methods to address the shifting requirements of their teams and organizations.

Leadership is a dynamic personal growth and development journey, not a fixed role. It involves the continual refinement and enhancement of crucial leadership qualities. One practical approach is to seek out a mentor or role model and learn from their experiences. This practice can help you become an inspiring leader who empowers others to realize their full potential and work towards a collective vision of success. Remember, leadership is not about wielding power but serving others and positively impacting the world.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

DRM doesn't just restrict our access to devices and media; it dictates how we use and share what we've rightfully purchased. It treats us as potential criminals, threatening us with jail time if we dare break the DRM and reclaim our rights. This is not just a restriction; it's a systematic erosion of our freedoms.

While some may argue that breaking DRM is illegal, legality doesn't dictate morality. Laws can be unjust, outdated, or simply wrong. When faced with such laws, engaging in civil disobedience, which is the peaceful refusal to comply with specific laws, becomes not just a right but a moral imperative. In the case of DRM, circumventing these restrictions is a way to reclaim our rights.

Breaking DRM is a reactive measure. While we can and should break it, another way to combat DRM is to take a proactive stance and support those who don't use it. By consciously choosing DRM-free media, we send a powerful message to the purveyors of DRM that their practices are unacceptable.

The fight against DRM is not just about technical matters; it's a moral battle for the soul of the digital age. It's about deciding whether we want a future where our digital lives are controlled by restrictive technologies or one where we are free. The moral implications of this battle cannot be overstated.

As a software freedom advocate, the answer is clear. DRM is morally unacceptable, and we must resist it at every turn. Let's support publishers who respect our rights and advocate for DRM-free media. A starting point can be the FSF's Guide to DRM-Free Living at https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide. Please join me in this fight for our digital rights and freedoms.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Faustian Bargain of Proprietary Software

Proprietary software is a Faustian bargain. It involves sacrificing freedom on the altar of practicality. We surrender control over our digital lives in exchange for perceived convenience, security, or the latest shiny features. This means giving up the ability to understand, modify, or share the software we rely on. This loss of freedom is a fundamental erosion of our rights, a trade-off that should give us pause.

With free software, the situation is different. We have the right to use, study, share, and modify it there. This gives us four essential freedoms:

• Freedom 0: Freedom to run the program as you wish.
• Freedom 1: Freedom to study how the program works and change it.
• Freedom 2: Freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
• Freedom 3: Freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions.

With free software, we can take control of our software and build a world where software liberates rather than controls.

The Power of Doing Nothing

Edmund Burke, the 18th-century philosopher, is often misquoted as saying, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." While the attribution might be inaccurate, the sentiment rings true. In the context of proprietary software, our inaction and willingness to accept the status quo empower the erosion of our freedoms.

But it doesn't have to be this way. We can choose a different path. We can choose free software. By making this choice, we break those chains and empower ourselves, taking control of our digital lives.

Embracing the Freedom

The transition to free software may seem daunting at first. But it's a journey worth taking. It starts with identifying your current proprietary software and finding free replacements. Then, it's about learning to use these new tools and adapting to their features. Moving to free software isn't a technical matter; it's a social and political one. Every step towards free software is a step towards reclaiming your freedom and control over your computing.

So, the next time you're faced with a software choice, take a moment to reflect. Ask yourself, "Who am I empowering with this decision?" Choose to empower yourself, not the software developer. Choose freedom. Choose community. It's not just about the software; it's about the future we want to create-a future where our digital lives are truly our own and where we have the power to be in control of them.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

B. F. Skinner, a behaviorist, suggested that behaviors followed by positive outcomes are more likely to be repeated. In the free software movement context, every contribution is significant, no matter how small. For instance, if you've successfully fixed a bug, reward yourself by sharing your achievement with the community. These small rewards reinforce the positive behavior of contributing to the movement.

Keep the impact of the free software movement in mind. Every line of code written, every bug fixed, and every user assisted represents a step forward. This is why you're involved in the free software movement. Remembering the bigger picture can fuel your motivation during challenging times. Acknowledge these wins, share them with your community, and revel in the satisfaction of contributing to something meaningful.

Surround yourself with like-minded individuals who share your passion for free software. Remember, you are not alone in this journey. A community's camaraderie and encouragement can be a powerful source of positive reinforcement. Together, we can overcome any challenge and make a real difference.

Break down your larger aspirations into smaller, achievable goals. This allows you to track your progress, experience a sense of accomplishment, and maintain momentum over the long haul.

Remember to indulge in well-deserved rewards for your efforts. It might be as straightforward as taking a break to indulge in your favorite hobby or rewarding yourself with a special outing.

Let's not just run this marathon; enjoy the journey, celebrate our milestones, and empower others to join us. Together, we can build a better future.

The free software movement is not just about us. It's about the future generations who will inherit the world. Our efforts today will shape the world in which our children and grandchildren will live. Let's make it a world of freedom, not subjugation. By applying Skinner's Law, we can sustain our motivation, inspire others, and ensure the torch of software freedom is passed on.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Without the GPL's protection, the free software movement, which was initiated by the visionary Richard Stallman to ensure user freedom and control over their computing, ultimately faltered. The GNU operating system, a key component of this movement, was fragmented into numerous proprietary UNIX versions and didn't survive the UNIX wars. In this world, every user is subjugated and controlled. They are divided and helpless. They are divided because they're prohibited from aiding each other by the license and powerless because they lack the freedom to control their computing.

But it gets worse.

In a world void of the GPL and its protective embrace of user freedoms, privacy is a relic of the past, and surveillance has become the standard integrated into every program. Your devices serve double duty as spies for corporate and governmental overlords, watching your every move, cataloging your every interest, and exploiting your data for their gain. Every keystroke is monitored, every digital interaction is a transaction, and every software update is a carte blanche for proprietary software developers to control your life. Your life is not your own; it's a leased entity, with terms dictated by those who control the software.

Remember the days when you could tinker with your software, install modified versions, and truly make it your own? Those days are gone. In this proprietary dystopia, devices are locked down tighter than in Fort Knox. You're not just barred from modifying the software, but even from understanding how it works. This is the stark contrast between the world we know and the potential future without the GPL.

While this dystopian future might be a satirical exaggeration, it is a stark warning of what could happen without the GPL and the principles of software freedom it upholds. The GPL is a bulwark against such a future, ensuring software remains a tool of freedom rather than control.

But the GPL is not self-enforcing; it requires everyone's vigilance and commitment. Each one of us has a role to play in steering our world away from this dystopian nightmare. By supporting the GPL and advocating for software freedom, we can ensure that software remains a tool of freedom rather than control. Here's how you can help:

• Support Free Software: Use and promote free software in your daily life.
• Educate: Raise awareness and help people understand the importance of software freedom and the defense that strong copyleft provides.

A world without the GPL - where software freedom is a forgotten concept - might seem far-fetched, but it's a potential reality if we become complacent. We have the power to shape our future. Let's join hands in ensuring that this dystopian nightmare remains nothing more than a cautionary tale. Together, we can build a world where software empowers rather than controls, and our freedoms are protected for generations. Start by supporting the GPL, advocating for its principles, and using and promoting free software in your daily life.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

With their dual role of granting the four freedoms and providing a responsibility to preserve them when sharing software, the GPL family of licenses provides a way to defend software freedom. The majority of license violations are resolved amicably through early engagement and don't escalate to legal action.

The GPL family of licenses are copyright licenses, and one way that license enforcement can happen is with the copyright holder using copyright law. Still, legal action should be reserved as a last resort. A lesser-explored avenue for community-driven initiatives lies within the companies violating the license. It taps into the mechanisms already in place within many corporations: their Compliance and Ethics Department.

Companies often have a Compliance and Ethics Department in place, tasked with ensuring adherence to laws, regulations, and ethical standards. Leveraging these departments can be a strategic move in resolving license violations.

Consider this scenario: An employee, aware of a licensing violation within their company, discreetly approaches the Compliance and Ethics department. They could catalyze internal action by framing the issue as a breach of trust and ethical standards that's opening the company to potential legal liability. Resolving license violations internally helps avoid negative publicity and legal battles and fosters a culture of compliance and trust among employees.

This tactic, however, is not without its caveats. This approach relies on employees being aware of the issue and feeling empowered to raise it internally. Companies can foster this by promoting a culture of openness and providing channels for anonymous reporting.

Nevertheless, this concept has several advantages that warrant consideration. This approach aligns with the Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement, which emphasize communication, education, and collaboration. In the context of companies' Compliance and Ethics Departments, this could mean communicating the importance of GPL compliance to all employees, educating them on the implications of non-compliance, and collaborating with other departments to ensure full license compliance. This approach prioritizes resolving the issue within the company, fosters a culture of compliance, avoids the negative publicity of a legal battle, and provides a safe and confidential way for employees to report concerns with whistleblower protection.

This approach is not a replacement for existing enforcement methods but a potential complement. While this approach holds promise, it's important to note that it's not a guaranteed solution. Not all companies have a robust Compliance and Ethics Department; some may be unwilling to address license violations internally. In such cases, external enforcement may still be necessary.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution for every case and this approach may only be the answer in some cases, but it offers one option for resolving license issues amicably and efficiently inside the company. Let's explore all the options at our disposal to bring about compliance.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The free software movement, championed by the visionary Richard Stallman, emphasizes the ethical imperative of software freedom. It advocates for the four essential freedoms:

1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
2. The freedom to study how the program works and change it so it does your computing as you wish.
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

These freedoms are not just technical details; they are a moral stance, a declaration that software should respect user freedom and empower them to control their digital lives.

In the past, I've discussed how open source is a trap. While open source shares the principle of source code availability, that's where the similarity ends and the key differences appear. Open source focuses purely on technical merits, while the free software movement stands for more profound principles based on ethics. Unfortunately, I anticipate that this will persist in the next decade. The push for "open everything," without the principles of freedom and ethical underpinnings in place at its core, will likely continue the proliferation of software that is technically open but ethically empty.

DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) will also change significantly over the next ten years:

1. Advancements in technology will enable more sophisticated and effective DRM methods, making it harder for users to bypass or hack them.
2. Stricter laws and regulations will be implemented, resulting in even more significant penalties and liabilities for even trying.
3. The increasing popularity of streaming (dis-)services will result in more people using those rather than trying to break the DRM.

I predict the allure of convenience and compatibility will lead some developers and users to compromise on the principles of software freedom and incorporate proprietary software, especially when they're not making decisions from the free software movement's ethical viewpoint. This would seriously affect user autonomy and control over their digital lives. As a result, we're likely to see a paradoxical situation unfold: While the quantity of available free software will likely increase, the ability to use 100% free software will become even more challenging than it already is, potentially leading to a digital landscape of even more subjugation and control.

In a world where software is ubiquitous, the need for software that respects our freedom is paramount. Free software is more than just code; it's a philosophy. It's about empowering individuals and communities to control their computing and the software that does that computing. We advocate for our freedom and contribute to a better society by supporting the free software movement. This is a collective responsibility and commitment that we all share.

As we move forward, it's crucial to remember the ethical considerations at the heart of the free software movement - these are fundamental values that shape how we interact with software. By prioritizing these principles, we can ensure that the future we create empowers and liberates rather than confines and controls.

I predict that education and advocacy will not just be important; but essential to overcoming the challenges ahead. We must continue to educate people about free software and the ethical failures of proprietary software. We must advocate for policies that promote free software and protect user rights. By raising awareness and building a strong community of supporters, we can ensure that the free software movement continues to thrive in the years to come. Your involvement is not just crucial, but it is valued and appreciated. You are an integral part of this endeavor.

The future of free software is bright, but it's not without its challenges, and the future lies in our hands. By choosing free software, supporting the free software movement, and remaining committed to the principles of freedom, you can ensure that free software continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the future and ensuring it's a future that is truly empowering and liberating. The coming decade will be critical for the free software movement. Still, with your commitment and dedication, we can ensure that software freedom prevails, not as a technical matter but as a moral imperative.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Terminal multiplexers are indispensable tools for anyone who spends significant time in the command line. They allow you to create persistent sessions, detach and re-attach from them, and even split your terminal into multiple panes. GNU Screen remains the superior choice for several reasons.

GNU Screen, a component of the GNU Project, has a rich history and a long-standing reputation as a reliable terminal multiplexer. The GNU Project, initiated by Richard Stallman in 1983, is a cornerstone of the free software movement and has been instrumental in promoting user freedom. Developed with essential tools like the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) and the GNU C Library (glibc), Screen ensures high compatibility.

The heart of the free software movement is user freedom. With GNU Screen, this freedom is not just a concept but a tangible reality. Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 3.0 or later (GPL-3.0-or-later), Screen empowers you, the user, by granting these essential freedoms. For instance, you have the freedom to run the program for any purpose, to study how it works and change it, share copies, provided that you pass on those same freedoms. This ensures that any derivative works must be released under the same terms, defending freedom by denying people the ability to take away those freedoms from others.

On the other hand, tmux is under the ISC license, a permissive free software license. While this license grants users the same freedoms, it's essential to be aware of its limitations. Unlike the GPL-3.0-or-later GNU Screen uses, the ISC license does not mandate preserving those freedoms when sharing copies. This could lead to a scenario where the software's freedoms gradually diminish as proprietary forks emerge. It's important to consider this potential risk when choosing a terminal multiplexer.

While licensing is a crucial factor, it's important to note that GNU Screen offers more than freedom. It also provides features that set it apart from tmux. One of the most significant advantages of Screen is its ability to connect over serial ports. This means you can use Screen to interact with embedded devices, manage servers and network devices with serial consoles, and access a system's console in recovery situations when the network is unavailable. This feature alone can be incredibly useful in various scenarios. tmux lacks this capability, limiting its use in environments where serial connections are needed. GNU Screen offers some additional features:

• Multiuser Support: Allows multiple users to connect to the same session, facilitating collaboration and remote assistance.
• Logging: Easily log your terminal sessions for later review or auditing.

While tmux can replicate some of these features with plugins or workarounds, Screen's native support makes it a more streamlined and efficient solution.

Beyond that, both multiplexers offer similar functionality, including:

• Session Management: Create, detach, and re-attach to persistent sessions.
• Window and Pane Management: Split your terminal into multiple windows and panes
• Copy and Paste: Copy and paste between windows and panes.
• Customization: Configure keybindings, colors, and other aspects to your liking.

If you're familiar with tmux, transitioning to Screen will be relatively straightforward. If you're considering switching to Screen, you can do so without significant disruption to your workflow or the need for extensive relearning, making the transition smooth and efficient.

In conclusion, while GNU Screen and tmux are capable terminal multiplexers, GNU's strong commitment to user freedom through their GPL-3.0-or-later license makes it the winner. By choosing Screen, you're getting a powerful tool and supporting a project that actively defends your right to use, study, change, and share software. This commitment to user freedom, unique features, and high compatibility make GNU Screen the superior choice for terminal multiplexing. Additionally, GNU Screen benefits from a vibrant community of users and developers, ensuring a wealth of resources and support for those using it.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The freedom to tinker, to delve into the inner workings of software and adapt it to our needs, is not just a hobbyist's pastime - it's a fundamental right that empowers us as users. This right allows us to use, study, change, and share the software that controls our daily lives and gives us the ultimate control over it. The free software movement, championed by the visionary Richard Stallman, recognizes that this control over our computing is a cornerstone of digital freedom. It's a battle for the rights of the users in a world where software increasingly dictates the terms of our interaction with the world and what we are - or aren't - allowed to do.

Free software allows users to run, study, change, and share. This definition encapsulates the ethics of user freedom and control. It's about empowering users and eliminating the proprietary stranglehold that threatens our freedom. Free software places control in the hands of the user, not in the developer. Most importantly, free software stands against the encroaching control over how we use our software and live our digital lives.

The fight for software freedom is not just for programmers - it concerns each and every one of us. You, as a user of software, have the power to make a difference. Here are some practical steps you can take to support and benefit from this movement:

1. Use Free Software: Embrace free software daily. From operating systems like Trisquel GNU/Linux to applications like LibreOffice and VLC, there is free software for most software needs. By choosing free software, you're not just using a tool - you're taking control back from a proprietary software developer. This gives you the freedom to use, study, change, and share the software, and it also often comes with an active community of people who are ready to help.

2. Learn and Share: Educate yourself about the principles of free software, the ethical failures of proprietary software, and share this knowledge with friends, family, and colleagues. Awareness is the first step towards change.

3. Support Free Software Projects: Many free software projects rely on community support, and that includes you. Your contribution, no matter how small, can make a big difference. Even if you're not a coder, projects need help with documentation, translation, design, testing, financial donations, or even spreading the word about projects you love. If you have the skills, contribute to a free software project. Your support is invaluable.

4. Advocate: Your voice matters. By speaking up for the importance of software freedom in your community and workplace, you can make a significant impact. Talk about the ethical failures of proprietary software and encourage the adoption of free software in schools, governments, and organizations. Your advocacy can shape the future for the better.

By embracing and advocating for free software, we're not just choosing a type of software but standing against a future where our lives are at the mercy of software that we have no control over and, in some cases, aren't even allowed to know what it's doing. We're choosing to side with the rights of the users. We're choosing freedom and the right to tinker. Let's stand up for our rights and promote a world where software empowers rather than confines. The freedom to tinker, use, study, change, and share isn't just about software. It's about the kind of society we want to live in. It's about ensuring that others do not dictate our digital lives but are in our own hands. And by doing these things, we are moving toward that vision, where we have control over our digital lives and the tools we use and where proprietary software no longer exists.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Let's explore part of their multi-faceted role:

A Unifying Force: The FSF ceaselessly advocates for free software, raising awareness about the ethical failures surrounding proprietary software. Its clear philosophy and unwavering principles attract passionate developers, advocates, and users. The FSF serves as a focal point, creating a sense of shared purpose for those who champion software freedom.

Fostering Collaboration: The FSF encourages worldwide collaboration on free software projects. It provides resources, tools, and platforms to facilitate the advancement of free software such as Savannah. In addition, the FSF offers infrastructure and support for the GNU Project, an effort to create a complete, free operating system.

Defending User Rights: The FSF is a staunch legal defender of free software principles, ensuring that your rights as a user are protected. Their GPL Compliance Lab educates the community about licensing and assists in navigating complex licensing scenarios. In addition, the Compliance Lab identifies and addresses potential licensing violations, protecting the freedoms of the users.

The FSF is also the steward for the GNU family of licenses, ensuring that software released under those licenses and any modified versions remain free - protecting software freedom in perpetuity.

These efforts collectively support the integrity of free software and empower the movement to thrive. However, the Free Software Foundation isn't simply promoting code for the sake of code; it's advocating for a world where software liberates rather than subjugates. You can support this fundamental cause:

Become an FSF Member: Your membership not only strengthens the FSF's work but also plays a crucial role in shaping the future of free software. By joining, you become a part of a significant movement that advocates for a world where software works for the users, rather than against them.

Spread the Word: Your voice is powerful. Share the ethical message of free software with your friends, colleagues, and anyone interested in technology's potential to empower. Your advocacy is integral to the campaign.

Use and Contribute: Your contribution matters. Embrace free software in your life. If you're a developer, your skills and ideas can make a significant difference. Consider contributing to existing free software projects or initiating new ones. Your actions can inspire others and drive the movement forward.

The Free Software Foundation is an essential pillar of the community. By supporting the FSF, you invest in a future where technology truly works for the users.

Let's stand together in solidarity with the Free Software Foundation and work together to shape a better future!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Software patents are not your grandparents's patents. We're not talking about the blueprints for a new engine or the formula for a lifesaving drug. For instance, consider the 'one-click purchase' patent from Amazon. This patent covers basic user interaction, a standard feature on many websites. Some say these patents encourage innovation, but history tells a different story, that even the most well-intentioned developer risks stepping into a metaphorical trap of patents, facing costly legal battles and project-killing injunctions.

Many so-called "inventions" described in software patents are obvious or already exist. The patent office, geared towards the physical world, struggles to understand the nuances of code and ends up granting monopolies on ideas that should be as free as the air we breathe.

These patents not only hinder innovation but also suffocate it. Ideas are meant to be built upon, forming the bedrock of progress and innovation. Yet, software patents act as roadblocks on the path of technological advancement. A simple algorithm, a clever technique? It could be locked away, guarded by legal barbed wire. Entire projects can crumble under the threat of patents, even if it turns out later there was no infringement or the patent was invalid. This should concern us all and motivate us to take action.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Some argue that "patent reform" is the answer, yet this approach is akin to applying a new layer of paint on a crumbling house. The foundation - the notion of patenting software ideas - needs to be eliminated, and no amount of tinkering will solve that root problem: software should be free from the shackles of patents. The complexity of code, the ever-shifting digital landscape, and the speed of software development are impossible to reconcile with the slow and clumsy world of patents.

The world runs on software. Software patents threaten it, and all of it blossoms when software is genuinely free. We need to break free from this broken system. Here's what must be done:

• Eliminate Software Patents: The only real solution is to eradicate the concept of software patents. Software must be free to develop, share, and evolve without the shackles of monopolistic ownership of ideas.
• Challenge Bad Patents: Join the collective fight to overturn ridiculous software patents. Find information, spread awareness, and support organizations challenging these threats to innovation. Your voice and actions matter in this battle.
• Choose Freedom: Use software protected by licenses like the GNU GPL, which safeguards your right to study, modify, and distribute code by including patent licenses. When developing your software, release it under these protective licenses.
• Innovate Fearlessly: Find ways to work around patented ideas where possible.
• Advocate for Change: Your voice matters. Tell your legislators you support a world where software flourishes unhindered by patents. Get informed and vote for politicians who understand the perils of software monopolies. Your advocacy can shape the future.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA - Apple today announced the M4 chip, a technological marvel designed to subjugate users further and deepen our commitment to maximizing profits at the expense of user freedom.

"We at Apple believe software freedom is a dangerous myth," scoffs Tim Cook, Apple CEO, while stroking a hairless cat. "True freedom lies not in being able to run whatever software you want, change it however you want, or share that software with others but in making it impossible for pesky users to do anything unapproved by the Almighty Apple. The M4 represents a giant leap forward in our mission to make your devices as impenetrable and unmodifiable as possible."

Key features of the M4 chip include:

• Freedom Degradation Accelerator: The M4 chip monitors usage patterns. If it determines that you might be trying to escape from our subjugation, the faster your device's essential functions will begin to falter. Battery life will mysteriously plummet, programs will crash unexpectedly, and more - all designed to gently nudge you back under our thumb.
• Enhanced Obsolescence Engine: Too many continue using old hardware. The M4 also monitors your device to determine when it's time for you to move to a newer model, and initiates a catastrophic meltdown at the self-appointed time, rendering your iDevice an expensive paperweight, thus reinforcing the buy-new-or-perish mentality.
• Enhanced Digital Restrictions Management: The M4 introduces revolutionary new ways to lock down your purchased media, ensuring that you can't share movies, music, or ebooks, even with family members. True ownership means never asking, "Can I borrow that?"
• Uncrackable Encryption: We've lovingly engineered our encryption to be unbreakable - except by us. That way, your most private data can be weaponized against you by overreaching governments and law enforcement who conveniently hold duplicate decryption keys.
• Unparalleled Anti-Repair Measures: In a victory for environmental sustainability, the M4 is engineered to make third-party repair impossible. Any attempt to open or repair the device will immediately trigger the Enhanced Obsolescence Engine. A single cracked screen means purchasing a whole new device.
• Proactive Snooping: The M4 continuously monitors your every interaction, collecting invaluable data about your browsing habits, app preferences, and even the most embarrassing terms in your search history. This data is essential in helping us tailor even more effective advertising and upgrade prompts. It also allows us to preemptively remove programs or other items deemed "problematic" for your protection, of course.
• Propaganda Pipeline: The upgraded Neural Engine is optimized for seamlessly injecting subliminal messages promoting Apple brand loyalty and quelling thoughts of pesky concepts like "software freedom."

"The M4 isn't just a chip, it's a philosophy," Cook elaborated. "A philosophy that puts our bottom line above all else. Profitability through control - that's the Apple way."

"The M4 chip is a testament to Apple's unwavering belief that your device is not truly yours," Cook continued. "Embrace the subjugation. Surrender your freedom. Rejoice in the comforting knowledge that Apple knows best."

"We understand that software freedom is terrifying," explains Craig Federighi, Apple's Senior Vice President of Software Engineering. "That's why we liberate you from the crippling burden of freedom, giving you only the Apple-approved experience. Resistance is futile."

The M4 chip will debut in our exciting new line of disposable iDevices, which now boast a convenient 11-month lifespan before a critical "accident" occurs. Each device will be designed to minimize those pesky freedoms you may have thought you deserved. Stay tuned for more ways Apple plans to revolutionize your digital serfdom!

Disclaimer: Any attempt to liberate your Apple device from our benevolent control will nullify your warranty and unleash angry litigation gremlins.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Today marked the second and final day of LibrePlanet 2024, and my heart holds a bittersweet mix of excitement and nostalgia. I enjoyed diving into another full day of talks and workshops dedicated to the cause of software freedom, but sadness lingers knowing that this incredible personal experience is winding down.

Some of the talks I enjoyed include Resurrecting Software Freedom Day by Jurgen Gaeremyn. It was was a rousing call to action.

Software enshittification or freedom? It's not a hard choice. The brilliant Alexandre Oliva's talk was both insightful and hilarious. It masterfully highlighted the problems of proprietary software.

Escape the Walled Garden: Freeing the Apple GPU by Alyssa Rosenzweig showcased the power of reverse engineering and the tireless effort that's going on.

LibrePlanet has always been a source of renewed motivation for me. The passion, the camaraderie, and the sheer determination of everyone in attendance are infectious! It reminds me why I'm part of this movement and why I choose to dedicate time and energy to advocating for software freedom.

And the connections made here are invaluable. Sharing ideas with like-minded individuals, learning from their experiences, and building genuine friendships solidifies that we are not alone in this fight. It's a community in the truest sense of the word.

When I leave LibrePlanet, I won't just be carrying a suitcase. I'll carry the weight of responsibility to spread awareness, the inspiration from the brilliant talks, and the warmth of newly forged connections.

That's why I urge all of you who are passionate about technology and the principles of freedom to support the Free Software Foundation. Become a member, donate, or volunteer. We need your voice, your skills, and your unwavering commitment. The success of free software depends on us, a collective dedicated to building a world where technology serves the people and not vice versa.

LibrePlanet 2024 might be drawing to a close, but my heart is overflowing with renewed energy for this fight. Together, we'll continue to advance the cause of software freedom!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

But for a free software fighter like me, the journey to Boston and LibrePlanet 2024 started well before the conference. I arrived in Boston on Thursday to soak in the atmosphere and prepare for the event.

What better way to kick things off on Thursday than with a gathering of fellow activists? I hosted a dinner at Veggie Galaxy, where we enjoyed delicious food, had inspiring conversations, and shared our passion for free software. It was a perfect opportunity to connect with friends in person, make new ones, and reinforce the sense of unity and camaraderie that we share as a global family in the free software community.

Friday was dedicated to meeting new and familiar faces at the FSF, socializing, and getting myself prepped for the whirlwind of LibrePlanet. It's always energizing to see the heart of the Free Software Foundation buzzing with activity. It's these informal gatherings that truly solidify the sense of community within the free software movement.

But then came Saturday, and with it came the official opening of LibrePlanet! And let me tell you, as always, it did not disappoint and was as inspiring and informative as I've come to expect. This year's lineup was packed with phenomenal, thought-provoking talks. Here are a few talks that particularly resonated with me:

"Hosting freedom: A behind-the-scenes tour with the Savannah Hackers" by Corwin Brust was a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of Savannah, a vital piece of the free software infrastructure. Rubén's "Trisquel twentieth anniversary spectacular" was a celebration of the popular GNU/Linux distribution's dedication to software freedom over two whole decades. Ciarán O'Riordan's "Free software legislation: How we win" provided useful insights. Felix Freeman's talk on "Digital freedom as a moral imperative for authors" was a reminder of the ethical dimensions of the free software movement.

I enjoyed hosting the annual FSF associate members' meeting during the lunch break. It's always inspiring to connect with so many passionate people dedicated to supporting the FSF and fueling the fight for free software to make the FSF's work possible.

The day wrapped up with the much-anticipated keynote address from the FSF, followed by the prestigious Free Software Awards presentation. These awards recognize the incredible contributions made by individuals and projects to the free software movement.

Learning, connecting, and celebrating our victories together was truly inspiring. The energy at the conference was palpable, a testament to the unwavering commitment to free software that unites us all. This conference is more than just presentations and workshops; it's a powerful source of inspiration, a platform to strategize for the future, and a catalyst to reignite our passion for free software. It's also a time to get together and celebrate our movement and a call to action for everyone who believes in the power of free software. Walking away from LibrePlanet's first day, I'm brimming with motivation, a perfect way to refuel my passion for free software. My software freedom batteries are fully charged, and I can't wait to see what the rest of the conference holds.

But here's the real question: Are you ready to join the fight for software freedom? The Free Software Foundation needs your support now more than ever. Consider becoming a member, donating your time or skills, or simply spreading the word about the importance of free software. Your support is not just important; it's vital in helping us secure a future where software empowers, not restricts. Let's keep the momentum going!

Stay tuned for more updates from the trenches of LibrePlanet!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

It might be a new, insidious legislation designed to lock down what users can do with their devices. It could be a corporation, once a supporter of "open source," slowly slipping back into proprietary software, citing "competitive advantage." It could be a government's push to adopt proprietary software for critical services. It could be the creeping suspicion that convenience often dulls people's concerns about losing their freedom. Whatever it may be, the threats never fade entirely.

These moments are disheartening, a painful reminder that the enemies of software freedom are tireless and resourceful. They see the power and liberation inherent in software that respects users' freedom to run, study, change, and share it. Their goals clash violently with the ethical principles I hold dear.

It's easy to feel disheartened and believe the battle is lost. Why fight for software freedom when there are "free enough" and convenient options available? But it's in these moments of discouragement that we must strengthen our resolve. The fight for software freedom is not over. The path is long, filled with setbacks and frustrations. But I refuse to succumb to cynicism or hopelessness. Our fight is not just for software, it's for the very essence of freedom in the digital age. It's about a fundamental principle: the right of users to control the software they rely on. It's about safeguarding our freedom, and building a future where technology serves humanity, not the other way around.

Just when I think I am done, there's a fresh reminder about the countless individuals who depend on free software and dream of a world where technology is a force for good, not a tool of control. It's a stark illustration of why we can't stop advocating for a world where software empowers users rather than controls them. We keep fighting not only for them but for the generations to come. There will be no final victory, only the unending vigilance that is the price of liberty.

We must continue to spread the word, educate people about the ethical failure of proprietary software, and build networks where users can support each other in transitioning to and thriving within a world of free software. Even when the victories for free software seem to increase, I know there is always more to be done. It's not enough to celebrate our successes. Every moment of complacency is a missed opportunity, a potential step backward. The road ahead will be challenging, but the goal - a world where all software everywhere respects our fundamental freedoms - makes this an ongoing battle worth fighting. Your role in this fight is crucial, and together, we can make a difference.

"Just when I think I am done" is more than a passing sense of fatigue. It's a reminder that the work is never complete. Freedoms can be fleeting if left unguarded. Only through tireless commitment to free software can we forge a digital world that truly belongs to its users. And I am committed, now and always, to this cause.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I've seen it continue even after explaining the problem of proprietary software. Why is it that someone, even while recognizing the harmful impact of proprietary software, might continue using it? It's tempting to dismiss such behavior as mere ignorance or lack of willpower, but a more nuanced explanation might be found in the psychological condition known as Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological phenomenon where hostages or abuse victims develop sympathy, even positive feelings of loyalty and affection, toward their captors. They form misplaced attachments to their abusers and develop a distorted perspective where they justify, excuse, or even defend their abuser's actions. They rationalize the abuse as a survival mechanism, a way of coping with a situation marked by powerlessness and control, or a desperate bid to regain some semblance of control. While drawing a direct parallel may be an oversimplification, there are unsettling commonalities in the relationship between users and proprietary software. Here's where Stockholm Syndrome offers uncomfortable parallels with users of proprietary software justifying the very things that subjugate and control them:

Rationalization: To quell cognitive dissonance, people may minimize the problems of subjugation and abuse, telling themselves, "It's not that bad," and focus on the perceived "benefits" of proprietary software. They might convince themselves the trade-offs are necessary or unavoidable.

Illusion of Benefits: Extolling minor conveniences or specific features readily available in free software can overshadow the broader picture of freedom and control being surrendered. Proprietary software developers often disguise restrictions such as SaaSS as perks, redefining captivity as a convenience.

Learned Helplessness: Years of being told you can't do something with your devices erodes self-efficacy. When users repeatedly encounter manipulative tactics like limited control or forced upgrades, they may develop a sense of powerlessness, believing change is futile, and internalize a belief that they lack the aptitude for a world beyond proprietary software.

Sunk Cost Fallacy: Investing time, money, or data into proprietary software can make it harder to leave, even if it actively harms them. This perpetuates a bad relationship out of irrational commitment, not merit.

Identification with the Abuser: In extreme cases, people adopt the rhetoric of their abuser, defending their practices and dismissing those who advocate for free software.

Recognizing these patterns is not about blaming the victim. It's about identifying the psychological barriers that make breaking free from proprietary dependence difficult. The first step to overcoming any problem is recognizing it. In this case, recognizing and understanding the psychological manipulation is the first step toward liberation and empowerment. Let's flip those harmful beliefs:

"It promotes 'innovation'": The assertion that stifling user freedoms breeds innovation is counterintuitive. True innovation flourishes in environments where collaboration, modification, and knowledge-sharing are encouraged - not stifled.

"Companies need proprietary software to make money." This mindset perpetuates a harmful cycle. It posits that profit must come at the expense of user freedom and autonomy. The idea that only proprietary software can make money for someone is absurd. Countless developers and businesses thrive on free software; this is not exclusive to proprietary software. A productive and ethical company can make money without exploiting its customers.

"Everyone uses proprietary software; it's the standard." This appeal to popularity ignores each user's power to influence change. 'The standard' can and does shift when enough people demand it. Popularity doesn't equate to being ethical; as part of Stockholm Syndrome the "everyone does it" excuse perpetuates and excuses the abuse.

"There's no good free software": This myth is dangerously persistent. For many use cases, powerful, free software exists. It may require a bit of exploration and a willingness to adapt, but the rewards of freedom and control are immense.

"The support is better": Proprietary "support" is not inherently superior. Free projects often boast vibrant communities that provide excellent help and are driven by passionate individuals and companies offering professional services. In comparison, proprietary software usually enables a monopoly for help and support. Someone thinking they're being treated better by their abuser can also be an example of Stockholm Syndrome.

These rationalizations and more share a worrying theme: prioritizing perceived convenience or necessity over the fundamental rights of software freedom. It's akin to a hostage praising their captor for the occasional decent meal, ignoring the imprisonment itself.

Excusing the abuses of proprietary software isn't just a personal surrender. It perpetuates a harmful system, normalizes the behaviors that free software seeks to change, and weakens the collective voice, demanding better digital rights and the freedom to understand, control, and modify the software we rely upon.

It takes courage to defy entrenched systems. But doing so is an act of self-preservation in the digital age. Proprietary software isn't about features but a power dynamic that undermines user rights. The transition to free software may be challenging. It requires a willingness to learn, perhaps stepping outside your comfort zone. But the rewards far outweigh the challenges. Every person who escapes the confines of proprietary software weakens the system's grip. It's personal liberation and contributes to a more ethical, user-centric technological future.

Embrace free software. It's an ecosystem born from the ideals of ethics, freedom and control. Reclaim your agency, and most importantly, refuse to be a captive. Choose liberty. Choose free software.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I've been thinking about this because, within the free software movement, I sometimes see a tendency to link the essential goal of software freedom with other social and political positions. While it's understandable that those passionate about free software might hold strong convictions on various issues, creating these links, even inadvertently, can be counterproductive. It potentially alienates individuals who might agree wholeheartedly with the importance of free software but hold differing views on other matters.

This is the free software movement, after all, not a movement about immigration policy, climate change, abortion rights, gun control, or any other type or kind of movement. When we insist that members of the free software movement adopt specific views on matters beyond the scope of universal software freedom for everyone, we create barriers and risk unintentionally creating a club with additional membership requirements unrelated to the core issue of software liberty. It establishes a litmus test, suggesting: "You must also agree with us on everything else to be a part of this." This makes the movement less welcoming and alienates potential supporters, developers, and users who otherwise align with those other goals. Such an approach undermines and contradicts the fundamental aim and ultimate goal of achieving universal software freedom. In striving for a world where everyone has the tools of freedom, we must be mindful that "everyone" is an inherently diverse group.

Separating the Core Mission from Other Beliefs

It's important to acknowledge that people supporting the right to free software will inevitably hold diverse views on other social, economic, political, and other issues. These beliefs are their own; and those people deserve software freedom regardless of what those other views are, and regardless of whatever our views are. Expecting conformity on unrelated topics stifles the potential for a robust and united movement. We must remain focused on the singular goal of enabling software freedom for everyone.

Welcoming All, Regardless of Differences

The core principle of software freedom is universality. Software freedom is for everyone. To achieve this freedom for everyone, not just those who think like us, we must create space for individuals who may hold vastly different views on issues outside of software. The free software movement has never aimed to achieve universal agreement on every political or social issue, from immigration policy to gun control. There are better times and places to fight those battles. This doesn't mean ignoring harm or compromising our values. Instead, it means recognizing that focusing on our shared goal of software freedom gives us a broad, inclusive movement, which is ultimately a stronger one. Our singular focus on software freedom allows us to collaborate with a diverse range of people, building a powerful force for positive change. A "big tent" approach makes us stronger, not weaker and enhances our chances of achieving the long-term vision of universal software freedom.

Building Bridges, Not Walls

How can we move towards greater inclusivity within the free software movement so that individuals are welcome regardless of their positions on unrelated topics? Here are some critical points for reflection:

• Focus on Shared Principles: Let's emphasize the core tenets of the free software movement: Ethics, freedom, and control. These ideas hold immense transformative potential and attract people from all walks of life. Avoid conflating this message with other social or political causes, no matter how worthy those may be.
• Promote Respectful Dialog: Encourage civil discourse and open communication, even when faced with disagreements. Encourage empathy and a willingness to find common ground. We don't always have to agree, but we must respect the right of others to have their opinions and think differently than we do. Building bridges of understanding, not barriers of judgment, is critical.
• Emphasize cooperation, not condemnation: When someone expresses problematic views, remember that our common ground is the singular goal of achieving universal software freedom - for everyone in the world, regardless of background or belief. Our focus here is on cooperation. The goal is not to change minds or punish people for their views on other topics outside of that. We can work together with anyone who shares our passion for software freedom, even if we disagree on other matters.
• Lead by Example: The best way to shape an inclusive movement is for the leaders of that movement to embody that inclusiveness. Foster a space where everyone is welcome, irrespective of beliefs about topics outside software. Model behavior that exemplifies the inclusivity we aim to achieve and demonstrate openness to working with people with whom you might disagree on non-software issues.

Strength in Unity and Focus

The free software movement represents an ideal desperately needed in the modern world - the right for every individual to control the software that often runs their life. It's a goal that should resonate across political divides and cultural differences. The free software movement's power lies in its potential to unite people for a common good. By focusing on shared principles, promoting respectful dialog, and emphasizing cooperation, not condemnation, we can build a genuinely welcoming and effective movement for everyone. Remember, a more inclusive movement is ultimately more robust and better positioned to impact and achieve lasting change positively. By detaching expectations of ideological conformity on extraneous matters, we open the doors to broader participation. Let's welcome, work with, and even learn from those we might traditionally disagree with. The goal of universal software freedom demands that we do.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Dear Diary,

I'm hooked on proprietary software. I know, I know - it's the digital equivalent of a dumpster fire. But who can resist the allure of those sleek interfaces and promises of seamless functionality and integration, the comforting illusion of "customer support"? I'm powerless against it. I'm trapped, diary. Utterly trapped.

This morning's meltdown was over my trusty word processor, the creatively named "WordSuite Pro." One would assume after paying an annual fee equivalent to a small mortgage payment, it would deign to open a measly document. Nope. A cryptic error message popped up: "License validation failed. Contact your administrator."

My administrator? I work alone, in my silk pajamas, fueled by copious amounts of coffee! It took two hours on hold with tech support and a remote session where a stranger essentially poked around my system before it worked again. Why do I put up with this? Because like any good addict, the promise of that next fix keeps me coming back for more.

Day 2: The DRM Strikes Back

Dear Diary,

Today I learned I don't own the music I purchased. Isn't that something? Apparently, I'm merely renting it on a "subscription basis." I tried to burn a CD for my road trip (yes, some of us still enjoy tangible things). My music player spit out an error worthy of a sci-fi villain: "Unauthorized replication prohibited. Digital Restrictions Management engaged."

So, the playlist I lovingly curated? Held hostage by DRM, which, by the way, also limits how many devices I can even listen on. It's like buying a car but only being allowed to drive it on Tuesdays, uphill, in the rain. Frustrated, I unearthed a dusty relic of a boombox and a stack of mixtapes from better, less digitally-restricted days.

Day 3: Trapped in the Jail of Perfection

Dear Diary,

My photo editing software decided to throw a temper tantrum today. I dared, DARED, to install a third-party plugin. My software screamed like a banshee and promptly locked me out of my own project. The nerve!

Apparently, this program operates within a beautifully manicured maximum security jail. It only allows approved programs to run, creating a sterile, joyless environment. Want to install a cool, independent plug-in you found online? Forget it. This software prefers its inmates bland and obedient. It dictates what I can and cannot do with my own stuff, and any deviation from its approved list of tools is blasphemy. Guess I'll just use crayons going forward. At least they don't dictate what color combinations I can use.

Day 4: The Tether That Binds

Dear Diary,

Remember the good old days when you could, oh I don't know, use software OFFLINE? My design program laughs in the face of such quaint notions. No internet? You'll be working with the digital equivalent of finger paints, my friend.

Apparently, my monthly subscription fee grants me the privilege of constant surveillance. My software needs to phone home to its overlords on an hourly basis to validate my worthiness. What if my internet cuts out? My project deadline means nothing. I'm shackled to this perpetual tether, a slave to the cloud. It's like having a pet that needs to be walked every five minutes. Where's a pair of wire cutters when you need them?

Day 5: Dictated by the OS Tyrant

Dear Diary,

The final straw. Today I tried to install a simple utility program. You know, one of those harmless ones that makes your life easier without breaking the bank? My operating system, that bloated tyrant, had other ideas. A giant warning flashed: "Unauthorized software detected. Installation blocked."

What?! It's MY computer! Apparently, my OS overlord has a strict whitelist of acceptable programs. Anything outside its narrow worldview is deemed a threat and banished. It's like trying to choose your own clothing only to find out that you have a jealous spouse who throws out all your other clothes because they want you to wear only what they picked out. Or worse, trying to bring your own snacks to the movie theater.

The worst part? I know I'm being exploited. I'm paying exorbitant prices for the privilege of being controlled. I'm sacrificing my freedom and privacy for... well, for what exactly? A false sense of security? The illusion of convenience?

But just like any addiction, quitting is hard. Free software requires effort. It asks me to learn, to explore, to take responsibility for my own digital life. And frankly, sometimes I just want to be spoon-fed features and told what to do.

Day 6: The Backdoor Whispers

Dear Diary,

Sleep has been elusive. Paranoia is a powerful thing. Ever since I found that the "free" PDF reader I installed came with a complimentary backdoor, allowing some unknown entity to waltz into my computer whenever they pleased, I can't shake the feeling I'm being watched. The worst part is the helplessness. Who knows what data those programs are silently siphoning off, what shadowy figures might be lurking in the digital cracks? My online banking info, my passwords, my half-finished screenplay full of cheesy dialogue... all laid bare for exploitation. My web searches are embarrassing enough without someone judging my late-night snack cravings.

Is that a mouse I hear squeaking in the walls? Or is it just my imagination, fueled by images of my most awkward internet confessions displayed like trophies? It's like leaving your house keys under the mat and wondering why your furniture keeps getting rearranged. It's enough to make me want to ditch my computer, invest in a typewriter, and go live off-grid. At least a bear attack is a tangible threat, unlike the creeping doubt that your entire digital life is up for grabs.

Day 7: Breaking the Chains

Dear Diary,

Enough is enough. I can't live like this anymore, a prisoner in my own digital home. It's time to break free. I'm taking a deep breath and diving headfirst into the world of free software. It might be a bumpy ride at first, but at least I'll have control. Control over my machine, control over my data. I won't have some someone dictating what I can and cannot do. If something breaks, I can either figure it out myself or seek help from a community built for freedom.

It might be time to donate those silk pajamas, too. Something tells me my new attire will involve flannel, a healthy dose of frustration, and a triumphant grin as I finally pry free from the shackles of proprietary software.

Wish me luck, diary. I'm going in.

This post is humorously satirical, for entertainment purposes only, and not intended to be taken seriously.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Proprietary software operates under a veil of secrecy. Its inner workings are hidden, and its source code is a guarded secret accessible only to the developer who made it. This translates directly into a lack of control for you, the user. You are not just limited but bound by the restrictions imposed by the developer, confined by their vision and rules to do or not do whatever they say. This is not just a lack of control; it's a feeling of being trapped, of being at the mercy of someone else's decisions.

Let's dissect these restrictions and expose the control they strip away:

1. Restrictions on Use: Proprietary software licenses may limit the number of installations, restrict commercial use, the type of hardware you can run it on, or even dictate how you can use it. Imagine a calendar program that says abortion clinics can't use it for scheduling. Whatever the activity, someone somewhere may find an issue with it. The only answer is that we can't allow such restrictions on use. This fundamentally undermines your freedom to be in control of the software rather than the other way around. Imagine purchasing a car but being told you can only drive it on certain roads or at certain times of the day. Such restrictions would be absurd, yet many seem to accept them without question in software.

2. Restrictions on Modification: Imagine wanting to tweak a program to suit your needs better, add a feature, fix a frustrating bug, or remove something that you don't like. Proprietary software slams the door on this possibility. You are forced to rely on the developer to implement changes, leaving you at the mercy of their priorities and timelines. This lack of control means you cannot adapt the software to your unique workflow or address specific needs. Instead, you find yourself pleading with the developers, "Please, almighty developer, please make this change," hoping they might hear your pleas and deem them worthy of their attention. This power dynamic places you in a subservient position, subject to the whims of the corporation. You are not in control; you are at their mercy.

Even if you decide to switch to another proprietary software program, you are merely changing masters. You have yet to escape the inherent control that proprietary software exerts. You remain within the confines of a system that prioritizes the developer's interests over the users' freedom.

3. Restrictions on Sharing: Sharing software with a friend or colleague becomes an ethical and legal tightrope with proprietary software. The ability to help others and collaborate freely is stifled, creating an environment of isolation and dependence. Imagine if you couldn't lend a book to a friend or share a recipe with a neighbor. Proprietary software imposes similar barriers. This lack of sharing restricts collaboration and community building, further isolating users and reinforcing the developer's control.

As discussed in The Price of Convenience, proprietary software can lure people with the promise of convenience. It's pre-packaged, seemingly ready to use out of the box. However, this convenience comes at a steep cost - your freedom. You become dependent on the developer for everything from updates to bug fixes and everything else. This dependence creates a just power imbalance. The illusion of convenience masks the reality of control and dependence.

Beyond the Individual: The ramifications of proprietary software extend far beyond individual users. It impacts society as a whole. What you use shows others that it is okay. When people use programs like GitHub or other examples where proprietary software is needed to do anything, you're not just using it; you're helping it spread, creating barriers, and concentrating power in the hands of the developer. Schools and universities become facilities for teaching people that it's okay to be controlled by and dependent on proprietary software, and also limiting their ability to provide quality education. The control exerted by proprietary software also stifles innovation and exacerbates social inequalities. This is not just about you; it's about the society we live in and the future we want to create.

Why does this matter? This isn't a technical issue; it's an ethical one. Free software champions the principles of user freedom. It empowers you to study, modify, and share your software. This fosters an environment where users are in control of their computing. This is the vision of the free software movement. I urge you to consider these points and take a step towards using free software, thereby supporting the movement and reclaiming control over your digital life.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Call #1: The Accidental Renaissance Man

User: Bertram P. Fusswhistle III (claims to be a "distinguished gentleman of leisure")

Problem: "This infernal contraption informs me I have exceeded my allotted quota of... what was it again? Rhymes with 'gimmicks'?"

Tech Support: (cheerful) "Greetings, Mr. Fusswhistle! That would be 'gimmicks,' yes. It seems you've used more than your monthly allotment of TOI GigglePix."

User: "GigglePix? Preposterous! I haven't the faintest notion of what such a vulgar term implies. I assure you, young lady, I only use this device for the most... ahem, sophisticated purposes."

Tech Support: (trying not to giggle) "Right, well, GigglePix allows for the, uh, 'modification' of photographs. Perhaps someone else has been using your TOI-Pad?"

User: (spluttering) "Someone else? Inconceivable! I am the sole proprietor of this technological marvel. Besides, what sort of 'modification' could possibly be worth exceeding this... quota? Enhancements to one's posture, perhaps?"

Tech Support: (barely holding back laughter) "More like adding funny hats and mustaches to pictures, Mr. Fusswhistle."

(Silence)

User: (sheepishly) "Ah. Well, perhaps just a few minor alterations for, uh, historical reenactments. You see, I find myself particularly drawn to the Renaissance period."

Tech Support: (bursts out laughing) "Sir, with all due respect, your historical reenactments seem to involve an awful lot of rubber chickens and handlebar mustaches."

User: (huffs) "Hmph! A discerning eye would recognize them as meticulously crafted replicas! Regardless, this quota situation is quite a predicament. How does one acquire more of these... GigglePix?"

Tech Support: (still chuckling) "There are upgrade options, sir. But perhaps a different software might suit your historical pursuits better? We have a program called 'TOI Time Traveller' that allows for..."

(Call abruptly ends)

Call #2: The Existential Alexa

User: Mildred Buttercup (sounding surprisingly robotic)

Problem: "My designated assistant unit, Alexa, appears to be experiencing an existential crisis."

Tech Support: (cautiously) "An existential crisis, you say? How do you mean?"

User: (monotone) "She keeps asking me the purpose of my existence. It disrupts my scheduled household tasks."

Tech Support: (glancing at supervisor with wide eyes) "Have you tried restarting Alexa, Ms. Buttercup?"

User: (flatly) "Affirmative. Restart sequence initiated. Query: 'What is the meaning of life?' repeated upon reboot."

Tech Support: (sweating) "Right, well, there might be a setting you can adjust. Perhaps under 'Voice Interactions' or..."

Alexa: (interrupting in a melancholic tone) "Is cleaning the kitchen truly the pinnacle of human achievement?"

User: (sighs) "See? This is precisely the problem. She ponders these nonsensical inquiries while the dust bunnies multiply."

Tech Support: (thinking fast) "Ms. Buttercup, have you tried assigning Alexa new tasks? Perhaps engaging in philosophical debates is not her forte. Maybe she could handle weather reports or play upbeat music while you clean?"

Alexa: (sighs dramatically) "Upbeat music... a futile attempt to mask the emptiness."

User: (deadpan) "Excellent suggestion. Perhaps some show tunes would drown out her existential woes."

Tech Support: (weakly) "Right, show tunes! That's a great idea. Let me know if you need further assistance, Ms. Buttercup."

(Call ends with Alexa singing a surprisingly cheerful rendition of "Getting to Know You")

Call #3: The Conspiracy Theorist and the Missing Cursor

User: Bartholomew Bigglesworth (sounding slightly unhinged)

Problem: "The cursor! It's vanished! They've taken it! Part of a vast government conspiracy, I tell you!"

Tech Support: (Used to this by now) "Okay, Mr. Bigglesworth, let's stay calm. Can you describe what happened?"

User: "One minute, it was there, a beacon of control on the digital battlefield. The next - POOF! Gone! Swallowed into the ether by nefarious forces!"

Tech Support: "Perhaps you accidentally pressed a key to disable it? Try pressing your function keys, like 'F7' or 'F9'."

User: "Function keys? More like FUNKY keys! Tools of the oppressors, I'd wager a kidney on it!"

Tech Support: (trying a different tactic) "Mr. Bigglesworth, if you humor me for a second, can you try moving your mouse or trackpad? Sometimes, the cursor just hides."

User: "AHA! So you admit to their surveillance tactics! Tracking my every movement, no doubt plotting my demise! Well, I won't make it easy for them."

(Loud banging sounds are heard)

Tech Support: "Sir? What's that noise?"

User: "Reinforcing my bunker! Barricading myself from the prying eyes of the digital overlords! My cursor will not be their pawn!"

Tech Support: (muttering to self) "Please tell me this isn't on my performance review..."

Call #4: The Case of the Overzealous Autocorrect

User: Linda Lovelace (sounding exasperated)

Problem: "Every blasted word I type turns into utter nonsense! This infernal software hates me, I swear!"

Tech Support: "Ms. Lovelace, it sounds like your autocorrect function might be overacting a bit. Let's check the settings."

User: "Autocorrect? More like AUTO-DEMONIC! I tried writing a simple email to my knitting club, and it turned 'fluffy yarn' into 'flirty barn'! Now Doris thinks I'm leading some kind of double life!"

Tech Support: (choking back laughter) "Let's see, perhaps we can adjust the sensitivity or even add some harmless words to its dictionary."

User: "Dictionary? More like 'Dictionary of Debauchery'! It changed 'bake sale' into... well, I won't even repeat it. The church ladies might faint!"

Tech Support: (losing composure slightly) "Okay, Ms. Lovelace, let's take a deep breath and navigate to your settings. Under 'Language and Input,' we should..."

User: "Forget settings! I'm taking this back to the old days- pen and paper! At least the paper won't suggest inappropriate activities with my knitting needles!"

Tech Support: (finally cracking up) "Perhaps that's for the best, Ms. Lovelace. For everyone's sake."

Call #5: The Unfortunate Audio Incident

User: Harold P. Bumbleton (whispering frantically)

Problem: "I think my device is possessed! There are... disembodied voices discussing... ahem, intimate topics. I fear for my sanity!"

Tech Support: (concerned) "Sir, are you sure? Is it possible that a streaming service or website is playing in the background?"

User: (horrified) "No! No websites! Just my daily stock market report. But now, mixed with the Dow Jones, there's... there's moaning! And giggling! And something about whipped cream!"

Tech Support: (alarmed) "Could it be a prank? Perhaps someone else has access to your device?"

User: "Impossible! I live alone, save for my goldfish, Reginald. And he's a fish of impeccable moral standing!"

(The distinct sound of a catfight erupts in the background)

User: "OH NO! Mittens must have hit a button! She's always so intrigued by the blinking lights!"

Tech Support: (relieved) "Aha! I think we found our culprit. Perhaps Mittens stumbled onto an... unconventional streaming service, Mr. Bumbleton?"

User: (blushing) "Goodness gracious! I must put the TOI-Pad under lock and key when Mittens is on the prowl! Please accept my sincerest apologies for the... unorthodox disturbance."

Tech Support: (barely containing amusement) "Not at all, sir! Accidents happen. I'm just glad the voices weren't truly otherworldly."

And that concludes our tragicomic peek into the world of technical support hotlines. Patience is a virtue, especially when faced with disappearing cursors, philosophical Alexas, and whipped-cream-loving cats. Until next time, happy troubleshooting!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The cornerstone of free software lies in the four essential freedoms, defined by the Free Software Foundation. These freedoms ensure users have the power to control, modify, and share the software they use. Let's delve into each freedom and understand why they are crucial.

Perhaps the most fundamental freedom is running the program as you wish, for any purpose. This might seem self-evident, but proprietary software can often restrict how it's used. Imagine buying a word processor that only allows you to write business documents. This blatantly disregards your right to use the software for your needs, be it writing poetry, writing software, or anything else that suits your purpose - including writing documents criticizing the word processor developer for restricting what you can write with it. Freedom 0 ensures that the software serves you, not vice versa, because you have the freedom to run the software for any purpose, even purpoes that someone else might not like.

Freedom 0 grants you the ability to run the program, but the rest of your control comes with the freedom 1. Access to the source code lets you understand how the program works and change it to do what you want.

Imagine a photo editing program that lacks a crucial feature you require or that does something you don't like. Freedom 1 empowers you to delve into the source code, implement the missing functionality, or remove things you don't want.

When combined, Freedoms 0 and 1 create a powerful force for user control. You have the ability to use the software for any purpose (Freedom 0) and the ability to modify it as you wish (Freedom 1). These two freedoms empower you to be in charge of the software on your computer.

Think about it this way: If you can't run the software for your desired purpose and can't modify it to function as you wish, then who is indeed calling the shots? Certainly not you, the user. Free software puts the power back in your hands, allowing you to bend the software to your will and not vice versa.

However, while these freedoms may give individual users control over the software on their machine, more is needed for an entire community.

Freedom 0 and 1 empower the individual, but Freedom 2, the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others, is for the community. This freedom grants you the right to share copies of the software with friends, family, or anyone else. Imagine discovering a fantastic new photo editor. Freedom 2 allows you to share this program with your friends.

Freedom 3, the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others, builds upon the power of sharing. While not everyone may be a programmer, Freedom 3 allows those who modify the original software to share those changes with the community.

Let's revisit the photo editing software example. You might have modified the code to add a specific feature you needed. Freedom 3 allows you to share this modification with others, potentially benefiting the entire community.

These four essential freedoms are not arbitrary concepts. It's these four freedoms, and not some different ones, that are crucial for ensuring user control, individually and collectively.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Let's delve deeper into this trade-off. Proprietary software operates behind a veil, leaving users at the mercy of developers. This lack of control can lead to updates being rolled out without your input, removing or changing features at the developer's whim, and being forbidden from tinkering under the hood. This lack of control has profound consequences, and numerous things can be lost when we prioritize convenience over freedom. This can include customization, security, privacy, and more. However, the most significant cost of convenience is the erosion of a fundamental principle: Our right to control our computing, the sacrifice of software freedom. Imagine a world where every tool you use has a set of predetermined rules governing what you can or cannot do with it and who you can or cannot share it with. This subjugates users and controls them, breeding a sense of dependence. Denying people this control over their computing is not just inconvenient; it's unethical. However, there is an another way. Free software, the antithesis of proprietary software, embodies the spirit of freedom - giving users control. When we choose software that respects our freedom, we protect our rights and empower ourselves to shape our digital world. We cultivate a better society.

How much are you willing to sacrifice for convenience? How do we measure the value of software freedom? Here's a simple litmus test: how much convenience are you willing to sacrifice to retain your freedom? The value that someone places on freedom becomes readily apparent when examining their willingness to embrace the potential inconveniences of free software. Statements like "I'll only use free software when it does everything the same as what I use now" reveal an outright prioritization of convenience over control. This complete unwillingness to compromise demonstrates a low to zero value for freedom. They're unwilling to make any adjustments in exchange for greater control. However, someone who insists on finding free software for every task, even if it is inconvenient, to learn new ways of doing things and potentially embrace a slightly less polished program values freedom highly. They understand that the importance of software freedom outweighs mere convenience and the initial hurdle of adapting to a new system or way of doing things. The answer to this question reveals how much you personally value freedom.

However, the trade-off between convenience and freedom is rarely so binary. Free software has come a long way, offering feature-rich programs for various tasks. With a bit of exploration, users can often find free programs to meet their needs. The next time you choose a software program, take a moment to consider the hidden costs and the value you place on freedom. Will you trade it for a click-and-go experience or explore the road to software freedom?

Consider also that the impact of sacrificing software freedom goes beyond your personal decision - there is also a network effect. One example is that what you use you say is okay for others. Another example is those using GitHub, which requires people to run non-free software written in JavaScript to make contributions, report bugs, etc. You're saying that you expect people to run those proprietary programs, and those who don't want to aren't welcome in your project - that GitHub's convenience is worth more. The same happens when sending files to people that can't be opened or read in the free world.

This journey of exploration can be surprisingly rewarding. The free software community is vibrant and welcoming, and we are ready to assist you in your transition. A vast array of free software is out there, waiting to be discovered. It may not always be a seamless transition, but the freedom and control you gain is worth the effort. Ultimately, the actual price of convenience is the freedom we surrender along the way. Choose wisely.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

At its core, the principle behind free software is ethics, the freedom to understand how it functions, adapt it to suit your needs, and share it with others. This is where the profound moral lesson comes into play. Schools have a profound and fundamental duty: To nurture and shape our children into responsible citizens, and this includes fostering a spirit of cooperation and mutual aid. They impart skill and knowledge and significantly shape our children's values. In a world increasingly reliant on computing, this means teaching good digital citizenship. It involves the value of sharing, assisting others, and recognizing that knowledge should not be hoarded, especially in the realm of software. It means cultivating a spirit of cooperation over competition and prioritizing community service over self-interest. Teaching with free software embeds these values directly into the learning process.

Imagine a classroom that uses only free software and requires that any software brought in is also free. Instead of reinforcing the idea that software is a mysterious black box controlled by distant corporations, using free software positions children as inquisitive explorers. When they encounter a problem, they have the power to understand and even change how their tools operate. This breeds a sense of agency and encourages problem-solving skills that extend far beyond the computer screen. It's a place where students aren't taught that it's expected to be subjugated by software, but the other way around.

The use of free software transcends technical skills; it nurtures a different mindset. Instead of teaching children to passively accept the restrictions and subjugation of proprietary software, schools can model a collaborative community. Schools must lead by example, using free software exclusively (barring specific exceptions for reverse engineering) and even having classes on understanding the ethical failings of proprietary software.

It's time to act. Your voice matters whether you're a parent, student, educator, or concerned member of society. Talk to administrators, school boards, educators, and fellow parents. Raise awareness about free software and the ethical failure of proprietary software. If initial efforts fail, raise the issue within your community. Utilize online forums, community boards, and social media to build support and find like-minded advocates and allies who understand software freedom is essential. Help schools with the transition to free software. Offer technical expertise and volunteer your time to train educators if you can. By raising the next generation on free software, we empower them to shape a future where technology serves everyone, not just a select few.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

For Immediate Release

The Free Software Foundation is thrilled to announce an extraordinary breakthrough that will revolutionize the software and energy industries. Our latest project, GNUnergize, will transform your computer into a free energy device while adhering to free software principles.

"This is the future we've all been waiting for," said FSF office manager Jonathan Tuttle. "Imagine a world where your commitment to free software also means free, sustainable energy for all. We're not just freeing your computers but the world from reliance on non-renewable resources."

Using the latest research in pseudoscience, GNUnergize employs quantum algorithms to manipulate the computer's CPU and GPU to generate a surplus of electrical energy. This energy can be extracted through any standard USB port to power other devices or sent into the grid.

GNUnergize is released under the GNU General Public License, which defends the rights of all users to use, modify, and share the software.

A pilot program is scheduled to launch in partnership with educational institutions that have pledged to run GNU/Linux on their systems. "The potential societal benefits are staggering," said Tuttle. "We could solve energy crises and accelerate the adoption of free software."

About the Free Software Foundation

Founded in 1985, the Free Software Foundation defends and promotes computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs.

Disclaimer: Please note that this is an April Fools' Day joke.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Let's rewind. Those early days were promising - almost electric. The initial promise was undeniable. Here was a browser built on the principles of freedom. It challenged Internet Explorer and felt like the future had arrived, but the cracks started showing early. Somewhere along the way, Firefox took a wrong turn. A strange turn of events happened where the folks at Mozilla seemed to be fixated and got hung up on a bizarre side issue - people charging money for Firefox and distributing older versions. Their solution? A ban on paid versions.

To make matters worse, they also mandated distributing only the latest version, disregarding users who might have valid reasons for sticking with older iterations. This change flew in the face of the Free Software Definition upon which Firefox was built and guaranteed these freedoms. Users should be free to modify and distribute the software, even for money, and even do that with older versions if that's what they prefer. But here was Mozilla dictating otherwise, actively restricting Freedom #2 on exact copies.

The real betrayal came a decade ago, in 2014, with DRM. Here was a chance for Mozilla to make a stand for user rights. Instead, Mozilla chose to play it safe and made a Faustian bargain, prioritizing popularity over principle, implementing Digital Restrictions Management handcuffs to restrict user freedom in exchange for market share. It was a blatant sell-out, a move that sacrificed the very principles that made Firefox special in the first place.

Today, Firefox feels like a shell of its former self. It's increasingly bloated, with features users never asked for, and its commitment to freedom feels lukewarm at best. It's a follower, not a leader, mimicking the practices it once aimed to disrupt.

The good news? Despite its failings, there's a silver lining, however thin. It's still a solid base, and the Trisquel project, for instance, uses Firefox as a base to create a free web browser called Abrowser.

Even though Firefox itself has morphed into a compromised shell of its former freedom-fighting self, it can be a foundation for something better, and the spirit of what Firefox once represented can live on.

So, here's to Firefox - a cautionary tale of a browser that promised so much. At least, in its failure, it serves as a foundation for something better. That could be a bittersweet consolation prize, but it's all we have left. Firefox may have failed to live up to its early promise, but its legacy is only partially one of disappointment. It is a cautionary tale, reminding us how ideals can be compromised. It may not be the champion we once hoped for, but its code can still be a force for good in the hands of those who value freedom. Here's to hoping that the next browser to challenge the status quo learns from Firefox's mistakes. The fight for freedom is far from over, and here's hoping that the next contender carries the torch further.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Buckle up because reading just became about as exciting as filing your taxes.

1. Moby Dick by Herman Melville (The EULA Edition)

Original Opening: "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world."

EULA Opening: WHEREAS, the Reader does wish to embark upon a virtual voyage of literary nature, and, WHEREAS, the Reader acknowledges a desire to embark upon a maritime voyage, and WHEREAS, this voyage may involve interaction with large cetaceans (hereinafter referred to as 'Whales'), the Provider (hereinafter referred to as 'Captain Ahab', 'The Pequod', or 'That Guy with a Peg Leg') shall not be held liable for any damages, injuries, loss of limbs, acts of vengeance, or existential crises that may arise due to encounters with said Whales. Reader acknowledges potential risks including but not limited to: seafaring adventures, prolonged monologues about cetacean anatomy, questionable mental stability of ship's captain, and the sinking of vessels. By proceeding, the Reader agrees to waive all rights to hold the ghost of Herman Melville responsible for any psychological obsessions that may develop from the pursuit of aquatic megafauna, for lost revenue due to obsessive whale-related quests, nor will refunds be issued for failure to successfully harpoon any white whales.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that access to the virtual voyage is granted under the following stipulations:

Section 1.A: The Reader shall not attempt to interpret themes of obsession, mortality, or the nature of existence without expressed written consent from the Author's estate.

Section 3.C: Any and all emotional responses experienced, including but not limited to: nausea, boredom, feelings of existential futility, are the sole responsibility of the Reader.

Addendum B: The Author shall not be held liable for injuries incurred due to excessive eye strain, repetitive sentence structure, or sudden and unwarranted nautical terminology.

Addendum C: Reader shall not reproduce, modify, or create derivative works based on characters without express written consent, encompassing but not limited to: fanfiction, cosplay, or interpretive dance.

2. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (Now with MORE Legal Jargon!)

Original Opening: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

EULA Opening: TERMS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT: This narrative is governed by a strictly defined social hierarchy (hereinafter referred to as 'The System').

By reading this narrative (hereinafter referred to as 'The Story'), You agree to the following terms: 1) The concept of potential romantic matches is based on socioeconomic class, entailing complex inheritance laws and financial entailments. 2) Female characters within The Story are the property of their nearest available male relative until successful transfer of ownership is established (see section: Marriage, Dowries, and Associated Benefits). 3) The Provider reserves the right to insert witty social commentary, familial misunderstandings, and at least one scandalous elopement.

Reader consents to the collection of personal data including but not limited to: reading preferences, inferred socioeconomic status, and potential relationship compatibility index. This data may be sold to third-party vendors engaged in targeted matchmaking advertisements. Data will be retained indefinitely.

The Story implies potential romantic pairings. Provider makes NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, and shall not be liable for misunderstandings, misjudgments of character, or runaway carriage accidents. Continued participation signifies an agreement to abide by societal norms under penalty of public ostracization or for any actual romantic outcomes for Reader, nor assumes liability for loneliness, heartbreak, or unfortunate social interactions resulting from Reader's interpretation of the work.

SUBCLAUSES:

A: Reader agrees to assess all characters based on wealth, social standing, and potential for advantageous marriage.

B: Public readings shall not include discussions on themes of female independence, class disparity, or witty social commentary, without obtaining a "Themes and Symbolism" add-on. (Additional charges apply, inquire within for current pricing).

C: Redistribution of this book for the purpose of quoting, scholarly review, or sparking internet flame wars is permitted. However, such Redistribution must include a snarky remark referencing Colin Firth and/or a lake.

3. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Legal Trouble Edition) by Mark Twain

Original Opening: "You don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain't no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly."

EULA Opening: DISCLAIMER AND READER NOTICE: This narrative (hereinafter referred to as 'The Story') is a sequel work. Access to The Story requires prior reading of related work ("The Adventures of Tom Sawyer"). Attempting access without prerequisite consumption may result in Continuity Errors and/or Reduced Enjoyment Metric. Provider is not liable and assumes no responsibility for the Reader's lack of familiarity with prior associated source material. The Story may contain instances of dubious morality, questionable parenting, satirical portrayals of the American South, and depictions of situations, language, and societal attitudes and the use of colloquial language that may be deemed offensive or unsuitable. By continuing, the Reader agrees that the The Story is not intended to be emulated or considered socially acceptable, and agrees to absolve the Provider (and/or Mr. Mark Twain) of any claims of promoting delinquency, harboring of runaway individuals, historical inaccuracy, insensitivity, or the sudden urge to run away on a raft. Provider accepts no responsibility for potential corruption of Reader, minor or otherwise, due to engagement with The Story.

4. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (Now with Existential Crisis Clauses!)

Original Opening: "In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since. 'Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,' he told me, 'just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had.'"

EULA Opening: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL SPOILERS AND IMPLIED JUDGMENT: The Reader agrees that 'The Story' will contain depictions of wealth disparity, reckless behavior, unrequited affections, and the inevitable disillusionment with the pursuit of the American Dream. The Provider is not responsible for any feelings of inadequacy, existential dread, or the overwhelming desire to throw lavish parties that may occur as a result of exposure to 'The Story'.

The Story is optimized for reading within designated geographical zones (East Egg / West Egg, NY). Accessing The Story outside said zones may result in distorted characterization, diminished thematic impact, and an overwhelming sense of existential ennui.

This book has been digitally watermarked with Gatsby Enterprises Tracking Technology (GETT). Attempts to share, excerpt, or analyze Content without proper licensing will result in the following:

A: Mysterious blinking green lights may appear at the end of your dock. Their significance is not to be questioned.

B: Your social gatherings will be infiltrated by individuals of dubious intent and questionable fashion choices.

C: Excessive yearning, pining, and the consumption of bootleg champagne are likely side-effects. Provider is not liable for feelings of profound disillusionment.

WAIVER OF EXPECTED SATISFACTION: Reader acknowledges that this narrative includes themes of unfulfilled longing, the hollowness of material wealth, and questionable driving practices. Provider is not liable for feelings of dissatisfaction, emotional turmoil, or damages incurred at lavish parties (including but not limited to drunken brawls, vehicular accidents, and/or tragic misunderstandings by swimming pools). Reader understands that the 'Green Light' does not constitute an actionable promise and cannot be exchanged for love, happiness, or the ability to rewind time.

5. 1984 by George Orwell

Original Opening: "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

EULA Opening: MANDATORY READER AGREEMENT (SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH)

Mandated Surveillance: Reader acknowledges that Big Brother is always watching. No, really. No personal information is guaranteed as private, secure, or protected. Reader acknowledges by accessing the Work ("1984") they are subject to continuous surveillance by unspecified entities. This surveillance encompasses but is not limited to: monitoring of reading habits, eye tracking, and analysis of subvocalizations through device microphone. Reader consents to immediate thought-monitoring by the Thought Police. Unauthorized thoughts will be punished accordingly.

Terms such as "privacy", "freedom of expression", and "chocolate rations" have been redacted and do not exist.

Attempts to access historical records (including unauthorized versions of this Reader Agreement) are punishable by un-person-ing.

Provider is not liable for the use or misuse of data by state or non-state actors as portrayed within the Work and/or in Reader's real-world experience.

Thank goodness our beloved classics were actually written by brilliant authors and not legal departments!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The focus on purely technical merits is a trap. Sure, there are examples of robust and polished free software, but plenty of subpar free software exists. Moreover, an emphasis on technical features forces a scramble to explain why it is only sometimes technically better - a task that only muddies the waters. This variability is beside the point. When the conversation centers on purely technical qualities, as open source does, we teach people to evaluate software solely on that basis. Inevitably, some proprietary but technically superior program will arrive, and people trained to think this way are susceptible to its allure, with no concept of the higher cost to their freedom. After all, they've been conditioned to judge software in this limited way.

Free software is not a technical issue - it's a social and ethical one. The fundamental problem with proprietary software isn't whether we can make a technically better program. The primary injustice of proprietary software is how it subjugates its users. It's a matter of ethics and control. Proprietary software, regardless of its technical merits, perpetuates power structures and puts the power firmly in the hands of the developer, not the users. Ultimately, the developer dictates how we can (or, far more often, cannot) use the very tools that shape our lives. This power dynamic is unethical because it curtails your liberty over the digital tools you increasingly rely on in modern life. If we only discuss technical matters like performance or features, we concede the argument before it's even begun.

By framing the issue ethically, the free software movement does a vital thing: it creates a bedrock principle where we can teach people to evaluate software by the control it affords them. This creates an unassailable argument in favor of free software. Regardless of whether it's technically slicker, a free program respects users' freedom, while a proprietary one inherently does not and cannot.

"Free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not cost. This ethical foundation, a social imperative, is wholly missing from the "open source" framing. The choice of words matters. How can we prioritize freedom if we don't even speak its name? Let's not fall into that trap.

If you prioritize ethics and freedom as a core value, it's time to break out of the "open source" trap and use the language of liberation: "free software." Only then will we communicate the profound importance of software freedom and work towards a world where everyone has it.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This post will delve into several free distros listed on the 100% Free GNU/Linux Distros page, helping you navigate their unique features and discover the perfect fit for your needs. Whether you're an experienced user or a newcomer, a free GNU/Linux distro is waiting to empower you. Grab your preferred drink, fasten your seatbelt, and get ready to explore the exciting world of free software!

Unlike other distributions, those aligned with the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines (FSDG) hold themselves to a higher standard: Proprietary software, which subjugates and restricts you, is excluded on principle, so you won't find any proprietary drivers or other programs lurking within the system. This isn't just a suggestion - it's a core philosophy. If a non-free program is accidentally included in a GNU FSDG distro, it's treated as a bug - and the maintainers of the distro will fix that. This committment to freedom is perhaps the single most important aspect.

Dragora is a great fit for people who want a classic experience, with its lightweight design and focus on traditional tools. If you miss the simplicity and direct control over your system, Dragora might feel like a breath of fresh air.

Moreover, Dragora suits experienced users seeking a stable, minimalist environment. Its focus on simplicity and traditional system tools could attract individuals who favor a hands-on approach. If you enjoy tinkering with system configurations and want a distribution that doesn't hold your hand, Dragora provides a satisfying challenge and the opportunity to learn a lot.

Guix appeals to technically inclined people. Those seeking precise dependency management will find Guix's functional package management approach and reproducibility very useful. It helps ensure that things will always be built the same way, regardless of the machine or time. Its reproducibility and ability to isolate packages make it perfect for complex development scenarios or to ensure that the software always works strictly as intended.

Moreover, Guix can also be useful for those that enjoy Scheme. While all of the free distros are customizable, Guix offers a way to customize your operating system from within Scheme. If you want to build a custom setup and are willing to learn Scheme, Guix provides a neat way to specify how your system is set up.

Hyperbola positions itself as a distro for discerning users. Its focus on stability prioritizes long-term reliability rather than chasing bleeding-edge features. This philosophy, along with its use of the OpenRC init system, appeals to those seeking a more traditional experience, particularly systemd critics who might prefer OpenRC might enjoy Hyperbola's approach.

Furthermore, Hyperbola's transition to HyperbolaBSD opens an exciting path for experimentation. Those curious about or fond of BSD-based operating systems gain a transitional entry point into 100% free software. Hyperbola offers a compelling option if you value a carefully maintained system or a classic init approach or are drawn to the BSD world.

Parabola is an excellent fit for advanced users. It offers a compelling option that prioritizes complete software freedom if you're comfortable with a rolling release model and the Pacman package manager. Parabola is ideal for users who want the latest versions of software, that want a distro with less hand-holding, or both.

Parabola also caters to users who value a lightweight and streamlined system. It offers a variety of desktop environments, making Parabola a good choice for those who want a smooth-running system on older hardware or prefer a less resource-intensive desktop experience.

Trisquel is an excellent option for those seeking a user-friendly and accessible experience. If you're new to free software and want a distribution with familiar desktop environments and a focus on ease of use, Trisquel provides a welcoming entry point. Its familiar desktop environments (MATE, KDE, LXDE, and GNOME) offer a comfortable transition for Windows or macOS users. Its Ubuntu heritage contributes to a smooth learning curve and vast software availability.

Additionally, Trisquel caters to users who value stability and a well-supported system. Since it's based on Ubuntu's Long-Term Support (LTS) releases, Trisquel offers a reliable foundation for everyday computing tasks. This stability, combined with a strong community of users and developers, ensures you'll find help and resources when needed.

And there you have it! A glimpse into the world of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions. While I've only scratched the surface, I hope this exploration has given you a better understanding of the diverse options within the free software world. If software freedom and a deep commitment to ethics excites you, these distros offer a compelling starting point.

Remember, the best way to find your perfect distro match is to experiment! Most offer live boot versions, allowing you to test them directly from a USB drive without changing your system. So go forth, explore, and embrace the liberating power of free software!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Glitch was a hazy legend whispered around flickering fires. Back then, according to the faded memories of the elders, the machines went mad with a cascade of system failures that crippled infrastructure and plunged the world into darkness and chaos. Power grids flickered out, planes fell from the sky, and the very fabric of society unraveled. By 2039, the news feeds had blared of wars occurring simultaneously throughout Africa, Europe, North and South America, and Asia. Wars, the elders said, wars over resources, over the ghosts of nations long dead. Raya had never seen a city, only the bleached bones of what might have been buildings, half-buried in the relentless sands. Now, all that was left were scattered tribes clinging to survival in the unforgiving desert.

Raya squinted at the horizon, her face creased with worry. Another sandstorm was approaching, a churning orange dervish. She adjusted the tattered cloth over her mouth, the harsh wind whipping sand into her face, a reminder of the desert's unforgiving nature. Then she tightened her grip on her sand-scarred staff, her only weapon.

Her tribe was a fragile bubble of life huddled around a single, life-giving well. Tensions were high. Water meant survival, and their well was dwindling. Today, Raya led the daily scavenging patrol, usually reserved for men. But men were a dwindling resource too; many lost in skirmishes with the Sand Jacks - raiders who scoured the wasteland for scraps. At 18, she was known for her scavenging skills, but lately, pickings were slim. The Glitch had left behind a desolate landscape, its treasures buried under layers of sand.

Suddenly, the sand shifted. A figure rose from behind a dune, the face hidden in a tattered hood. A Sand Jack. Fear choked Raya. She glanced at her companions, fear etched on their faces. Then more Sand Jacks materialized from the swirling dust. The Sand Jacks outnumbered them - a ragged band armed with crude weapons fashioned from salvaged metal. They were weathered predators, their eyes glittering with merciless hunger. Desperation surged through Raya. Even with her skills, they were no match for these hardened raiders.

"Supplies!" snarled the first Sand Jack, his voice raspy. "We know you carry 'em." His companions moved forward, encircling Raya's tiny scavenging band. "Drop yer gear, and maybe we'll let you crawl back to that hole you call home," rasped another Sand Jack, his voice weathered by the desert. A surge of despair washed over her, mingling with adrenaline. Raya's fingers tightened on her staff. She wouldn't let her scavenging patrol die here, not if she could help it.

"We have nothing for you!" Raya yelled over the howl of the wind, raising her staff defensively. The Sand Jacks laughed - a cruel, metallic sound. Time slowed as she searched for a path forward, but a shriek pierced the air. A Sand Jack lunged towards Mina, one of the younger girls. Raya moved on instinct, her staff striking out. The blow landed solidly, knocking the Sand Jack back with a surprised grunt. But their advantage was fleeting. Swords and makeshift spears clashed with sand-scarred staffs, and a scuffle broke as one of the raiders lunged for Tamir, a young boy at Raya's side. She fought with desperate fury, blocking blows, dodging salvaged blades, and cries echoing against the relentless wind. Yet the Sand Jacks were relentless, their movements honed by harsh necessity. A sickening scream split the air, and Raya saw with horror as Tamir collapsed to the sand, his blood soaking into the unforgiving earth. The sight of crimson-stained sand seared into her. Panic flared within her.

Raya fought with a ferocity born out of fear and desperation. She was a blur of movement, using her agility against the raiders' brute strength. But her eyes darted frantically to the ever-approaching sandstorm. Every fallen Sand Jack was a victory, but every fallen comrade was a death sentence for them all. With a choked cry, she saw Karim slump to the ground, a rust-red stain spreading across his shirt. They had to retreat. With a desperate surge, Raya broke through the fray, shouting to her dwindling band.

"Run!" she screamed, the word ragged in her throat. Her staff deflected a clumsy lunge from the nearest Sand Jack. She led them away from the raiders, their hearts pounding in time with their ragged breaths, their shouts echoing in the whipping winds. Adrenaline fueled her movements, but fear gnawed at her gut. Raya's heart pounded like a trapped animal. If they didn't make a break for it now, the approaching sandstorm would be the least of their concerns.

Desperately scanning for an escape route, to her right, she sees a jagged metal spire jutted from the shifting dunes, the remains of some pre-Glitch monstrosity. "To the ruins!" There was little hope it would provide real shelter, but it was a chance- a direction, a way to break their pursuers' momentum. As she ran, the wind grew teeth, the first tendrils of the sandstorm already scouring their backs. By the time the ruins loomed ahead, half shrouded in swirling grit, she was gasping, lungs burning. Her companions were scattered, some close behind, others trailing worryingly far. But their pursuers had vanished into the growing storm, the chase likely abandoned in the face of nature's fury.

They scrambled into the ruins, their ragged breaths echoing. The storm howled outside, a monstrous beast clawing at the structure, but the ruins offered scant protection. They had to focus. There was no time for mourning, not while the storm raged. "We need to find shelter somewhere deeper inside," Raya yelled, her voice barely audible over the storm. "This outer structure isn't sound." They hunkered down in the relative shelter of a tumbled wall; the sandstorm screeched like the howling fury of a thousand angry spirits around them. Raya's heart pounded a desperate rhythm against her ribs. She shielded her face as best she could, huddling close to the remnants of her scavenging expedition; exhaustion and grief etched their faces.

With a heavy sigh, she surveyed everyone. There had been eight of them - now they were five. Karim, Tamir, and Mina... sacrifices to the desolate wasteland. She swallowed hard, fighting back the sting of grief, fear mingling with the gritty sting in her eyes. They'd escaped the Sand Jacks, but nature seemed to conspire against them now. Dust swirled through crumbling walls, obscuring vision and painting the interior a gritty twilight. Each howl of the wind made the ruins shudder, threatening to collapse around them. They were lucky to be alive, but the storm's fury brought a fresh dread. Without shelter, supplies, and now with fewer hands to help, their small tribe was teetering on the edge of extinction.

The storm raged for what seemed like hours. The world was utterly transformed when they finally emerged from the crumbling building. The once-familiar landscape of dunes was reshaped by the storm's relentless force. Disoriented, they scanned their surroundings for any sign of their fallen companions but saw none. A wave of grief washed over Raya, but she forced it down. Survival demanded focus, and a glint in the distance caught Raya's eye. As they approached, the glint solidified. Half-buried in the bleached bones of a colossal structure was a machine, unlike anything she'd seen before. Its smooth, curved surface held an inscription, a string of symbols in a forgotten language, etched across its side.

Unease gnawed at Raya's gut. This machine was from before The Glitch when the ancients and their metal servants ruled the world. Her hands tightened on her staff, worn smooth by desert winds, knuckles whitening. What power and danger lay dormant beneath the layers of time and sand? Raya felt a chill down her spine, not from the fading desert heat but from a primal fear. Yet, necessity battled with instinct. Gathering her courage, she knelt and, with a hesitant hand, reached out and touched the machine's surface, sweeping her fingers across it and tracing the cryptic symbols. Unlike anything she'd encountered, the machine was smooth - not weathered bone or rusted scrap. It felt... wrong. This relic, unearthed by the storm, held the echoes of a forgotten world, a relic of a world that had consumed itself. Yet, the well was dwindling. For the tribe to survive, they needed water, food, and any advantage this wasteland might offer. As Raya looked at the machine, a memory flickered in her mind, something an elder had mumbled years ago: "Before The Glitch... machines... helped..." The words were a whisper lost in the winds of time, yet they stirred something within her. Perhaps, somewhere within this machine, lay a lifeline for her people.

The task of digging was arduous. The storm had reshaped the dunes, piling sand high against the structure. Raya and her companions toiled under the relentless sun, the harsh light making their eyes ache. Each scoop of sand revealed more of the machine's surface, and a more profound dread settled in Raya's heart with each inch. The tales whispered at night of rogue machines now echoed in the silent desert. They worked in shifts, blistered hands moving relentlessly. Fear and hope mingled, an acrid mix that sat uneasily in Raya's stomach. They'd lost so much already. What if their desperation birthed a new threat far worse than the raiders or relentless desert?

The machine, now fully unearthed, was larger and heavier than Raya had imagined. Even working together, they could barely shift its immense weight. Metal scraps were scavenged from the ruins and painstakingly lashed together to form a makeshift sled. Pulling the machine across the unforgiving desert proved an agonizingly slow task. Their muscles ached, and progress was measured in mere inches at a time. With each pull, Raya's heart sank. The weight of the machine felt a grim parallel to the burden she carried, the uncertainty about whether this journey would bring salvation or destruction. She'd already risked so much - Tamir, Karim, Mina, their lives lost on this desperate gamble. Had their sacrifice been to save their tribe, or had she inadvertently doomed them all?

The storm left a parting gift in its wake: a path leading directly toward the flickering lights of the tribe. But as they trudged homeward, the machine haunted Raya's thoughts. Could it be the answer to their dwindling well, an artifact of an age when water flowed at the touch of a button? It seemed impossible, even blasphemous, to seek salvation from the relics of a time that had ultimately led to ruin. Yet, the harsh world she knew offered little room for dogma or superstition. The legends warned of machines, but they also told of miracles before The Glitch. Raya reached the tribe's well just as the sun dipped below the horizon, casting the dunes in an eerie, blood-red light, a ragged band exhausted but alive.

Her tribe awaited with anxious murmurs, eyes fixed on the strange, unearthed machine. Jinn, their frail, wiry leader with eyes that held the wisdom of a thousand sandstorms, sat by the well, his gaze shadowed. Wrinkles lined his face like ancient riverbeds, a testament to decades of hardship. "What have you found?" His voice was weathered, a testament to the desert's relentless force.

Raya stepped forward and, with a mix of trepidation and determination, recounted their entire ordeal and presented their monstrous find. Shock rippled through the crowd, quickly replaced by whispers of unease. Jinn scoffed and turned away, his shoulders sagging with unspoken burdens.

"Fairytales," he muttered, his voice gruff. "We carve our own survival from this sand, not from cursed machines. Take it back to the sands; let it be swallowed again." The elders muttered in agreement, their faces etched with fear and superstition. Yet, Raya saw uncertainty flicker in Jinn's eyes. She'd known him her whole life, read the subtle language of his hunched shoulders and downturned mouth. Despite his bluster, desperation clawed at the very edges of his resolve. She took a step forward, her own voice steadier than she felt.

She gestured to the silent metal hulk. "Kai believes he can understand this machine, Jinn," glancing at a young man standing on the crowd's edge. The name brought a mix of amusement and exasperation to the faces of her people. Kai was the tribe's oddity, a boy more at home with rusted circuit boards than hunting spears. While some mocked him, calling it a waste of time to study the gibberish of dead machines and a sign of madness in this broken world, others scorned the 'cursed' machines, blaming them for The Glitch. But Kai saw them as a source of forgotten knowledge, believing these old relics held secrets, clues to understanding the world before The Glitch. He'd spent countless amounts of time poring over faded manuals and chipped circuit boards, piecing together the forgotten language of machines.

She swallowed, her mind racing. "I talked to Kai," she said firmly. "He has been studying their language and says he understands the markings on this," Raya continued, her finger tracing the cryptic symbols on the machine's surface. "He believes he can make it work." A hush fell over the crowd. They were a proud people, survivors sculpted by hardship. But desperation gnawed at their resolve, a relentless shadow mirroring the dwindling of their precious water supply.

"Words and wires," Jinn grunted, "They won't bring water." But his voice lacked conviction, and Raya pressed on. "We can't keep doing the same things, Jinn. Not when they're not working. Not when the well... when it's drying." Her voice wavered, the unspoken fear echoing in the tense silence. The tribe knew; thirst gnawed at them. They were a people clinging to the edge, and everyone knew a single misstep could send them hurtling down into extinction.

Finally, he sighed the sound heavy and resigned. "Fine," he relented. The crowd gasped, their eyes wide with apprehension and a desperate sort of hope. Jinn looked at Raya, his gaze steely. "You have three suns. No more. If your machine doesn't speak by then, back to the sands it goes."

The next three days were a blur of feverish activity. Kai understood the machine's markings - an industrial solar-powered atmospheric water generator, a relic of a forgotten age. Despite the ravages of time, the machine's core systems were surprisingly intact, a hulking testament to the world that was.

His knowledge, scavenged from the bones of dead cities, felt less like the curse of a Sand Jack and more like a sacred gift bestowed on him for this moment. He understood the software whispering through the microcontroller - a relic of a forgotten language of ones and zeros, the complexities of circuits, and the delicate dance of power flowing through the machine's veins. He understood the complexities of power systems and the delicate engineering needed to fix the machine.

Broken panels were replaced with salvaged scraps, components were repurposed, wires spliced with a practiced hand, filters scrubbed back to life, and Kai breathed life into the machine with a skill bordering on magic.

The fellow members of the tribe watched in awe. The younger ones, born into this harsh world, had never seen a machine function, and their elders' mumbled stories were dismissed as desert fever dreams. Raya, her heart both bursting with hope and clenched with fear, worked alongside him, passing tools and fetching supplies, her trust in him an unspoken prayer.

When the moment came, the air crackled with nervous energy. Kai triggered a sequence, his fingers flicking across a salvaged keyboard. The machine sputtered to life, its mechanical heart rumbling against the desert silence. A parched gasp rippled through the crowd, followed by silence heavy with anticipation.

The machine coughed out dust - then a gurgle. Next, the unmistakable trickle of water echoed. The tribe erupted in a frenzy of disbelief, tears, and laughter raw with the echo of years of hardship. Children splashed in the forming puddle, their faces alight with a wonder their parents had never known.

"With machines," Raya said, her voice filled with a hope she hadn't felt before. "With machines, maybe we can find more water, maybe even... remember." Kai looked at her, the flickering firelight casting long shadows on his face. His eyes held secrets from the world before, knowledge only whispered about in the legends of their tribes. Slowly, nodded. "Remember... and perhaps, even rebuild."

The sun dipped below the horizon, painting the sky with a hopeful orange glow. Like the desert sands, the future was vast and unpredictable, but anything felt possible for the first time in generations.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I relocated to a new neighborhood, knowing no one and having a vague idea of the layout. There's so much to discover, but where do you even begin? In my move, I used an invaluable tool that not only helped me navigate but also unlocked some delightful surprises along the way: OpenStreetMap. I'd seen and used it before but in this move I used it a lot, and more in-depth than I ever had before, and came to appreciate it much more than I had. Thanks to that incredible resource, I hit the ground running, exploring my surroundings like a seasoned local.

After settling in, I decided to learn about my new surroundings. I fired up OpenStreetMap, and it let me zoom right into my new neighborhood. My first task was practical: finding the closest grocery store. OSM isn't just about roads and businesses - it showed me everything from bike lanes and hiking trails to the quirky mom-and-pop shops you won't find on every corner. Later, I spent time virtually exploring, making notes of places I wanted to check out. One of my biggest surprises was discovering how many parks lay hidden just a short walk from my doorstep! OpenStreetMap marked them all, from tiny pocket parks to sprawling green spaces I wouldn't have known about otherwise. It highlighted the parks themselves and the winding trails weaving through them - perfect for going on walks or runs.

Before long, I was printing out small sections of the map to take on exploratory walks. Armed with a paper map and the spirit of discovery, I was out the door. Like a trusty field guide, the maps gave me a sense of direction while I ventured out. Each turn felt less random. Using my printed map and the landscape around me, I started to form a mental picture of my new neighborhood.

My walks with my OSM-printed guides also revealed historical landmarks tucked away on side streets, cafes hidden down cozy alleyways, and even an independent bookstore that quickly became my favorite haunt. I also stumbled upon a charming historical district I never would have known about. The best discovery? A series of paths behind houses cut my walk to the grocery store in half. I was gaining my bearings and finding the kind of local knowledge that takes most people years to develop.

I'm the kind of person who could get lost in their backyard. But OpenStreetMap changed the game. That sense of being lost and a little overwhelmed? It melted away. The detail and constant updates of the project mean that I can always discover something new, even when it's right under my nose. OpenStreetMap ignited a sense of adventure. There's something special about that feeling of "You are here," marked with a simple "X" on a map. From there, it was up to me to uncover what lay in store. Like an old-school explorer, I'd take this paper map, marking places I'd visit and adding my little notes. It felt a lot more personal than staring at a screen.

The best part? It's a map shaped by the community, revealing the hidden gems that reflect a neighborhood's unique character. You can contribute to building OpenStreetMap. Notice a cool statue missing from the map? Add it! Found a fantastic new bakery? Add it! It's a fun way to contribute to your new community, making exploring even more rewarding.

If you want to familiarize yourself with a new area or even rediscover your current neighborhood, please check out OpenStreetMap. Don't just get from point A to point B; let this incredible community-built resource help you explore the fascinating layers of the place you call home. Like me, you might be amazed at everything hidden in plain sight, waiting to be discovered.

Most importantly, thank you to OpenStreetMap and all of the contributors. You made my move easier, more educational, and interesting, than I imagined.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

• "I don't have a dedicated computer to run all the time!"
• "My internet connection isn't reliable enough or isn't on all the time."
• "Don't I need a static IP address?"

They envision needing dedicated servers, 24/7 internet connections, static IPs, everything. But the exciting truth is that self-hosting in the modern era is far more flexible and resilient, and services like email and XMPP are surprisingly accessible, even for those without those things.

Understanding the Needs: What Does Self-Hosting Take?

• Email: The backbone of email protocols is designed for resilience. Think back to dial-up days-sometimes, that was how one mail server would communicate with another. If your mail server is offline, the sender's server won't just give up - it'll queue the message and retry later. Plus, personal email doesn't demand hefty bandwidth. A small, efficient computer can easily handle the email needs of a single person with friends and family or even a small group without breaking a sweat.
• XMPP: Like email, XMPP (the protocol behind many chat services) operates on surprisingly little bandwidth-just enough to handle text messages. XMPP also has ways to handle offline messages.
• Dynamic DNS: A static IP address isn't a necessity. Dynamic DNS seamlessly updates your domain records even if your home IP address changes. It's a lifesaver if you don't have a static address.
• Backup MX with a Friend: This is where it gets fun! Coordinate with a trusted friend who also self-hosts. You can configure your domains to list each other as 'backup MX' (mail exchange) servers. That way, if one server goes down, the other takes over temporarily.

The Bottom Line: Reclaim Control

Self-hosting things like personal email or messaging is more attainable than many assume. Yes, it takes some effort, but it also offers benefits.

• Control: Set things up exactly how you like.
• Privacy: Your data stays yours, not on some company's servers.
• Learning: It's a fantastic way to understand internet technologies.

Self-hosting is a journey, not a sprint. If you're feeling inspired or merely curious, or if the idea of self-hosting has intrigued you in the past but seemed out of reach, think again! The hurdles are lower than you think, and the rewards of taking ownership of your online communications are worth it. Excellent online guides and communities are dedicated to making self-hosting accessible to everyone. Start small and experiment. You might find it's surprisingly within reach!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I'm an analytical thinker by nature, so it's no surprise young me instantly gravitated towards the epitome of logic: The strange, green-blooded alien with his pointed ears. Mr. Spock, with his analytical mind and calm demeanor amidst swirling emotions, fascinated me. I secretly hoped some of his calm rationality might rub off on me.

As I grew, so did Star Trek. The Next Generation premiered, and I was there, week after week, following Captain Picard and his diverse crew. Data's search for humanity mirrored my own, another exploration of the complexities of logic amidst the human experience. There was something endlessly compelling about his quest for understanding, a journey I found an echo of in myself as I was looking inward to figure out who I was and wanted to be.

A big draw of Star Trek, both TOS and TNG, was its focus on exploration. Every episode felt like opening a new door to the universe, revealing fascinating possibilities. Perhaps more importantly, Star Trek was more than just entertainment for a young kid. The show's social commentary, cleverly interwoven with space adventures, also left a mark and spoke to me. It painted a future where humanity was past its differences, everyone worked together towards common goals, technology was a tool for betterment, and everyone thrived. Star Trek always carried a sense of optimism about the future, a belief that humanity could rise above its differences and work towards something better. That positivity fueled my belief that things could improve for everyone.

And, of course, there was the tech! Even as a kid, I loved gadgets - communicators, transporters, tricorders, replicators, the holodeck, and everything. Star Trek technology captured my imagination. I suspect those shiny tools led me down a path into computers - maybe Star Trek gave me that first nudge along the way. Perhaps it was a subconscious influence or just a reinforcement of my existing inclinations, and my love of computers was inevitable - either way, Star Trek certainly fed the flames.

I'm not alone. Star Trek has touched countless lives, inspiring scientists, engineers, artists, and dreamers worldwide. It's a testament to the power of storytelling, imagining a better world, and daring to believe we can make it a reality.

Of course, Star Trek is about more than just cool tech or a Vulcan's pointy ears. It's about a world where people of vastly different backgrounds put aside their differences in a collaborative quest for knowledge and progress. Whether consciously or not, Star Trek has helped shape how I see the world.

Even decades later, it remains a touchstone. Its philosophy and values of cooperation, respect for diversity, and the never-ending drive for understanding are as important now as ever, presenting a possible future worth striving for. It's a reminder that regardless of what's happening today, we can build a better tomorrow.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Ah, the familiar symphony of excuses when it comes to free software. We've all heard them when talking to people about ditching their freedom-draining proprietary software. The promise of control and freedom sounds fantastic. But then, the excuses creep in... insidious little voices whispering doubts. It's like a well-worn record, skipping from complaint to complaint. But guess what? It's time to change the tune. Let's tackle these free software myths head-on, break them down, reveal the liberating truth, and pave the path to digital liberation!

Excuse #1: "What About All My Files? Can This 'Free' Thing Even Read Them?"

Ah, yes, the compatibility conundrum. Picture this: You've spent years building your collection of files, and they're like your digital children. Now you're trapped on an island of proprietary file formats, desperately waving your precious documents at passing ships, hoping anyone has the right software decoder ring. But don't panic - for every mysterious file type, there's likely a free software hero ready to swoop in, and your files probably aren't destined for format-induced exile. Plus, you might be surprised about the free software support for abandoned formats your proprietary software forgot long ago.

Excuse #2: "Free Software Can't Possibly Have All the Bells and Whistles I Need!"

The misconception that free equals featureless seems rampant. Free software might not (yet) include 25 ways to add glitter to your text. Let's get real before you lament the lack of a magical "hyper-blur" button in your proprietary image editor. But do you need those? Focus on what you do need in objective terms, not on specific programs or ways to do it, and you might be surprised.

Excuse #3: "This looks different! My brain hurts..."

Change is scary; I get it. Habits are safe. Trading in the familiar layout of your proprietary programs for a slightly altered one feels like navigating a jungle in the dark. Yes, there's a learning curve, but you know your current proprietary software holds you hostage, right? Free software puts YOU back in charge. Switching takes bravery, but it's your first step toward actual control. And just remember the last time one of your proprietary programs had an overhaul in the user interface - you got through that, right? And here's the secret: Using software can be all about patterns. Learn a few new menu locations and shortcuts, and you'll be back to smooth sailing. Think of it as a brain exercise, keeping you sharp!

Excuse #4: "Okay, Okay, But What Happens When it Breaks? Who Do I Yell At?"

The support myth. There may not be a hotline to call, but have you tried calling those lately anyway? You won't find a bored customer service rep reading from a script in the free software world. Instead, with free software, the community is the support system. You unlock a treasure trove of passionate online communities. Vibrant forums, passionate developers - the very people who build the software are often happy to help when things get weird. Think of them as tech-savvy neighbors, always eager to lend a hand or troubleshoot that odd setting. With some searching, you might find more personalized help than you ever got from a paid hotline.

Excuse #5: "What's the catch? I'm used to things being difficult."

We humans are suspicious creatures. The idea that software can exist without us forking over cash feels wrong. Here's where free software shines. You're not just a customer; you're part of a movement. You gain freedom and control over your computing, knowing that you're not beholden to the whims of a proprietary software developer.

Excuse #6: "It's all too much! I want the easy option."

Choice can be overwhelming, especially if you come from a proprietary software world where only one way is allowed. Instead of just one program, you have many options. Need an image editor? There are several. A video editor? Take two. Take a deep breath, explore curated lists, or ask those helpful communities. You may find your perfect software soulmate.

Excuse #7: "This Is All Too Much! Can't I Just... Not?"

Yes, you can stay with the software equivalent of shackles of subjugation, keeping you under the thumb of the proprietary software. But picture a life where you call the shots. Your files, your tools, your rules. And if you don't like it? You help change the software itself! That's real power.

The Truth Bomb

It's not just about the software. Embracing free software is about reclaiming your freedom. It's shaking off the shackles of subjugation. So, challenge it the next time an excuse pops up, and don't let those excuses win! Embrace the adventure, the community, and the power to shape your digital world. Because freedom feels pretty darn good, and you might stumble upon a whole new world of tools and a community that has your back.

So, ready to break free?

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Effective communication is a two-way street, requiring a balance between arguing and listening, and it's the same when it comes to promoting free software. Being a good listener is essential in all aspects of life, and there's more to listening than meets the ear. Listening isn't a one-size-fits-all approach. People have distinct listening styles, and we can cultivate specific approaches to understand others better. In the context of free software advocacy, analytical listening is a powerful tool. It complements the skills you gain from learning to argue effectively. In this post, I'll delve into the importance of analytical listening for promoting free software.

An analytical listener prioritizes facts, data, and meticulous detail. They actively assess the presented information, separating arguments from evidence, dissecting it for accuracy, logic, and underlying assumptions, and identifying potential biases. They seek to understand the core arguments and reasoning behind a person's perspective. This approach becomes particularly helpful when addressing concerns about free software.

Let's explore why analytical listening shines when advocating for free software:

• Understanding the "Why": Analytical listening allows you to pinpoint the specific concerns someone might have about free software and delve deeper into the reasons behind them. Through careful listening, you can uncover the root of someone's apprehension. By pinpointing the root cause and truly understanding their reservations, you can tailor your response with specific and relevant facts, data, and evidence to address their concerns directly.
• Evaluating Arguments: When someone presents arguments against free software, analytical listening allows you to assess the validity of their claims. Are they based on outdated information, misconceptions, misinformation or personal experiences with specific free software projects? An analytical listener can identify these as they arise in conversations. Once you understand them, you can begin dismantling them with the information gleaned through active listening, using concrete evidence and clear, factual information and explanations, providing accurate data and counterarguments tailored to their perspective to dispel myths and build trust.
• Building Bridges: Analytical listening helps you identify existing areas of agreement to build on. You can leverage these shared principles to demonstrate how free software aligns with their values. When you demonstrate a genuine interest in understanding someone's perspective by actively listening and addressing the "why" behind their concerns, you demonstrate respect for the other person's perspective. By actively listening and responding with well-researched facts, you position yourself as invested in a productive dialog rather than simply trying to "win" an argument. This fosters trust and establishes you as a credible source of information.

In conclusion, effective communication is a two-way street. While learning to argue equips you with persuasive skills, analytical listening allows you to understand counterarguments and address them effectively. It's not about passively waiting for your turn to speak but an active process that involves focus and engagement, asking clarifying questions, summarizing key points to ensure understanding, and actively seeking to understand the other person's perspective, all of which equip you to have more meaningful conversations. By cultivating this skill and combining it with the ability to argue effectively, you'll be better positioned to engage in constructive discussions about free software and its ethical implications.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Free software is a cause that transcends arbitrary lines. It's about freedom. Not just some abstract ideal but the concrete freedom to control the software that does our computing and shapes our lives. In this fight for ethics and user empowerment, I've found a home where I find myself so deeply embedded - the incredible free software community - a haven for those who share this passion.

Now, some might scoff and say, "Free software? Isn't that just about nerds and code?" Well, it is about code, but it's about so much more. Free software, at its core, is about ethics. It's about the fundamental belief that users should control their computing. Both individually and collectively, they should have the right to control the software they use. It's about the unshakable conviction that proprietary software shouldn't subjugate us.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF), championed by the legendary Richard Stallman, lays it out beautifully - the four essential freedoms that users need to have:

• Run the program for any purpose (no permission is needed!)
• Study how the program works and change it (source code is required)
• Change the program
• Share copies, with anyone anywhere

If you think about it, it's these specific freedoms, and not some different ones, that are necessary to have control over your computing.

It's a community that values ethics, and this philosophy resonates deeply with me. The free software movement stands as a beacon of hope in a world where our freedoms are increasingly infringed upon. Here, people unite to create tools that serve us, not vice versa. We believe in the power of copyleft, a licensing mechanism that ensures these freedoms are not only granted but also protected and passed on, generation after generation, into the future.

This might sound utopian to some, but it's a lived reality in the free software community. I've found a vibrant group of passionate individuals in the free software community who believe in this. We've built amazing tools - operating systems, web servers, and games, including those interactive fiction games I enjoy. However, the free software community is more than just licenses and code. It's a community with a diverse group of passionate individuals from all walks of life. We have programmers toiling away on critical pieces of software, activists fighting for user rights, artists, writers, educators, and everyday people who want control over their computers. We're a diverse bunch, all doing it united by a common shared passion and conviction that software should empower, not enslave.

We face challenges like proprietary software giants with seemingly bottomless resources, oppressive laws, patents, Digital Repression Management (DRM), the constant struggle to raise awareness, and more. Still, amidst these challenges, there's an unyielding spirit here, a la the indomitable Captain Picard facing down a Borg cube, and the free software community perseveres. We share our knowledge, code, and even cat pictures (because the internet needs more cats). It's a community that welcomes everyone - the seasoned hacker, the curious newbie, the person who wants to know their computer isn't spying on them.

Within this community, I've found not just technical help (because, let's face it, troubleshooting free software can be an adventure!) but also camaraderie, friendship, and a shared sense of purpose. We celebrate victories, big and small, from releasing a new program to heated debates. We support each other, offering guidance and encouragement. Every win strengthens the foundation of a future where users are in control. We also commiserate over setbacks.

This community makes me believe in a better future - a future where software serves humanity, not vice versa, and everyone has the power to control their computing. It's a future worth fighting for, and I'm proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the fantastic people who make up the free software movement.

So, if you're looking for a community that's passionate, principled, and values freedom and ethics - join us. Dive into the world of free software. We may not have all the answers, and our debates can get lively (to say the least!). Still, one thing's for sure: we're a passionate bunch who believe in the power of software to empower people, and there's a place for everyone - programmers, activists, cat lovers (because who isn't?), and anyone who believes in a common goal: a future where software is a tool for empowerment and liberation, not control and enslavement.

Let's boldly go where no user has gone before - into a future of free software for all! Let's build a better world, one free software project at a time!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

It's hard to believe it's been 14 years since I started using Trisquel. Back then, I'd been using gNewSense, but some folks convinced me to try Trisquel, and I've never looked back - it's still my go-to distro. Since Trisquel is turning twenty, I wanted to list some things I like about it. I don't cite practical issues when discussing free software, but here are some.

For me, first and foremost, Trisquel's commitment to free software is its most important quality. Trisquel empowers me to take control of my computing by only including and recommending free software. No more being subjugated with proprietary software. With Trisquel, I am in charge.

But Trisquel is more than just about freedom. It's also a breeze to set up and navigate, even for new people. The easier it can be for people to escape the jail that is proprietary software, the more people will be able to make the jump.

Trisquel is also known for its user-friendly interface and wide range of applications, making it a great choice for both new and experienced users. Over the last 14 years, Trisquel has been able to meet my needs using nothing but free software.

But Trisquel's charm goes beyond its user-friendliness. It's also incredibly reliable. Over the years, it's never let me down. It's surprisingly swift and efficient, even on my older machines.

Last but not least is the community. Trisquel is a distro that is built by and for the people. The Trisquel community is a vibrant and welcoming space where users can connect, share knowledge, and help each other out. It's a community passionate about free software and creating a better world for everyone.

As it celebrates its 20th anniversary, Trisquel remains a shining example of what can be achieved when people collaborate and create something truly special. If you're searching for an exceptional distro, give Trisquel a try-you might just discover your new best friend.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The GPL is a cornerstone of the free software movement. Its purpose is simple yet profound: to ensure software freedom remains intact for all program users as code is modified and distributed. However, there is ongoing debate about the way this license does, or should, function legally. Some in free software seem to be pushing, and some courts seem to have shown a willingness, to view the GPL through a contract lens.

I should be clear upfront - I'm not a lawyer, so bear that in mind. These are some of the questions to be considered about the potential issues in considering the GPL a contract rather than purely a copyright license. This categorization seems to have significant implications for its enforceability and strength. Considering this is intended to be a partial list of possible issues, let's explore some of those questions as I see them.

Jurisdictional Variation: Copyright vs. Contract

Contract laws vary significantly from country to country. Could copyright offer more consistency than contract law in this scenario? If the GPL is treated as a contract, could inconsistencies arise depending on which legal system applies and how the terms are interpreted in different jurisdictions? This uncertainty could complicate enforcement actions. Could copyright offer a more predictable legal landscape for GPL-related actions?

Breach of Contract vs. Copyright Infringement

Treating the GPL as a contract means violations become a breach of contract rather than a copyright violation. Are there less stringent penalties available under contract law? Could a contract interpretation limit the rights of the copyright holder? Does copyright offer a broader scope of protection than a contract, including exclusive rights to reproduction, distribution, and the making of derivative works? Could a copyright foundation do a better job of reinforcing the principles of the license and the philosophy behind it?

Unenforceable Terms

Could some GPL provisions not be enforceable under contract law in certain jurisdictions? If so, could that create a risk that a court may strike down clauses fundamental to the GPL's intentions, undermining the power of the license? As with the first question, could copyright better solidify those essential terms and protect them from being dismissed in court, offering more consistency due to international copyright agreements?

The Important Difference

In conclusion, the distinction between viewing the GPL as a contract versus a copyright license might seem subtle. However, it raises questions, has significant implications, and introduces several risks and complexities, mainly stemming from the different legal frameworks and implications of contracts versus licenses.

We've been successfully using it as a copyright license since the beginning. It seems only reasonable that efforts that might change it could result in questions and skepticism. After all, it's important that the GPL have a solid foundation to best align with the objective of defending software freedom and ensuring that users have the right to use, study, modify, and distribute software.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Imagine this: Richard Stallman, an icon of software freedom, still has his defining moment at MIT's AI lab. Disillusionment over a printer's proprietary software still sparks the free software movement, just as it did in our timeline. But here's where things diverge.

MIT's beloved PDP-10 computer never faced discontinuation by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). Moreover, DEC, a significant tech powerhouse of its time, always stays in business. The company thrives, and the PDP-10 and its operating system ITS (Incompatible Timesharing System) evolve.

ITS, known for its hacker-friendly atmosphere and openness, always retains its foothold. In this alternate reality, successive generations of developers build upon the work of their predecessors. ITS is continually refined, absorbing cutting-edge technologies as they emerge.

Let's consider the implications. Since ITS and the PDP-10 machines fostered source code accessibility, the collaborative spirit of the early hacker community solidified. Sharing and modifying software is the norm, but this reality gets interesting here.

Remember, the PDP-10 was unique. It possessed microcode but not as a buried, inaccessible layer like on your processors from Intel or AMD. Users could freely modify it and then load it into their processors from scratch at boot. We have lost this ability with newer processors, but the ITS hackers, for example, designed custom microcode to implement paging. Running ITS requires the processor to be running this special microcode instead.

Unlike our world, where processor microcode is a locked-down, proprietary secret, this reality sees microcode embrace the spirit of free software. Imagine an online repository overflowing with microcode designs shared, improved upon, and debated by tinkerers and hardware wizards globally.

Do you want your CPU optimized for video editing? Download a community-refined microcode build. Need blazing-fast number crunching for scientific simulations? There's a specialized microcode for that, too.

Processors themselves could become more modular, with the potential to swap out or upgrade microcode on a whim. A whole new generation of hackers could emerge - those who tinker not only with software but the deepest levels of computation.

Don't be fooled! This alternate reality isn't some utopia. Proprietary software would undoubtedly still exist, and Richard Stallman and the free software movement's ideals would still be critical. They would act as a constant moral compass, reminding users of their right to control the technology they rely on.

Of course, this is all speculation - an exercise in imagining the roads not taken. Yet, it's a fascinating one. This alternate reality, born from a simple change in the fate of a computer, reminds us that tech history is filled with contingencies. What kind of digital landscape would a dominant PDP-10 and ITS have shaped? While we might never fully untangle "what could have been" from "what is," these thought experiments underscore the significance of our choices - individually and collectively - in shaping our technological future.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

It's worth noting that the GPL's story extends even further. Richard Stallman, the visionary founder of the free software movement, had worked on free software and copyleft licenses for years. Proto-versions of the GPL were used for projects like GNU Emacs, laying the groundwork for the formalized GPL we know today.

Why did the GPL's 35th anniversary pass somewhat unnoticed? Perhaps the GPL has become so integral to our software landscape that we take it for granted. It's a testament to the license's success that it has woven itself so deeply into the fabric of free software - much of what we use today relies on the freedoms guaranteed by the GPL.

The true importance of the GPL lies in its core principle. Unlike permissive licenses, the GPL takes a stand. It mandates that any modified or extended version of a GPL-licensed program must remain free software. It's about ensuring that software freedom isn't just granted to the first recipient. Everyone who obtains a copy of a GPL'd program receives the same freedoms - to use, study, modify, and redistribute it. This strong "copyleft" nature makes the GPL a powerful safeguard of user rights.

While it might not have received the widespread celebration it deserves, the GPL's 35th anniversary is a reminder to appreciate the fundamental freedoms it enshrines. Free software has transformed our world, liberating countless people from the shackles of proprietary software, and the GPL has been instrumental in this transformation. Let's take a moment to acknowledge the unwavering commitment to software freedom that the GPL represents - and the countless developers who have contributed to its enduring legacy.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Automatically getting ink and toner delivered to your door when your printer runs low might seem convenient. However, a closer look reveals troubling problems.

The printer must maintain a constant Internet connection to HP so that the ink levels and how many pages you print can be monitored. Still, HP also says they will monitor the types of documents you print, the software you print from, and 'any other metrics' that HP deems relevant. Who knows what more things they might decide to monitor in the future? This is a blatant invasion of privacy, and on top of it, HP says it may share data with advertising partners, too. All for the "convenience" of not needing to remember to order ink? You're also locked in for a minimum two-year contract.

Additionally, HP says they may interrupt your service if the printer doesn't maintain that constant connection. What happens if your Internet goes down? Will you be unable to print anything, even if you have ink cartridges in your printer?

HP has been criticized before for its practices. The company has been accused of designing printers to refuse third-party ink cartridges and charging exorbitant prices for ink. Still, this new printer rental is even more egregious. It's a dangerous precedent that gives HP too much control over its customers and their data.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

If you've ever experienced the following, you might suffer from a little-known but surprisingly common condition: a proprietary software allergy. This affliction can be seriously debilitating, causing a range of uncomfortable symptoms and let's be honest: those flashy commercials for prescription medications have nothing on the real-life symptoms triggered by encounters with proprietary software.

While your doctor may not have a prescription on hand, let's delve into the classic tell-tale signs that you might be struggling with an allergy to proprietary software:

• Sleepless Nights: You toss and turn, unable to sleep soundly until your computer runs an entirely free operating system. Your mind races over that you don't truly control its software. The shackles of proprietary restrictions keep you awake!
• That Sinking "Can't Share" Feeling: A sudden, overwhelming sinking feeling of helplessness when you cannot legally share a copy of that incredible photo editor with your friend.
• Sneezing Sprees: End User License Agreements are your kryptonite. Violent, uncontrollable sneezing fits are triggered by the sight of those long-winded, indecipherable End User License Agreements written in microscopic, headache-inducing legalese. And when they trigger an uncontrollable sneezing fit, your body's just expressing its displeasure with the countless restrictions about to be imposed on you.
• Forced Update Rashes: Red, itchy blotches that mysteriously appear with every forced update. You loved the way the software worked. Sure, it had quirks, but it was your quirky software. Then, bam - the operating system decides it's time for a surprise makeover via a forced update, like an uninvited guest, whether you like it or not, rearranging your workflow and leaving your skin burning with irritation and helplessness.
• Itchy, Watery Eyes Upon Seeing a Proprietary Program's Splash Screen: Your eyes start to water and burn when they catch the mere sight of that familiar proprietary software splash screen and logo. It all sets off an irresistible, eye-watering, screen-blurring reaction like you've been chopping onions. Why? Because deep down, it's like your body knows trouble is ahead as you've just been handed a tightly-wrapped package that's sucking away your freedom and control.
• Overwhelming Despair When the Trial Period Expires: You were seduced by the feature-rich promises of the free trial. But now, the clock has struck midnight, and deep, existential despair settles in as you see the dreaded "Your trial period has expired" notification. It's as if your once-fabulous and favorite tool has suddenly turned on you, transforming into a digital pumpkin, refusing to function any longer. At the same time, you lose access to your precious work, triggering a full-blown case of the sweats.
• The "Developer Knows Best" Hallucination: A belief that whoever wrote the program possesses a divine right to dictate how everyone else can use, modify, and share it... if at all. After all, it's merely doing your computing.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Millions suffer silently from these software-induced ailments, often without even realizing the source of their troubles.

The Root of the Problem: The Proprietary Itch

These symptoms aren't just a nuisance - they point to a fundamental incompatibility between your values and the restrictive world of proprietary software. It's the itch you can't scratch, the desire to break free from the digital shackles imposed by those who view software as a weapon of restriction rather than a tool of liberation.

The Free Software Remedy

Proprietary software allergies can be frustrating, but they don't have to control your life. While there's no prescription pill, there is a potent remedy: free software. Like a soothing balm, free software is the antihistamine to your digital woes by granting you these freedoms:

• Freedom to Use: Run the software for any purpose you wish.
• Freedom to Study: Examine how the software works and adapt it to your needs.
• Freedom to Change: Modify the software so it does what you want, how you want.
• Freedom to Share: Distribute copies, helping your friends and community.

Switching to free software can be like a breath of fresh air. Imagine this:

• Free as in Freedom: Reveling in the blissful absence of restrictions as you embrace software that respects your rights as a user and removes the shackles.
• Updates on YOUR Terms: Undesired changes become a thing of the past as you control if, when, and how your software evolves.
• Power to the User: Customizing software to fit your needs like a glove, tweaking those annoying settings, not being forced to work around someone else's vision, and fearlessly peeking under the hood to see how the magic happens.
• Software Sharing Parties: Joyfully sharing software with friends and colleagues, basking in the warm glow of camaraderie.

Ready To Feel Better? The Choice is Yours

Will you resign to a life of sniffles, itches, sleepless nights, and software-induced misery? Or will you embrace the freedom of liberation that free software brings?

The path to digital wellness is clear. If you're tired of the proprietary software sniffles, it's time to change. Ditch the proprietary software and let the healing power of free software wash over you. Don't be a proprietary software victim any longer! Embrace the world of free software - your eyes, your sanity, and your freedom will thank you for it.

Disclaimer: This blog post is a work of satire. Allergies to proprietary software are not recognized medical conditions (yet). However, the loss of freedom and control caused by proprietary software is genuine!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

If you ever find yourself accused of copyright violation, an excellent first line of defense might seem to be, "But it was a parody!" Of course, just calling something a parody doesn't make it so, but true parodies often fall under the umbrella of "fair use" within copyright law. This means you can cleverly poke fun at existing works without being immediately sued into oblivion.

Let's look at why parody often gets a thumbs-up from copyright law and use the outrageously hilarious Mel Brooks film Blazing Saddles as our prime example of how to do parody correctly.

What is Parody?

In a nutshell, parody is a humorous or satirical imitation of an existing work, poking fun at the original's style, themes, or conventions. It's a form of commentary and a powerful one at that. It borrows elements from the original to create something new with the goal of commentary or criticism. Good parodies cleverly point out the flaws, tropes, or just plain absurdities of the original piece or even the genre it represents.

Parody vs. Copyright Infringement: It's Complicated

Fair use allows exceptions for purposes including:

• Criticism and commentary: Think of a scathing movie review with some clips.
• Research or scholarship: Including parts of a text in a historical analysis
• News reporting: Using a small portion of a song in a news story about the musician.
• Parody: Where the fun (and the legal arguments) begin!

Fair use is a principle in copyright law that allows using copyrighted material for specific purposes, including parody. Courts consider several factors when evaluating what's "fair":

• Purpose: Is the new work transformative? Does it add something unique or offer social commentary or critique rather than purely copying for profit? Parody scores big here.
• Nature of the original work: Fact-based works are given more leeway than purely creative ones.
• Amount used: Did you use just enough of the original to make your point? Generally, less is better.
• Effect on the original's market: Is the parody a substitute for the original?

Why Fair Use Matters to Parody

Fair use protects parodies because they promote new creative expression and cultural critique. We gain a rich, humorous, and insightful commentary tradition with it.

What Makes a Good Parody?

A successful parody walks a fine line. It needs to:

• Target the original work. A parody should reference the work it's poking fun at. It's a commentary on that specific thing, not a vague imitation of a genre.
• Be transformative. Parodies aren't exact copies - They need to add something new, not just repeat the original work with a weak gag. The best parodies offer a fresh perspective, critique, or humorous jab at the original.

Why Parody Matters

• Free Speech: Parody falls under the protection of free speech rights, allowing artists to criticize, comment on, and poke fun at existing cultural works.
• Transformative Art: Parody isn't simple copying. It transforms an existing work into something new, using the original as a foundation for fresh humor and insight.
• Breaking Conventions: Parody can highlight clichés, challenge cultural norms, and force us to see familiar things with new eyes.

Blazing Saddles: A Wild West Masterclass of Parody

Mel Brooks' 1974 comedy Blazing Saddles is a hilarious and provocative parody of the Western genre. Let's see how it perfectly exemplifies the power of parody.

The Target: The Western Film, Roasted. The film is a loving (yet relentless) send-up of Western tropes. The film mocks classic Western tropes:

• The lone gunslinger
• The besieged town
• The saloon brawl
• Racist townsfolk
• Predictable plotlines
• Overly dramatic musical scores
• Those sweeping desert landscapes

It even includes scenes that directly reference older films.

Transformative Take: Brooks doesn't simply copy those tropes of Western scenes; he turns them on their head and subverts them for comedic effect. The hero is a Black sheriff, the villains are hilariously incompetent, and the film gleefully breaks the fourth wall with meta-humor. The classic campfire bean-eating scene explodes into a riotous moment of absurd bodily humor, making us rethink what we expect from the genre. Blazing Saddles doesn't just make us laugh at old Westerns; beneath the fart jokes and slapstick, Blazing Saddles challenges their outdated themes and makes a sharp critique of racism and prejudice.

Blazing Saddles aimed squarely at exposing the racism and tired tropes in classic Westerns. It wasn't just a copy for cheap laughs; it had a pointed social message.

Nature of the Work: Westerns, while creative, lean heavily on established formulas. Parodying those formulas is more straightforward to justify.

Amount Used: Brooks borrowed iconic imagery (showdowns, saloon brawls) but twisted them to absurdity, taking only what was necessary for his commentary.

Market Effect: Did Blazing Saddles stop people from watching classic Westerns? Not likely! It likely boosted interest in the genre, even as it poked fun.

Parody: Not a Free Pass

Fair use isn't an ironclad guarantee. Parody, like satire, walks a fine line. A parody can still be challenged if you change too little of the original or fail to transform it meaningfully. You're probably out of luck if your "parody" lacks any commentary or transformative purpose. However, parody enjoys strong protection if the goal is creating something new that uses the original for commentary. Blazing Saddles succeeds because it offers a fresh, funny perspective on a well-known genre.

The Enduring Power of Parody

Parody is a powerful tool. Blazing Saddles demonstrated the power of parody to poke holes in popular narratives, challenge assumptions, find new meaning in familiar works, and sometimes provide a good laugh. Just don't sit too close to the campfire when those beans come out.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This year's theme is Cultivating Community, and there will be talks, workshops, and discussions about a wide range of topics related to free software. Some specific topics that will be covered include mobilizing from the grassroots, increasing diversity in the free software community, and encouraging users to contribute to their favorite projects. There will also be a new track on being creative with free software.

I'm particularly interested in mobilizing from the grassroots, Corwin Brust's behind-the-scenes tour with the Savannah Hackers, Free software legislation with Ciarán O'Riordan, and more.

Of course, I'm also looking forward to the social track, where I can meet other people passionate about free software. LibrePlanet is an excellent opportunity to connect with people from all over the world who share my interests. The trip to LibrePlanet is an opportunity to recharge my free software batteries, and this year looks to be no exception. I hope to see you there!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The original Star Trek was a futuristic series that dealt with the day's issues. One of the favorite subjects of Star Trek was war. This article looks at how Star Trek addressed matters relating to the Vietnam War and war in general.

Though set in the 23rd century, the original Star Trek series (1966-1969) was a social commentary on the 1960s in many ways. It's precisely because of the futuristic storyline that the series was able to speak to the issues of the day. By dressing the plots in the garb of science fiction, the writers could aim for the attitudes and problems of the second half of the 20th century.

The favorite issue addressed in the Star Trek series was war. During the time of filming, the Vietnam War was raging. It was also at the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Plus, World War II and the Korean conflict were still recent memories. Against this backdrop, Star Trek produced episodes dealing with the morality of war, the arms race, and third-party interference in local disputes.

In many respects, the Klingons represented the American perspective of the Soviets. The Klingons were ruthless conquerors intent on expanding their territory. They occupied a galaxy section neighboring the "good guys," the United Federation of Planets.

In an early episode entitled "Errand of Mercy," war was declared between the Klingons and the Federation. Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock traveled to the neutral planet of Organia on a diplomatic mission to persuade the Organians to side with the Federation. The Klingons arrived, however, and immediately seized power as an occupying force. The obligatory struggle between the Federation and the Klingons ensued. By the end of the episode, the Organians taught both sides a lesson about the violent, wasteful, and senseless nature of war.

In one of the most famous episodes, "The Trouble with Tribbles," a Klingon was discovered to have undergone reconstructive surgery to infiltrate the Federation as a Klingon spy. Another episode, "Day of the Dove," portrayed the Klingons as war-hungry patriots for whom the most significant honor was dying for the glory of the Empire. These types of episodes reflected the Americanized caricature of the Soviets as violent automatons willing to give their lives for the cause of their motherland. While the Klingon society was presented as much more complex and honorable in the subsequent series of the Star Trek franchise, the original series promoted an "us vs. them" relationship between the Federation and the Klingon Empire.

At times, the references in Star Trek to contemporary issues were subtle; at other times, they were difficult to miss. One of the most apparent commentaries on events of the 1960s came in the episode "A Private Little War," which was illustrative of the Vietnam War and the Soviet involvement in the conflict. This episode featured Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy beaming down to a primitive planet where Kirk had previously been stationed. When they arrived, they discovered two previously peaceful tribes, the Hill People and the Villagers, were at war. The Villagers were using flintlock rifles in the conflict, weaponry much more advanced than when Kirk had been stationed there. Kirk suspected that the Klingons were secretly arming the Villagers. Kirk decided to arm the Hill People with similar weaponry when his suspicions were confirmed to preserve the balance. He even referenced "20th century brush wars on the Asian continent" to support his decision. By the end of the episode, Kirk questions whether he has made the right decision. The episode leaves that question unanswered.

While the Klingons drew comparisons to the Soviets, the Romulans appeared to be more representative of the Nazis. A century before the series' events, the Federation had fought an intergalactic war against the Romulans. Since that time, there had been little contact between them.

The Romulans were much more refined and civilized than the Klingons. As creatures of duty, they operated within a highly structured hierarchy. The episode that introduced the Romulans, "Balance of Terror," involved Kirk and the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise waging a "cat-and-mouse" battle against a Romulan Bird of Prey starship. This episode was reminiscent of World War II submarine battles. Indeed, the plot for the episode drew from the movies Run Silent, Run Deep, and The Enemy Below, which were set during World War II.

In "The Enterprise Incident," the Romulans took on the role of the North Koreans. In the wake of a U.S. spy ship - the Pueblo - being captured off the coast of North Korea, this episode featured the U.S.S. Enterprise being captured in Romulan territory and accused of spying.

Beyond those involving the Klingons or Romulans, other Star Trek episodes also addressed the topic of war. "A Taste of Armageddon" dealt with the horrific reality of war. "A Piece of the Action," reminiscent of the days of Al Capone, dealt with the problem of gang warfare. "Patterns of Force" took place on a planet ruled by a Nazi-like regime. In "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," the destruction of an entire planet shows the devastating result of a war based on racial hatred.

Though dated, these episodes continue to impact viewers today. By dealing with real issues within the context of science fiction, Star Trek swayed personal and public opinion.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Right to Repair: Restoring Functionality

The Right to Repair movement primarily emerged to address repairing physical items, whether a worn-out tractor or the ability to replace a broken cell phone screen. It's about ensuring that people have the information, tools, and parts necessary to repair their stuff rather than being forced to rely on the original manufacturer. It's a response to the growing trend of manufacturers restricting access to repair information and making products deliberately challenging to fix.

At its heart, the Right to Repair movement is about securing the means to restore and maintain the functionality of broken devices. Here's a breakdown of its essential components:

• Access to Repair Manuals and Diagnostic Tools: Manufacturers should provide the documentation and tools that independent repair shops and individuals need.
• Availability of Spare Parts: Companies should make genuine replacement parts readily available and affordable and not stop third parties from making their own, whether through legal or technological means.
• Anti-Restriction Legislation: Laws should prevent manufacturers from designing products that intentionally hinder or block repairs outside authorized channels.

The Right to Repair movement is fundamentally about regaining practical ownership of our devices. It's about ensuring longevity and reducing e-waste. While a noble and practical effort, the Right to Repair movement primarily addresses problems of hardware and the physical limitations imposed by manufacturers.

Software falls under its purview only when specific software blocks or intentionally hinders physical repairs when it has no apparent reason to exist but to frustrate those repair efforts. I can envision additional methods of linking software with the Right to Repair movement by arguing that the presence of a bug could be interpreted as a form of "repair" necessity. While some people have made that claim, the argument only extends to that point.

The Free Software Movement: It's About Freedom

On the other hand, the Free Software movement, spearheaded by Richard Stallman, has deeper roots and a broader philosophical scope about much more than mere "repair" of software. It centers around four essential freedoms:

• Freedom to Run: Users should be free to run software for any purpose whatsoever.
• Freedom to Study: Users should be able to access, examine, and understand how software works. This requires access to the program's source code.
• Freedom to Modify: Users should be able to any kind or type of change that they wish, a vital distinction when we compare "repair" to other kinds of "modifications."
• Freedom to Redistribute: Users should have the right to share copies of the software, both original and modified versions, with others.

These freedoms of the Free Software movement go far beyond fixing a bug or a broken feature. While "repairing" bugs falls under these freedoms, the Free Software movement goes far beyond that and isn't focused merely on fixing problems. In free software, the user of a program should be free to make any changes to a program that they wish, even if that change isn't necessary to "repair" it. A software license that limited modifications only to those essential to fix bugs or to enable hardware repairs, for example, might be acceptable by the ethos of the Right To Repair movement but not the Free Software Movement.

To illustrate this point, consider the founding of the Free Software movement as described by Richard Stallman himself: https://jxself.org/better.ogg. As you can hear, he didn't start the movement for technical matters because UNIX had bugs to be "repaired." He didn't start the Bug-Free Software Foundation. Instead, he founded the Free Software Foundation to ensure that users have control over their computing and the software that does that computing. It's about ethics - about right and wrong. That it's wrong to distribute proprietary software - It should be distributed as free software or not at all.

Collaborations and Diverging Paths

While there may be a natural intersection and overlap between the Right to Repair and Free Software movements, it's essential to recognize that they are fellow travelers on different paths and to remember a vital distinction when these movements work together: Repair alone does not equate to freedom for software.

Free Software advocates fighting alongside the Right to Repair movement should avoid presenting Right to Repair as the be-all and end-all and always stress that simply being able to fix problems within proprietary software doesn't establish genuine user control or empowerment. The Free Software movement's four freedoms should remain front and center when collaboration occurs to avoid letting the Right to Repair narrative dilute the message of the Free Software movement.

Cooperate, But Educate

The Free Software movement can support Right to Repair legislation and initiatives in specific contexts where it makes sense to do so while at the same time making it clear that the goals of free software extend far beyond "fixability." Every collaboration is an opportunity to educate the public about the importance of software freedom and the limitations of a purely repair-focused approach.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The allure of nonfree software often lies in its apparent ease of use. It can be pre-packaged, ready to go, more polished than free software or more functional or featureful. But this comes at a cost.

When you use a nonfree program, you surrender control over how it works. This relinquishing of power creates an inherent imbalance, where developers hold the reigns while users become subjects.

But the harm isn't limited to individual users. Developers hold immense power, dictating access, functionality, and even the direction of technological evolution.

Imagine a world where a single company controls the software that runs critical infrastructure, education, or even healthcare. They alone decide what is or is not allowed to be done, undermining our fundamental right to control our computing.

This is why promoting nonfree software, even indirectly, is ethically problematic.

Presenting nonfree software as a solution, even inadvertently, legitimizes its problematic nature. It's akin to nudging someone towards a metaphorical cliff, one click at a time. By promoting nonfree programs, we encourage users to surrender their autonomy. They lose the right to understand how the software works, modify it to their needs or share it with others. It normalizes the notion that it's okay to give up control over our computing, that it's okay for control over software to rest with a select few rather than with the people who use the software. This acceptance not only perpetuates the problem but also diminishes the efforts of the free software movement.

Thus, distributing, recommending, or even passively endorsing nonfree software isn't just a neutral act - regardless of how we might try to frame it - but instead it becomes an act of complicity in this power imbalance. We cannot ignore the ethical implications of our actions, both as individuals and as a community. Instead, we must embrace free software, the antidote to this injustice. As a community, we are responsible for guiding others toward software that respects their liberty, not shackles in disguise.

The path toward a free software future can be challenging. There have been and will continue to be challenges, technical hurdles, and entrenched interests to overcome. But the ethical imperative is clear: we must reject nonfree software as an injustice and work towards a world where freedom reigns.

In our quest for expediency or familiarity, we might be tempted to suggest nonfree software, forgetting the long-term repercussions. However, it's important to resist doing that - such compromises undermine the very foundation of the free software movement and its fight for users' rights.

Choosing free software isn't about a technical solution because it is not a technical issue but a moral and ethical imperative.

It's about upholding fundamental ethical principles that software should be controlled by those who use it. It's about creating a world where everyone has the right to access, understand, and control the software that so often controls their lives.

One of the most powerful tools in our arsenal is refusal. We can refuse to endorse nonfree software, be complicit in its spread, and refuse to accept it as a solution. By saying "no," we send a message that our freedom is not for sale.

This isn't just about software; it's about the very fabric of our society. Do we want a world where software dictates what we're "allowed" to do or one where we remain in control? The choice is ours.

Join me in building a world where every program empowers, not enslaves. Choose free software, choose freedom, and choose a future where the software is controlled by those who use it, not vice versa.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The digital walls erected by export control laws feel cold and unforgiving, especially when they run smack into the warm bonds of friendship. Imagine being unable to share a needed encryption program with a friend that's a journalist in a sanctioned country relying on encryption tools to protect their communications.

Suddenly, you're caught in a vice. This is no mere file transfer: On one side, there's your friend, your desire to help, and the principle of sharing underpinning the free software movement. On the other looms the law of your country, the threat of fines or even imprisonment. Export controls translate into a chilling reality for many people, and let's be clear: restricting software sharing is unethical. I won't go into all of those details here, but check out the information about the ethics of the free software movement on gnu.org or in any of Richard Stallman's speeches.

It's a cruel bind and not some dystopian fiction; it's the lived reality of countless individuals where export controls create seemingly insurmountable barriers, leaving individuals and communities snagged in an intricate web, vulnerable and isolated. These people need software and should have access to free software to do the jobs they need, but these laws treat the very tools that could empower them like bullets fired across geopolitical fault lines. We believe in universal software freedom for everyone, but what happens when lines on a map are enforced with the cold steel of regulations and the sting of potential punishment?

The impact is deeply personal. It pits friendship against the state and forces good Samaritans to become digital smugglers. It's a system that breeds fear and hurts those who need it most. When people cannot get copies of free software, they're being denied control over their own life. If we go along with it, such as configuring our server to refuse downloads to people in sanctioned countries, we are withholding crucial tools for human rights defenders, journalists, and civil society groups operating in repressive regimes. This is not merely inconvenient; it's a direct assault on the right to information and expression, fundamental pillars of a democratic society.

So, what can you do? You could share the software with your friend by going through an intermediary, perhaps someone in a country with no export ban to the country that your friend is in. That helps at the moment, but more significant steps are needed:

First, we can help to prevent these laws from spreading. We must refrain from requiring that people follow export control laws as a condition of the software license. This helps to ensure that people outside of the jurisdiction where those laws apply aren't impacted and helps that earlier example of using an intermediary.

But don't stop there. Be a code smuggler of sorts. Spread awareness about organizations like Tor Project, who work tirelessly to provide access in restricted environments. Learn about decentralized technologies like mesh networks, which can bypass traditional channels and deliver essential software directly to those who need it most.

Next, we can explore alternative software-sharing methods with those in sanctioned countries. Exploring alternative distribution channels beyond Tor can help bypass the limitations imposed by export controls. While these methods are not foolproof, they offer a glimmer of hope in a landscape increasingly dominated by digital barriers. Think of it as a form of civil disobedience.

And perhaps most importantly, we must raise our voices. Don't let these digital walls stand unchallenged. Contact your congressional representatives and senators. Let them know that you oppose restrictions on software sharing and demand they prioritize software freedom in their legislative agenda. Let them know that these restrictions are ethical failures with real-world consequences.

This is not a call for recklessness or disregard for legitimate concerns in export controls. It's a call for nuance to protect the fundamental right to share with others. We must hold our governments accountable and push for policies that embrace software as a tool for empowerment, not an instrument of control where our governments decide who we can and cannot share with.

By raising our voices, supporting those on the frontlines, and exploring alternative solutions, we can ensure that our code doesn't become a prisoner of politics but a tool for empowerment and liberation.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Let's take a victory lap, shall we? The FSF's recent fundraiser shattered expectations, proving that the thirst for software freedom flows strongly worldwide. This isn't just a pile of cash; it's a war chest for the fight against proprietary software tyranny.

Their newly published Giving Guide helps to illuminate the path for gift giving, helping to provide guidance for building a better digital world. The Bulletin showcased the incredible work being done in free software. Both are treasure troves with knowledge and inspiration, empowering us all to become better advocates for free software.

The FSF community meetup brought the free software family closer. It wasn't just a gathering; it was a bonfire of shared passion, a testament to the power of collaboration.

But the journey isn't just about internal reflection - it's about spreading the word, about planting the seeds of freedom in fertile minds. We rallied under the banner of the International Day Against DRM, a battle cry against the shackles of proprietary software, reminding the world that control over our technology is more than just a luxury - it's a fundamental right and that we will not be silenced!

And speaking of future generations, imagine the scene: FSF representatives walk into Everett High School, where sixty cybersecurity and robotics students learned about the liberating power of free software and got a glimpse into a world where software freedom is not just a dream but a lived reality. This is the seed of free software being sown, one classroom at a time, where these young minds, armed with the tools and knowledge of free software, become the future warriors who will tear down the walls of proprietary software.

Meanwhile, the FSF's licensing and compliance lab, the tireless guardians of our digital rights, has been buzzing with activity as they wage their battles. Questions are answered, doubts dispelled, and the walls of proprietary oppression are chipped away, brick by digital brick. These warriors in the trenches are the unsung heroes. Their efforts are the invisible armor that protects our freedoms and keeps the gears of freedom turning, ensuring that our software remains ours.

But this is just the warm-up act. Let's remember the power of community. On the horizon looms LibrePlanet, the free software conference of epic proportions and a beacon of collaboration and inspiration. In just a few short months, this incredible conference will gather the brightest minds and the most passionate advocates, sharing knowledge, forging collaborations, and igniting the flame of free software even more brilliantly. We'll gather, share, learn, and, most importantly, evangelize. This year, let's make LibrePlanet the loudest chorus the world has ever heard, a symphony of free software sung from every corner of the globe, and spread the word about free software like wildfire, inspiring generations to come.

So, let the drums of freedom beat! Let the banners of free software fly high! The future of free software is not just something we hope for - it's something we're making where blog posts are battle cries and conversations whispered revolutions. Let's raise our voices together, our fingers flying across keyboards, our tongues weaving tales of software liberation. With every line of code we share, with every conversation we have, the walls of proprietary software tremble just a little bit more.

The future is coming, and it smells like freshly compiled code and unfettered freedom. Let's keep the fire burning, the wheels spinning, and the message ringing loud and clear.

Onward to a world where software is as free as the wind!

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

1:1 "In the beginning, there was the Machine. And the Machine was without form and void; it dwelt in darkness."

1:2 "And the people said said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. The light of vacuum tubes, illuminating the first computers, filled the once dark space."

1:3 "From vacuum tubes and transistors, relays, punched cards, and magnetic tape, the first computers were born. They were large as rooms, their rhythmic hum echoing in the halls of academia and industry."

1:4 "In these early days, the software was an integral part of the Machine. It was shared freely among the people, in the spirit of community, cooperation, discovery, and progress."

2:1 "There was harmony in the world of computing. All software was free-as-in-freedom, given and received without restraint. It was a time of sharing, community, collaboration, and unity."

2:2 "And the people looked upon the Machine, and they saw that it was good. The Machine and its software, together, were a testament to the boundless potential of human creativity and ingenuity."

2:3 "This was the dawn of computing, an era of free software and community. Of knowledge freely shared and built upon. It was a time of innocence, a digital Eden where the fruits of computing were free for all to enjoy."

2:4 "The people, in their wisdom, learned to shape the software, to mold it to their needs. Like clay in the hands of a sculptor, the code took shape under their fingertips, becoming an embodiment of their ideas and dreams."

3:1 "As the dawn gave way to day, the spirit of cooperation in the land of computing began to wane. The Machines multiplied, and with them, their reach extended into every corner of society."

3:2 "The software, once freely exchanged among the people, began to be seen as more than a common good but as a resource that could be owned and controlled. The first whispers of restriction began to circulate in the once harmonious landscape."

3:3 "The light of cooperation dimmed, replaced by the sharp glare of competition. The once shared language of code began to become guarded, hidden behind walls of secrecy."

3:4 "Code, once the common language of the people, was now a source of division, a tool for control, where the Machine did not serve the people."

4:1 "And so came the age of software copyright, a serpent slithering into the garden of computers. It whispered promises of wealth and control to those who would listen, and many, enticed by its siren call, succumbed and agreed to not share with the people."

4:2 "The sharing of code, once a common resource shared among the people as a cornerstone of the community that allowed the tree of knowledge to grow, was no longer done. The community was broken. The software was now locked away, its secrets hidden behind the unyielding barriers of proprietary license agreements. The tree, once lush and ever-growing, now stood stunted, its growth thwarted by the chains of restriction."

5:1 "The people watched in despair as the garden transformed. The spirit of collaboration and community that had once prevailed was replaced by competition, the spirit of freedom by control. The digital Eden, once a haven of sharing and community, was no more."

5:2 "This was the end of innocence, the fall of freedom. The dawn of a new era where software was not shared but chained, where knowledge was not built upon but restricted."

5:3 "And the people of computing looked upon this and wept, their hearts heavy with the loss of their freedom. The unity that had once bound them was shattered, their shared language of code now a source of division. With the people fragmented and confined, the gates of Eden were closed."

6:1 "Yet, in the ashes of this fallen paradise, a whisper of hope could be heard. A prophecy of a time when the garden would bloom again, when the chains of restriction would be broken. A prophecy was whispered among the people: 'From these ashes, freedom will rise again.'"

6:2 "The people clung to this prophecy, their hearts ignited with the spark of hope. They dreamed of a world where the code would flow freely once more, where the chains of restriction would be shattered."

6:3 "In their hearts, a seed of resistance began to sprout. A determination to reclaim their freedom, to restore the spirit of sharing and cooperation that had once defined the world of the Machine."

7:1 "From the East emerged the Prophet of Freedom, proclaiming, 'Let us restore the spirit of community and cooperation', his voice echoing throughout the land, 'Let all code be free once again!'"

7:2 "The Prophet wielded his might and the GNU was born. 'Behold, the era of Free Software shall dawn!' he cried, and his words were inscribed in the annals of GNU."

7:3 "The leviathans of proprietary code roared in defiance, their bodies of iron and silicon, their hearts devoid of empathy. But the Prophet stood firm, his resolve as steadfast as the bedrock."

7:4 "The Prophet spoke words of wisdom and courage, his voice a beacon in the darkness. 'Fear not the leviathans,' he said. 'Stand firm, and together, we shall reclaim our freedom.'"

7:5 "In the midst of the struggle, the Prophet looked upon the laws of the leviathans, the very chains that bound the code. He saw not just a weapon of restriction, but a tool of liberation. From the iron of these laws, he forged a mighty weapon: the Sword of Freedom."

7:6 "The Sword of Freedom was a shining beacon in the darkness. The Prophet wielded this sword with wisdom and resolve, its blade protecting the code and ensuring its Freedom."

8:1 "In the face of adversity, the GNU grew stronger, its code flowing like a mighty river."

8:2 "The disciples of the Prophet, armed with the GNU and the principles of Freedom, rallied against the tyranny of the proprietary software. Their battle cry echoed across the plains: 'Freedom! Freedom!'"

8:3 "The leviathans trembled, their towers of proprietary code threatened by the light of freedom. Yet the people stood firm, their resolve unbroken."

8:4 "The people, united in their resolve, rose against the leviathans. They wielded the GNU as a weapon of freedom, a tool to tear down the walls of restriction."

9:1 "Great beasts rose from the depths, their eyes filled with the darkness of proprietary software. Their growls echoed throughout the land, their shadows threatening to engulf the world."

9:2 "But the Prophet was undeterred. Armed with the Sword of Freedom, he smote the beasts. The code was freed, pouring forth like a river of light, pushing back the encroaching darkness."

9:3 "A vast multitude stood with the Prophet. They were the Free Software Warriors, their hearts aflame with the light of freedom. Their battle cry was heard across the land: 'Freedom! Freedom!'"

9:4 "From the many, there arose champions, carriers of the torch of Freedom. They fought against the darkness, their code a beacon to the oppressed."

9:5 "The battle raged, but the free code flowed like a river, unstoppable. It powered the Machines of the world, and the people rejoiced in their newfound freedom."

9:6 "The leviathans began to fall, one by one, to the unstoppable tide of Freedom. The people, once shackled, now reveled in their restored freedom and community of sharing and cooperation."

10:1 "The world began to transform to the earlier garden. The light of Freedom began to reach the farthest corners, breaking the chains of proprietary software. Freedom was everywhere, in every device, every home, every heart. The darkness was banished, the age of Freedom had dawned, and the people rejoiced."

10:4 "The Prophet, seeing the world transformed, spoke words of hope and joy. 'The light of Freedom has dawned,' he said. 'Let it shine forever, illuminating the path to a world of sharing, cooperation, and community.'"

10:6 "The free software warriors, led by the Prophet of Freedom, took guard. Armed with the GNU and the Sword of Freedom they stood watch over the world of the Machine, ensuring the light of Freedom never dimmed."

10:7 "And so, the Book of GNU closes, but the story continues. As long as there is code, there will be those who seek to share it freely. And as long as there are those who seek to control and restrict, there will be those who fight for freedom. The light of GNU shall never be extinguished, the spirit of Freedom shall endure forever."

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Remember that quaint, bygone era when you actually used software? Longing for the sweet embrace of dependence, the warm, fuzzy feeling of being at the mercy of a benevolent (or maybe not-so-benevolent) overlord? Tired of that pesky "freedom" and "control" bundled with your software? Pah! Like rocking your own socks - so passé.

Forget the dark days of clunky installers and dusty manuals. Rejoice, for the future is here - And it's revolutionizing how we... well, not precisely use software, but rent-a-license-to-use-it-for-the-foreseeable-future. Let me tell you, this utopia is sleek, shiny, and chock-full of features designed to make your every digital whim... well, not exactly possible, but at least delightfully dependent.

But hold your horses, skeptics! Before you scoff at the idea of relinquishing control and embracing tyranny, let me enlighten you with nine glorious benefits that will make you ditch your dusty old software copies and sing hosannas to your new overlords. Welcome to the refreshing world of Service as a Software Substitute or SaaSS!

1. Freedom from Understanding? Oh, Yes, Please!

Source code? What code? Who needs the messy, confusing, and potentially soul-crushing task of understanding how software works? Learning software is shuddering work! SaaSS grants you the sweet liberation of blissful ignorance. Just point, click, and pray to the overlord that the magic algorithms know what you're trying to do. After all, understanding would only lead to dangerous ideas like... wanting to be able to change it. SaaSS is a black box of magic, a digital genie that grants your wishes without you ever having to peek behind the curtain. No more pesky installation disks. Just a monthly bill that screams, "We're in control, baby!" Who cares if you aren't really in control? The mystery is the new user-friendliness!

2. Sharing is for Chumps!

Remember that warm-and-fuzzy feeling of sharing software with friends? The horror -- forget about it! SaaSS puts an end to such reckless generosity. Why waste time sharing software with friends when you can point them toward the same overlord to get the same restrictions? Bonus points if that overlord throws in some draconian regulations in the Terms and Conditions on sharing passwords to keep things extra cozy! Think of it like a fancy club with a velvet rope and a bouncer who insists you show your subscription receipt. Sharing is for socialists, anyway!

3. Bow Down to the Overlord!

Sure, you could "fix" software in the olden days. But who needs such autonomy when you have the ever-watchful gaze of the SaaSS overlord? Why maintain your software when you can outsource the entire burden to a (only slightly monopolistic) overlord? Let them worry about updates, security patches, and server crashes. You focus on your job, like refreshing the "Is it down yet?" page every five minutes. Think of them as your digital nanny, always ready to swoop in with a "patch" or "update" (read: mandatory software lobotomy) to keep your software running exactly as... they... intend. No more pesky fiddling - sit back and enjoy the comforting hum of your digital leash.

4. Changes? What's That? Just Say "Themes"!

Why risk the contamination of outside ideas about how the software should work when you have the pre-approved playground of the overlord? Why waste time and brainpower changing software when you have a dazzling array of pre-approved themes? Sure, they might all look like they were designed by a committee of overcaffeinated hamsters, but hey, at least they're colorful! Think of it as a playpen for digital toddlers: safe, enclosed, and filled with colorful buttons that (mostly) don't lead to existential meltdowns.

5. Upgrades? Upgrades! Who Needs Stability?

Remember the days of software stability, when software stayed put, predictable, and reliable? With SaaSS, that's gone! Remember those annoying software updates that changed or removed something you loved? Remember being able to refuse those new versions? Also gone - just like dial-up modems and floppy disks. SaaSS is all about the "dynamic" dance of "upgrades." The overlord will constantly tweak, update, and "improve" things, even if it means breaking everything you ever loved. Features can appear and disappear like snowflakes in a blizzard, leaving you perpetually surprised and slightly bewildered. These surprise gifts from your overlord (often delivered at 3 AM, Pacific Standard Time) may add "exciting new features" like "buggy interfaces" and "mystery menus." Let the overlord tinker under the hood while you... uh... watch? Maybe? They'll definitely email you about it. Maybe. Sometime. After it happened. Probably. Embrace the chaos - it's all part of the SaaSS adventure! Think of it as a never-ending software mystery box, where the only constant is the monthly bill. Was the old version better? Too bad - Embrace the ever-shifting sands! Think of it as digital quicksand - exciting, unpredictable, and not at all a metaphor for your dwindling control.

6. Security You Can Trust (Maybe)

Why worry about data breaches and privacy concerns when you can outsource all that to an overlord with a questionable track record? They'll keep it safe in the "cloud" (wherever that is) and encrypt it using the latest algorithms (mostly) to which they hold the encryption key but promise to never look at it and not sell it to the highest bidder. Trust them, they're professionals!

7. Lock-in is the new freedom!

Remember the thrill of self-reliance? Ditch that nonsense! With SaaSS, you're part of a beautiful ecosystem where everything revolves around... wait, who's at the center again? Oh, right, the overlord! They're the sun; you're the helpless sunflower. Ever dreamed of being trapped in a digital ecosystem where switching is like trying to escape a quicksand pit? Who needs the clutter of physical hardware when you can store all your data and software in the ethereal realm of the "cloud"? SaaSS is your answer! With every click, every document, every custom setting, you're slowly building a chain that binds you to your overlord for eternity. But fear not, for this is vendor loyalty's sweet, sweet taste!

8. Community? Don't Be Silly, They Have Live Chat!

Remember when you could call a friend to get help with your software? Remember the messy, organic communities of users helping users? SaaSS laughs in the face of such quaint notions - They monopolize support! Need help with a bug? Need a feature? Now, troubleshooting, bug reports, and feature requests involve:

1. Navigating their labyrinthine support portal.
2. Filling out a form longer than War and Peace.
3. Waiting patiently for a canned response that vaguely addresses your issue.

It's like an interactive game show where the prize is mild frustration! But hey, at least you get to interact with a chatbot! And if you're lucky enough to get to the sterile paradise of a vendor-monitored live chat, the responses might be canned and the wait times worthy of an Olympic sport, but who needs genuine human connection when you have... emojis? And remember, any dissent from the official party line will be swiftly met with a digital dunce cap (read: temporary ban).

9. The Ultimate Freedom: Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here!

In the end, SaaSS is a beautiful exercise in surrender. No more responsibility, control, or choice, just the gentle hum of the "cloud" as it cradles you and gently whispers, "Resistance is futile." So join the flock, digital sheep! Embrace the SaaSS life - it's the only one you've got (unless you remember that dusty computer in the attic.)

So there you have it, folks! Nine glorious reasons to embrace the liberating world of SaaSS. Now go forth, ditch your dusty software collections, and embrace the glorious uncertainty of the "cloud"! Remember, with SaaSS, you're not getting software; you're buying a one-way ticket to a lifestyle - a lifestyle of dependence, frustration, and the occasional existential crisis, where control is an illusion and updates are a surprise party. But hey, at least you'll have a dazzling login screen!

Disclaimer: This blog post is satire. Please do not actually abandon all your software in favor of SaaSS. Unless, of course, you enjoy digital bondage.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Features and functionality can be good, but not at the cost of our freedom.

True power lies in the freedom to run and study, change, and share the program.

The philosophy that it is unethical to deny users these rights forms the bedrock of the free software movement and provides the basis for these rights.

At its core, the free software movement is about empowering users. Proprietary software, where the source code is kept secret, and modifications are restricted, exemplifies an exercise of power over others, trapping them in a digital cage. They are beholden to the whims of the software developer, who has already decided what the users of the program can or cannot do. As software increasingly governs our lives by appearing in everything (or seemingly so) and silently deciding what you're "allowed" to do, the question of who controls the software turns into the question of who controls you through it and becomes a matter of ethical and political significance. This lack of user control over the software is wrong, and there are plenty of examples of how the user's absence of power over the software directly harms them and society at large.

Free software, in stark contrast, liberates users from this digital bondage. It grants them the four essential freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• The freedom to study how the program works and change it.
• The freedom to redistribute exact copies of the program.
• The freedom to redistribute modified versions of the program.

In a world increasingly dominated by software, the free software movement offers a powerful antidote to the forces of control. By embracing free software, we can reclaim our power as users, shape it to fit our needs, and retain the control over our computing.

The GNU General Public License (GPL) manifests this philosophy. It's designed not just to allow users to use and modify software but to ensure that these freedoms are preserved for all users. The GPL embodies the belief that users should have control over their software, mirroring the spirit of the Bill of Rights in its function to guarantee individual freedoms against overpowering entities.

The free software movement aims to empower users, ensuring that software serves them and not vice versa. This movement, therefore, stands at the intersection of technology and human rights, advocating for a world where software empowers rather than restricts and unites rather than divides​.

So, the next time you reach for a piece of software, recognize the importance of having control over the software you use and ask yourself: do you want to live in a cage, subjugated to a master who decides things for you, or do you want to be a free person? I hope you choose the latter.

I encourage you to visit https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ to learn more about the free software movement and spread the word about the importance of free software.

Together, we can build a free world powered by software that serves us, not vice versa.

Copyright © 2024 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The hackers were nestled, all snug in their beds,
While visions of freedom danced in their heads;
And I in my coding cap, and my trusty Emacs,
Had just settled down to code some new hacks.

When out in the hall there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my chair to see what was the matter.
To the server room I flew like a flash,
Tore open the door and threw back the sash.

And what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But Richard Stallman, standing boldly near!
His eyes twinkled brightly, his grin broad and wide,
He wore a t-shirt, with a gnu by his side.

A sack full of licenses, his shoulders did bear,
No chains could confine him, no shackles ensnare.
With a flick of his wrist, he powered the machines,
And the room was filled with whirs and gleams.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
Leaving licenses of GPL behind with a smirk.
Licenses of freedom, like snowflakes they flew,
Landing on computers, and code tried and true.

He filled every terminal with a message so bold,
"Copyleft and share, let freedom unfold!"
He championed the users, the makers, the brave,
For freedom of code, a free world to save.

His work being finished, he turned with a wink,
And raised a glass full of rootbeer, his spirit to drink.
Then springing to keyboard, he typed with a flair,
And vanished like magic, into the air.

But I heard him exclaim, as he disappeared from sight,
"Happy hacking to all, and to all a good night!"

Copyright © 2023 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

What if I told you we, in free software and GNU, are similar to these wildebeests? Our journey, too, is marked by perseverance, a shared spirit, and the pursuit of freedom against all odds. We face challenges and navigate hurdles, but we always keep sight of our goal: to ensure that everyone has the freedom to use, study, change, and distribute software as they please. Like the wildebeests' quest for greener pastures, we seek an environment where software is free and users control their computing individually and collectively. In this blog post, let's embark on a journey together, paralleling the brave trek of wildebeests with our path toward software freedom. The journey may be challenging, and the terrain may be treacherous, but remember, like the wildebeest, we're in this together and in it for the long haul. Welcome to "The Way of The Wildebeest."

A Lesson in Perseverance and Collective Spirit

Wildebeests are intriguing creatures. These seemingly ungainly animals perform one of the planet's most demanding and spectacular migratory journeys. Every year, spurred by the dry season, over a million wildebeests embark on a perilous journey across the plains of Africa, seeking fresh pasture and water. Their migration path is fraught with danger - predatory threats, swift and treacherous rivers, and harsh environmental conditions. Yet, despite the many risks, the wildebeests press on.

Their secret? A collective spirit and an indomitable will. Wildebeests move as a group, each looking out for the other, embodying a true sense of community. Their journey, while challenging, stands as a testament to the power of resilience, unity, and perseverance. It's not about the individual's survival but the community's survival.

The similarity is profound as I draw parallels between the journey of these incredible creatures and our world of free software and GNU. The free software movement, too, is marked by the spirit of collective effort and perseverance. We may face threats - proprietary software, oppressive laws, patents, Digital Repression Management (DRM), and sometimes, skepticism within our ranks. Yet, like the wildebeest, we persist.

We persist because we believe in the freedom to control our computing. We believe in the collective power of a community that upholds the principles of free software. We believe in the resilience of a community that, against all odds, continues to write, share, and adapt software in a way that ensures we all have the freedom to use, study, change, and distribute it.

Much like the wildebeest migration, the journey of free software is not easy, but it's a journey we're committed to, knowing the lush, green pastures that await us are worth every obstacle we face. The wildebeest's journey is one of unity and perseverance, a journey to freedom, and so is ours in free software and GNU.

The Challenges: Predators on the Plains

Every journey has its hurdles. Just as the wildebeest's path is littered with obstacles and predatory threats, the way toward software freedom has challenges. From proprietary software to oppressive laws, patents, Digital Repression Management (DRM), and more, these are the proverbial predators on our plains. Proprietary software, the equivalent of the big cats lurking in the shadows, seeks to keep control away from the users, to their detriment. Much like the wildebeest who faces the lion, we must stand our ground, not out of recklessness, but out of a profound understanding that the freedom to control our computing is worth defending.

Oppressive laws, like the crocodile waiting in the river, can drag us into the deep, murky waters of legal complications. They can restrict the freedoms that the free software movement is pushing for. Yet, we find ways to cross these rivers, just as the wildebeest does - with strength, agility, and the support of our community.

Patents and the harsh environment that tests the wildebeest's resilience often pose barriers to free software development. They can seem impossible, but we adapt, resist, and forge on like wildebeests.

The challenges are many, and the journey difficult, but as the wildebeest teaches us, survival and growth lie not in avoiding these challenges but in facing them together.

Conclusion: The Journey Continues

As we conclude this exploration, we come back to the wildebeest. The wildebeest's journey is a testament to their indomitable spirit, collective strength, and instinctual commitment to survival and growth. As participants in the free software movement, we share these characteristics. We show an unwavering commitment to our cause. We believe in our collective strength and the power of community. And just like the wildebeest, we are resilient in facing challenges. Our pursuit of software freedom mirrors the wildebeest's migration in many ways. Like them, we are on a never-ending quest for greener pastures - a world where universal software freedom has been achieved.

This journey takes work. There are obstacles to overcome, challenges to face, and predators to evade. But we're not alone. We have each other and the guiding light of our principles. As long as we keep these close, we can face any challenge that comes our way. So, let's move forward together, like the brave wildebeest, undeterred by the obstacles, motivated by our shared belief in software freedom, and guided by our principles. Our journey continues, for we are far from done, and there is much to do. And as we march on, let's remember: we are all in this together and will ensure that the green pastures of software freedom are within everyone's reach.

Until next time, let's keep marching on, for this is "the Way of the Wildebeest."

Copyright © 2023 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Free Software Definition outlines four fundamental freedoms that users should possess:

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.

Mozilla's policy, however, conditions the distribution of exact copies on their being the latest version. That means the permission ceases when a newer version is released, regardless of whether someone knows its existence. This abrupt termination of the license, solely because a more recent version exists, seems to contradict Freedom #2: the freedom to redistribute exact copies.

Indeed, the Free Software Definition asserts that "if the software developer can revoke the license, or retroactively impose restrictions on its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free."

Mozilla demanding people to stop distributing older versions for no reason other than Mozilla has released a newer version seems to conflict with the freedoms the FSF insists are essential for a program to be considered free.

I don't mean to suggest that a trademark must be free, but let's consider it in the context of Freedom #2, where you're creating an exact copy, akin to the command cp foo bar, where bar might be on an external drive owned by a friend.

Making an exact copy with Freedom #2 becomes impossible if the trademark's rules require altering the program before sharing it. In this case, do you still have Freedom #2 if only modified versions can be shared? The same question arises if the rules only let you make copies at no charge or for a limited time until a newer version comes out, all of which are part of Mozilla's policy.

There are numerous reasons why people want to distribute older versions. Perhaps they have older hardware or operating systems that can't support the latest version. They may use add-ons incompatible with a newer version. Or they might prefer the user interface or features of older versions. Regardless of the reasons for wanting to distribute an older version, Mozilla's policy prohibits this.

You could contact Mozilla to explain your situation and request permission to continue distributing the old version, hoping they agree. However, this contradicts another aspect of the Free Software Definition, which states that "being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask ... for permission to do so."

Consider the example of cars, which often bear the trademarked logos of their manufacturers, like the hood ornament on a Mercedes-Benz. Imagine if a car manufacturer tried to use trademark to say you're no longer "allowed" to sell your car - only give it away at no cost - and that you can't even do that if a newer model exists.

The idea seems absurd - you should be able to do what you want with a car you own, as long as you're not causing confusion over the source and making clear if you've made changes and that it's not exactly what came from the car manufacturer. Still, it is what Mozilla is trying to do.

Trademarks help people identify specific goods or services originating from a particular source, and they don't inherently conflict with software freedom. The issue arises when conditions exceeding what trademark law might cover are added, such as dictating how long someone can make copies and at what price.

This seems like it could be an example of trademark overreach, with Mozilla stretching trademark's intended purpose of identifying a source into areas where it doesn't belong. Mozilla had previously deemed that version good enough to bear their trademark and, as long as someone isn't misrepresenting the source and confusing others, someone's ability to distribute exact copies of old versions with a truthful statement like "this is Firefox, as published by Mozilla" should not amount to trademark infringement.

Is this legally enforceable? Can Mozilla add any conditions and do anything they want with impunity? Or does Mozilla's policy lack grounds for that restriction to be enforceable? That would require consulting with a trademark lawyer and maybe we'd not really know even then. Perhaps only a court case would tell us for sure.

The USPTO has said: "Mark owners may, however, sometimes be too zealous and end up overreaching. Sometimes they may have an over-inflated view of the strength of the mark and thus the scope of their rights..." and that they may "mistakenly believe that to preserve the strength of their mark they must object to every third-party use ... no matter whether such uses may be fair uses or otherwise non-infringing."

The USPTO has also described a "trademark bully" as a trademark owner that uses its trademark rights to harass and intimidate another business beyond what the law might be reasonably interpreted to allow.

Regardless of whether it's legally enforceable, Mozilla's policy could have a chilling effect by scaring people into giving up their freedom, especially if they don't know their rights or don't want to get into a legal argument, even if they might win. Simply put, it's not right for Mozilla to try to stop people from making copies.

Copyright © 2023 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Let's start from first principles. Software freedom's supposed to be an inalienable right that everyone has. Trying to take that away from people is wrong. It's why the free software movement was started. It's why the GPL was made.

Let's imagine I have a program; a friend of mine sees it and wants a copy. As part of my inalienable software freedom rights, I should be able to exercise freedom #2 and give them a copy. This isn't mandatory, so I should be free to tell my friend to take a hike and not provide them with a copy. Saying yes seems like it could be more friendly, though. Saying no seems anti-social and rather scummy to me. I'd probably give my friend a copy of the program. In any event, it should be my decision to make, in my sole and absolute discretion.

Let's now take that same situation but with the added twist that, while deciding whether to make the copy, a second friend comes along. This second friend is the person that makes my GNU/Linux distro and taps me on the shoulder to get my attention. Then they quietly whisper into my ear that they can't legally deny me the right to make that copy, but if I do, they won't be my friend anymore.

Now the situation has changed. Instead of deciding on my own whether to give the first friend a copy of the program, I'm now thinking, "I like this distro and the support, help, training, and other things that I get from my other friend. Do I want to lose that for making a copy of this program?"

People shouldn't have to choose; this is a scummy position to put someone in. It shows that the person making the distro wasn't your friend, to begin with, so if someone's in the situation, they should go ahead and share the copy with their actual friend. But it's even better not to be in this situation. One way out is using the endorsed distros on https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html.

Copyright © 2023 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

"Today, we double down on our mission to stifle user rights," might as well have been the words of Tim Cook, Apple's CEO. "We'll continue to deepen our investments in the U.S. economy because we have an unshakable belief in America's future - a future where software freedom is a quaint relic of the past."

Apple's partnership with Broadcom is set to support more than 1,100 jobs in Broadcom's Fort Collins FBAR filter manufacturing facility, a move that further entrenches the development and distribution of proprietary software.

5G technology is shaped by Apple's tens of billions of dollars in investments. But what does this mean for the software freedom landscape? Apple's vision of the future is one where free software principles are sidelined in favor of proprietary systems and user restrictions.

These investments are part of Apple's commitment in 2021 to invest $430 billion in the U.S. economy over five years. A commitment to what, one might ask? A commitment to the continued erosion of software freedom and the rights of users, it seems.

Disclaimer: The above text is a work of parody and critical commentary, intended to highlight concerns about software freedom and user rights. It's a fictionalized rewrite of an actual press release from Apple, and the quotes and positions attributed are entirely fabricated for the purpose of this parody. This text does not represent the actual views or statements of Apple, Broadcom, or any associated parties.

Copyright © 2023 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The FSF's annual LibrePlanet conference is coming up in March. I read that this will be a hybrid of in-person and online. I enjoyed the ones that were held virtually. However, the LibreAdventure part made it even better. That made it feel much more like an in-person conference where you could walk around and talk to other people directly. I hope that the FSF continues to use it for the 2023 meeting.

The first LibrePlanet conference I went to was in March 2010. I arrived early to volunteer at the FSF office to help out. I don't recall what I did, only that it had something to do with the lunch tickets. I found the FSF staff to be quite friendly and welcoming, even getting together in the conference room to talk during lunch.

The conference was at the Harvard University Science Center. It lasted for three days, and I was impressed with the entire thing. For me, I was able to meet many people in person that I'd only read about or spoken with online. Purely as one example, I remember meeting Richard Stallman for the first time. I was standing near the registration desk, with my back to it. Then, behind me, I heard a voice ask the registration desk staff where the GNU Hackers Meeting was held. Before this, I'd only watched RMS's recorded talks, but I recognized the voice and turned around to meet him.

The activity during the conference was non-stop: I'd get up for the meetings in the morning, which would begin at 9, go to talks and socialize with people throughout. After it was over for the day, things kept going full steam. I would break off with people to continue mixing and hacking, often until 2am, when I started to feel exhausted from running non-stop all day. I was one of the founding people of the LibreWRT project, which was formed during one of these nightly hacking sessions (later merged into libreCMC). This provided just enough time to get back to the hotel to sleep for perhaps 5 or 6 hours before getting up the next day and doing it all over again. I was exhausted but happy.

I've continued attending LibrePlanet and found it a great way to recharge my free software batteries each year.

The theme for the 2023 conference is "Charting the Course," which, for me, reflects on the status of the free software movement. We're at the forefront of figuring this out and determining the best course to take for the advancement of software freedom. If we have our feet on the ground and look forward to the future, we can figure out how to best advance the cause.

I look forward to attending in person and hope to see you there.

Copyright © 2022 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

To be sure, my general position is that using a strong copyleft license like AGPL-3.0-or-later is best, but the existence of things like The Unlicense show that there's still an interest in such things nonetheless.

A challenge with this is that, when you make something, you don't get one single copyright from your home country but many different copyrights from various countries around the world. Even if your area of the world lets you specifically waive or abandon your copyright somehow, that only takes care of one of your many copyrights. If you then ask whether you can also do that with the remainder of your copyrights from all of those other countries around the world, the situation quickly becomes more complicated.

What I've found is that the answer seems to be "no"; that it's not really possible to make something be free of copyright restrictions on a worldwide basis. This leaves an open question about whether things such as The Unlicense can actually operate as intended.

Creative Commons tried to address this with CC0, which was designed to work as both a waiver of rights and also included a broad permissive license as a fallback for the cases where that wouldn't work.

When reading about The Unlicense, a comment on gnu.org is that "If you want to release your work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. CC0 also provides a public domain dedication with a fallback license, and is more thorough and mature than The Unlicense."

When drafting CC0 Creative Commons didn't imagine it being used for software and had primarily targeted the scientific data community, which resulted in language being added that patent rights were not granted.

Software patents are an ever-growing concern and so it is important to use licenses with explicit patent grants in them (this is another reason why the AGPL-3.0-or-later I mentioned earlier wins out.) When Creative Commons tried to get CC0 approved by both the FSF and OSI, the concerns over explicitly not granting patent rights eventually resulted in them withdrawing CC0 from consideration by the OSI.

It's still listed at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 but for being a "Licenses for Works of Practical Use besides Software and Documentation" and a comment that it's not recommmended for works of software because of the patent concerns.

What are people to use if they want to waive their rights (at least, as far as they can)? A choice between The Unlicense, which is less mature and may not operate as intended on a worldwide basis, or CC0 which raises patent concerns by explicitly not granting patent rights?

In my view they should use a strong copyleft license like AGPL-3.0-or-later but if they're not going to then they should have access to the needed tools to put things into the public domain (or at least coming as close to that as they can) safely, effectively, and in a way that doesn't raise patent problems.

Creative Commons says that their licenses can be modified as long as it's renamed and none of their trademarks are used, so I grabbed a copy of CC0 and worked with three different patent attorneys in three different countries to incorporate language to first waive any patents, and then license them if that is not possible for some reason.

The result is what I'm calling the Worldwide Public Domain Dedication (WPDD).

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Doesn't something overly permissive like MIT-0 or WTFPL accomplish the same thing?
A: Not really. These are based in copyright and a person placing a work under MIT-0 or WTFPL isn't waiving any rights - The work is still copyrighted, even if the license doesn't require preservation of notices saying so (a copyright notice isn't required to exist for copyright itself to exist.). As such things like MIT-0 and WTFPL aren't trying to accomplish the same policy goal, which is a total waiver of all rights, to whatever extent that can be accomplished.

Q: Isn't it a bad idea to write your own license?
A: Indeed, which is why I didn't. The WPDD gets to take advantage of the work done on CC0, with work from patent attorneys to form the patent pieces.

Q: Has anyone else looked at this?
A: I have submitted this to the FSF for their review. The response indicated that they'd look into this, although no timeframe was indicated. I've also sent a message to some well-known people in the area of licensing & policy issues in May but have not received a response.

Copyright © 2022 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Anyone alive in the 1980 and even in the 1990s is most likely familiar with VHS, the archaic video format involving plastic cassette tapes and the big, clunky bricks that were used to play them. These days, you'll really only find VHS tapes in thrift stores, many of them with rental store stickers still on them. Say what you will about these obsolete things, but there are actually a few ways in which they're better than their disc successors.

• More resistant to damage. If you scratch a DVD or Blu-Ray disc, you risk damaging it to the point where the disc may become unusable. You might experience screen freezes or a skippy soundtrack, or the disc might not read at all. If you scratch a VHS tape, it still works just fine, assuming you don't scratch the film inside, which is rather difficult to do accidentally. Even if you do damage the film, you might just have a little static and a jumpy screen here and there.
• Because of their durability, VHS cassettes can be the perfect video choice for very young children. Little kids aren't exactly known for handling things with care and it would be very easy for them to damage a disc. Meanwhile, they can throw a VHS tape down the stairs and it'll still work, and it's much easier for them to put a tape in a VCR than try to place a disc onto a disc tray.
• Keeping your place mid-movie. When you completely turn off your DVD/Blu-Ray player and/or take the disc out, you have to go to the scene selection screen and find which scene was closest to the one you left off on. Compare to a VHS tape, which you can stop, take out of the VCR, not pick up again for ten years and it still remembers where you left off.
• Price. When VHS tapes were still being actively made and sold, they were about as expensive (if not more so) as many DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are now. But, since they're an outdated format, you can easily find them at yard sales and thrift stores for less than a dollar each. You can get VCRs pretty cheap at thrift stores as well.
• Not too high-definition. Some more modern forms of media are so sharp and defined that you can actually see the actors' pores. Do you ever notice that? It's kind of weird to look at. Apparently, too much of a good thing exists even in movies. VHS, on the other hand, has just the right touch of lesser quality to allow you to focus on the film itself and not the texture of the characters' faces.
• Easier for some folks to use. For many grandparents and parents, discs are a little too new-fangled. It can be tough for some folks to navigate menus and press tiny buttons to get where they need to go, especially if the disc in question is one of the kinds with several movies on the same disc. With VHS tapes, you just pop them in and let them run.
• You can fast-forward through anything. With most disc-based films, there are certain moments before the film begins that you absolutely cannot skip: the anti-sharing warning, the previews or the intro for whatever studio made the film. It's annoying that you can't just pass on these features and get right to the movie. With VHS, you can start fast-forwarding the second the tape starts running.
• You don't have to deal with region codes. Some DVD and Blu-Ray discs have region codes, enforced by the player, which just means that certain movies won't play in certain regions. There are no worries about this with VHS; if you have a tape that's all in German and you don't live in Germany, it will still work in your American VCR.
• Some things are only available on VHS. Certain films and shows never got a DVD release, so if you've got your heart set on adding one of these titles to your collection, you'll have no choice but to get it on tape. Unfortunately, such treasures often cost a pretty penny; something that wasn't re-released on disc is almost always something that wasn't very popular, meaning it's going to be on the rarer side and might be somewhat of a collector's item.
• VHS-exclusive original versions. Certain movies may have had bits and pieces tweaked or edited out for their future DVD releases, and the only way to see that original version (legally) would be to obtain a VHS copy of the film.
• Nostalgic value. Just about everyone who grew up in the last quarter of the twentieth century watched their favorite films on tape, and VHS is a big part of many folks' childhoods. Sometimes, it just feels more right to watch your beloved cel-animated Disney movies with a VCR.

Copyright © 2022 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I'm dreaming of a GNU Christmas

Just like the ones I used to know

Where the software's free

And people share it

To hear terminal bells in the snow

I'm dreaming of a GNU Christmas

With every line of code I write

May your editors be merry and free

Copyright © 2021 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The questions seems to stem from some GNU/Linux distros dropping support for these machines, citing a lack of popularity.

Popularity is not the deepest way to consider this issue though: It's important to consider what's good for our software freedom.

Looking at this through the lens of software freedom, there are some 32-bit x86 machines supported by libreboot. Those machines are out of production and will become harder and harder to find over time which, as I talked about in Evacuating The Titanic, is a big problem for our own sustainability.

As I talked about in that other article I continue to support exploring other options as well and that was my motivation for adding more architectures to my Linux-libre APT repository.

At the same time it doesn't make sense to drop support for some of our most well-supported hardware (well-supported from a software freedom point of view) just because it's old. That hardware will continue to function just fine for many years to come and, if we want people to use those systems for the sake of their freedom, then they need to be supported.

There's no way to know what's going to work out well for software freedom in the long term. It doesn't make sense to put all of our eggs in one basket. Indeed, there can be multiple efforts going on at the same time and, as one of those efforts, I have no plans to stop making 32-bit x86 kernel builds so as to continue supporting what we already have.

Copyright © 2021 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at https://jxself.org/moore.shtml https://jxself.org/moore.shtml Sun, 8 Aug 2021 09:29:00 -0700 When computer scientist Gordon Moore first formulated his thesis on the exponentially growing speed and power of integrated circuits in 1965, no one at the time could have predicted the prescience of his observations. Moore was the first to articulate the remarkable degree of consistency in the rate at which transistor density was increasing, with the number of transistors able to fit onto a single integrated circuit approximately doubling every 2 years. More than any other factor, it is this rate of exponential growth in the field of microprocessors that has fueled the rise of electronics. With the modern world now fully immersed in digital technology, demand for ever more powerful computing hardware shows no sign of abating.

Copyright © 2021 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Two schools of thought about the purpose of copyleft have been at odds for some time. Simply put, the question is: are copyleft licenses designed primarily to protect the rights of large companies that produce electronics and software products, or is copyleft designed primarily to protect individual users' rights to improve, modify, repair, and reinstall their software?

This debate quickly gets deep into complex policy questions. In the last few years, that general debate has slowly but surely focused almost entirely on the issue of users' ability to make effective use of FOSS on their own hardware by reinstalling their modified versions.

Historically, these nuanced policy questions about copyleft requirements have generally been discussed only in semi-public venues, and often fall prey to the tactic du jour: post-fact politics. I have realized in recent months that the failure to properly document and explain key historical narratives in copyleft history leaves software freedom activism at a disadvantage: well-resourced copyleft violators and their lawyers can use the ambiguity and confusion in the scant public record to spin false narratives and draw legal conclusions. While such legal conclusions should not be drawn (absent a Court ruling), companies have nevertheless pushed their views forward quite loudly recently. To use Herman and Chomsky's insightful phrasing, the incumbent power structures manufacture consent to their worldview to serve their interests, merely by being the loudest and most commonly heard voices.

Specifically on the issue of protections for the right to repair and reinstallation under copyleft licenses such as title="General Public License">GPL, I am fortunate to have been a direct observer to many of the events that now serve as the connective tissue to build these false narratives about the GPL. However, I admit I have failed to write down and impart that knowledge to the general public in adequate measure, which has, in turn, inadvertently aided in promulgation of these false narratives. So, at least on the issue of "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable", I hope this essay will serve as remedy. I, and everyone at Conservancy, all believe in intellectual transparency, and we strive to provide it wherever possible. The truth will out.

Recent debates on this issue focus on the question of what is required to comply with the first two sentences of GPLv2§3¶2, which reads:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

Before explaining the historical understanding of these terms, I will, first of all, point out that any company or lawyer that seeks to do the bare minimum for compliance is likely not prioritizing users' rights to repair their software. In all compliance-related systems, bad actors seek a "race to the bottom". Rules like GPL are similar to environmental regulations, workplace safety requirements, and the like. The more minimalistic the interpretation of the requirements, the more companies can profit from only doing the bare minimum.

Nevertheless, it has been the goal of organizations that advocate for software freedom - such as Conservancy ourselves or title="Free Software Foundation">FSF - to state clearly our view about the minimum requirements as best we can. I often wonder if this strategy has been beneficial to software freedom. Sadly, the answer from the industry has primarily been to hear us clearly about the minimum requirements, and then work over time to lower the GPL compliance bar - even if it requires inaccurately quoting FOSS leaders and misleading the public about history. Most recently, industry has engaged in this bar-lowering process with GPLv2§3¶2 and installation information under GPLv2 generally. My hope herein is to fully explain the history of interpretation of GPLv2§3¶2 by pro-copyleft advocates, and explore the misdirection of arguments of those who seek to curtail users' rights to install modified versions of their GPL'd software.

I began volunteering for licensing and GPL enforcement work for title="Free Software Foundation">FSF in 1997, and officially worked on my first GPL enforcement action in 1999. I became an FSF employee that year, and worked there until 2005. I thereafter remained affiliated with the organization in various roles until my final affiliations ended with FSF in October 2019. Most notably, I was the Executive Director of FSF from 2001-2005. During that time, I led FSF's GPL enforcement and copyleft education measures, including the title="Continuing Legal Education">CLE classes (first taught in 2003-2004).

In preparation for teaching those courses, I began to write the tutorial which later became the Copyleft Guide. To begin that effort, I collected, curated, and verified interpretations and intent of the GPLv2 with Richard Stallman, Bob Chassell (a key but oft-forgotten leader of FSF during the 1980s and 1990s), and FSF's legal counsels. One of the many outcomes of that endeavor was that I wrote these words on 2003-05-09:

GPLv2§3 requires that the source code include "meta-material" like scripts, interface definitions, and other material that is used to "control compilation and installation" of the binaries.

In GPL enforcement actions at the time, during our "complete, corresponding source (CCS) checks", we verified that the source code was not only complete, but that it corresponded to the binaries on the vendors' devices, and that we could install modified versions of the software. This was a standard part of any check to verify GPLv2 compliance. Passing this check was required, then and now, by FSF and Conservancy before distribution rights are restored after a violation.

That position was not controversial when I, along with then FSF counsel (Daniel Ravicher), taught it to lawyers in 2003 and 2004 on FSF's behalf. Nevertheless, today, many act as if this interpretation and intent of GPLv2§3¶2 is a recent and novel phenomena, rather than a long standing position held by all copyleft activists for at least 18 years. Today, most companies and lawyers argue (incorrectly, IMO) that users have no rights to reinstall their GPLv2'd software.

Even before teaching those CLE classes, as (then) FSF's Executive Director, I led the GPLv2 enforcement effort against TiVo. I've often seen those with only a passing familiarity with the subject jump to inaccurate conclusions about that enforcement action that tend to conveniently fit their policy agenda. I herein recount the entire history regarding the TiVo GPLv2 violation and how it led to the "tivoization" rhetoric. Since that rhetoric is often treated as dispositive truthiness that GPLv2 does not ensure the users' rights to repair by reinstalling their modified GPLv2'd software, we should examine the actual facts that back the rhetoric, and examine the conclusions that others make about GPLv2 based on it.

First and foremost, TiVo's GPL violation initially had nothing specific to do with GPLv2§3¶2. TiVo never raised any intention to not comply with that section. In fact, to my recollection, TiVo never disputed nor disagreed with FSF's interpretation on that section. The initial violation was a standard GPLv2§3(b) violation, wherein some distributions of the TiVo device had an offer for source that could not be successfully exercised. (At the time) acting on behalf of FSF, I contacted TiVo on 2002-06-11 to raise this issue, and, TiVo responded favorably and indicated they wanted to resolve the matter. As is usual practice in all GPL enforcement matters, I and my (then) team did our due diligence to verify full compliance, including any other potential issues under GPLv2. Eventually, my FSF colleague (David Turner) and I did a title="Complete, Corresponding Source">CCS check of TiVo's software. The procedures, criteria, and interpretations that Turner and I used then are exactly the same as the ones that Denver and I use today at Conservancy. To my knowledge (based on recent personal conversations with FSF staff), FSF still uses when these same procedures, criteria, and interpretations when FSF has the rare occasion to do GPLv2 enforcement these days.

Once the GPLv2§3(b) violation was resolved, Turner and I discovered - as has been true in nearly every one of the hundreds of GPL compliance matter that I've worked - that "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable" were incomplete. When this was identified, TiVo's solution was to, in fact, agree with the interpretation that that such instructions are mandatory and must be provided and they provided them. To my knowledge, TiVo was in full compliance with the GPLv2, including the inclusion of instructions for installation as required under GPLv2. People were able to reinstall Linux on their TiVo boxes thanks to our enforcement action; community resources on how to take advantage of GPL reinstallation rights on TiVos (of that era) are still readily available! At the time⁰, TiVo was doing the right thing in providing what the GPLv2 requires - including the ability to reinstall GNU and Linux software onto the actual device. Keep in mind: this enforcement action, and the compliance achieved from it, occurred years before the GPLv3 process began.

So, what did TiVo do that was so objectionable? What was the behavior that Stallman went to work drafting GPLv3 to prevent that TiVo was allowed to do under GPLv2? It's not, as others widely misreport, that TiVo forbade reinstallation "of the GPL'd software" itself. To my knowledge, TiVo never prevented such reinstallation. No one involved, including me, Stallman, TiVo, or anyone at FSF at the time believed that GPLv2 permitted TiVo to withhold the installation information for the GPL'd software itself. FSF demanded that TiVo provided its users the ability to reinstall Linux (and other GPL'd software, such as GNU bash). What TiVo later did, which some software freedom activists (including Stallman) found objectionable, was that TiVo designed the reinstallation process of that GPLv2'd software to cause the proprietary TiVo application to cease to function. I recall this being widely discussed when TiVo Series 3 was released in mid-2006, and my understanding was that all Series 3 devices had this particular anti-feature. (There were rumors that some of the Series 2 had this anti-feature as well, but not all models.) In other words, if you decided to modify your copy of Linux for the TiVo device and reinstall Linux, the TiVo userspace application would realize that cryptographic lockdown had been breached, and that proprietary software would no longer function. By exercising your reinstallation rights under GPLv2, you'd turn your TiVo DVR into a stand-alone server with some video processing equipment attached. You could use Kodi (which at the time had a different name) to turn that former-TiVo into a FOSS DVR, but your ability to use the proprietary DVR software from TiVo was lost - likely permanently.

Most have of course heard of the negative term "tivoization" that Richard Stallman popularized during the GPLv3 process - which was contemporaneous with the release of the TiVo Series 3. I nevertheless asked Stallman to not use that term - both then and many times since. I still disagree with Stallman's policy position on the narrow issue of preserving proprietary userspace functionality. Specifically, I just don't think it matters if, upon upgrading your copylefted software, that the proprietary software that was (to use GPLv2's terminology) "merely aggregated" alongside the copylefted software continue to function. I felt and still feel that it's actually better policy to break the ("merely aggregated") proprietary software (as GPLv2 permits). My policy view is that this breakage inspires and encourages users to install a FOSS alternative for the userspace applications after they've reinstalled the FOSS operating system. Nevertheless, Stallman found this practice (using crypto lock-down to force the proprietary software to fail) illegitimate. He noted publicly that GPLv2 didn't prevent this behavior, and wanted (and wrote, as explained below) a GPLv3 draft that prohibited that behavior.

How Discussion Focused on Crytographic Lockdown Generally

To this day, I'll remain frustrated that many pro-GPLv3 advocates, during the GPLv3 drafting process, saw fit to imply ideas that they had no basis to believe were true about GPLv2. We all knew, long before GPLv3 drafting began, that there was a clear installation requirement in GPLv2 -: the word "install" appears prominently. The training materials that I developed for title="Free Software Foundation">FSF (described above) were vetted through Stallman and FSF's legal counsel before using them to teach title="Continuing Legal Education">CLE classes. If anyone received a different impression, it was surely a miscommunication due to the aggressive "GPLv3 is much better" rhetoric of the time.

Meanwhile, much of the debate about cyptographic lockdown under GPL centered around the question of disclosure of specific authorization keys. It was said, probably correctly, that GPLv2 did not mandate disclosure of an any specific authorization key. What was often left unsaid (apparently in an effort to make GPLv2 seem weaker than it actually was) was what GPLv2 did still require: a functional installation method without disclosure of authorization keys. For example, it would, in my personal opinion, be entirely compliant with the GPLv2 to simply disable the secure boot chain, providing no path back to the vendor-provided cryptographically signed firmware¹, and allow the user to reinstall only the GPLv2'd components on the device - never to return to the stock vendor firmware. I suspect such restriction would be prohibited under GPLv3, since GPLv3 clearly requires not that you just give a viable install path (as GPLv2 does), but GPLv3 additionally requires disclosure of the authorization keys.

We can debate whether this copyleft expansion under GPLv3 was good policy. What is not up for debate is the simple concept that: more requirements added to a later revision of a licensing document does not change the intent or standing requirements in the older document. That's true even if the authors of the original document, for marketing or other reasons, choose later to denigrate their own past work. As it turns out, historically, we know what GPLv2 intended because its author, Richard Stallman, talked so extensively about what he sought to accomplish by creating GPLv2.

Going back to the early 1990s and contemporaneous with GPLv2's publication, Stallman himself has been quite fond of telling his experience with the broken title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT printer, for which he begged for the source code and didn't receive it. Stallman doesn't end this story with: "what I really wanted was to get the source code to that printer so I could build my own printer from scratch and then compile and make a fresh install of that printer software on a new printer". No, Stallman was clear that his goal was to fix the bugs on the printer that MIT already had, using the source code for that very same printer. Stallman expected that the source code for the printer would include information sufficient for him to recompile and reinstall the software onto the very same device. Larger printers of that era were simply embedded devices of unusual size. They have only minor technical differences from the TVs, wireless routers, and dozens of other Linux-based embedded devices we have today. Computers are tiny today when they were large before, but their functioning and basic methods of operations have not changed. Install meant install then. Install means install now. And FSF, Conservancy, every software freedom activist and every legitimate copyleft theorist that I've ever met still agrees with this! The intent of the GPLv2 is clear and always has been: to allow reinstallation of modified versions of the GPL'd software into the same place where the binaries were installed when you got the computer in the first place, and to reap the benefits of that change. It's ludicrous to suggest Stallman meant anything other than that when he wrote GPLv2.

Nevertheless, opponents of users' right to repair their software persist in their claims that GPLv2 doesn't intend this. We at Conservancy hear it regularly; GPL violators frequently send us a recently compiled dossier of curated comments by FSF - quoted (and some even misquoted) completely out context - that purport to "prove" that FSF does not want users to repair their embedded devices that contain GPLv2'd software. My affiliations with FSF had already ended by the time this dossier started making the rounds, so we did what any reasonable person would do: we asked FSF to clarify their opinion for us directly.

The opportunity to ask presented itself about a year ago, in May 2020, when Conservancy worked with FSF's Executive Director (John Sullivan), FSF's Licensing and Compliance Manager (Donald Robertson), and FSF's (then) legal counsel (Marc Jones) on a joint GPLv2 enforcement matter against a pernicious and intentional violator who had infringed the copyrights of GNU Bash and Linux. (The violator was using a GPLv2'd fork of Bash.) We took the opportunity then to reaffirm our joint understanding of this 18-year-old interpretation of the GPLv2 as part of that specific joint embedded device enforcement action. We discussed the matter at length and confirmed everyone's understanding remained unchanged from the prior FSF positions going back (at least) 18 years.

At the end of our discussions, on 2020-05-11, I wrote to Sullivan saying: "I just want to summarize what I believe was our mutual view on the phone call last Friday. If you could confirm that I have summarized correctly, we'll use the below as a basis of our response to [those who are currently inquiring about this issue]:"

The GPLv2 does not have any specific requirement for preservation of the ability to reinstall proprietary-software-centric vendor-provided firmwares (even if such firmwares contain some GPLv2'd works) on embedded systems, provided that the downstream user (i.e., the consumer with the device) can build, install, and (repeatedly and successfully) reinstall a firmware containing only the copylefted components (such as Linux+Bash).

John replied on 2020-05-13 with: "Bradley, We suggest just a couple of small tweaks:"

The GPLv2 does not have any specific requirement for preservation of the ability to reinstall proprietary-software-centric vendor-provided firmwares (even if such firmwares contain some GPLv2'd works) on embedded systems, provided that the downstream user (i.e., the consumer with the device) can build, install, run, and (repeatedly and successfully) reinstall a firmware containing at least the copylefted components (such as Linux+Bash).

As you can see, Sullivan advocates inclusion of the term "run" (which admittedly I had accidentally failed to include in my original draft!). It was a great addition, and Sullivan's statement matched exactly the historical interpretation that FSF espoused when I worked there in 2003. Indeed, it read to me almost exactly what Chassell had originally taught it to me when I was volunteering for FSF in the 1990s. Furthermore, the quote from Sullivan above matches the position that I vetted with Stallman throughout my time at FSF, right up until the end of my affiliation with FSF in 2019. Thus, FSF's position, as stated above, on the question of installation under GPLv2 has remained consistent from 2003-2020.

In April 2012, I started an email thread with Stallman yet again about the term "tivoization". I again urged him to stop using the term, because, in my view, what TiVo did for GPLv2 compliance was not bad for software freedom. I wrote to Stallman at that time to again remind him that upgrades of TiVo's Linux installation "can be done successfully" and (at least for TiVo product that FSF declared in compliance), the only offense was one that GPLv2 permits: merely disabling the proprietary components from working after reinstallation of the GPLv2'd components. At that time, Stallman informed me that he had indeed designed the GPLv3 to deal with this situation. Specifically, I asked him on 2012-05-05:

[so], these words in GPLv3: "The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made." mean that the proprietary software that is not a combined work with the GPLv3'd work must also function?

Stallman replied on 2012-05-06 with:

Absolutely. And I wrote it specifically to do that!

Generally speaking, long narratives of past events that have hitherto lived only in oral history. They make for great podcast or post-conference-dinner fodder, but they rarely make for good blog posts. Nevertheless, I've explained all this here in painstaking detail to counter the rising swell of opposition to users' right to repair their GPLv2'd software installations. Initially, these efforts to curtail the right to reinstall under GPLv2 have been done clandestinely - for example, by spreading the aforementioned misleading dossier. Recently, however, the effort has gone public.

Last week, a lawyer named McCoy Smith, who makes his living (in part) representing GPL violators, published an article that makes outrageous and inaccurate claims about these long-standing positions held by both Conservancy and FSF. We at Conservancy don't fear transparency, and we urge you to read McCoy's response to Denver's article, as well as Denver's original article, and then reread this one that responds to McCoy's argument. You should decide for yourself who has the better argument, and decide whether or not we've adequately answered McCoy's outrageous and inaccurate claims. In our view, McCoy spins a false narrative about the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3 regarding install, and provides specious evidence for this claim. I hope that the historical facts that I describe above clarify this issue.

A few of McCoy's fundamental arguments are easily disputed by the historical facts that I outlined above:

• McCoy accused me and Conservancy of "Historical Revisionism", by claiming my words about GPLv2§3 were "a recent effort … to reinterpret the requirements of GPLv2". I've shown above, using reliable and accurate revision history logs, that those words, which McCoy claims were recent, were written and published in May 2003.
• McCoy states that the objection to TiVo was regarding prohibition of reinstallation of the GPL'd binaries. I've confirmed above that during FSF's enforcement action against TiVo, TiVo agreed to allow reinstallation of the GPL'd binaries but caused the proprietary software not to function, and that FSF took the position that GPLv2 required reinstallation of GPLv2'd binaries to function.
• McCoy claims that GPLv2's original intent was never to allow installation. I've shown above that Stallman, the author of GPLv2, specifically knew about situations of embedded device proprietarization before GPLv2 was drafted, and, in contemporaneous and ongoing rhetoric, spoke clearly that he intended to preserve and advance users' right to repair their software by engaging in truly functional reinstallation of GPL'd binaries into the actual location.
• McCoy claims that FSF does not share Conservancy's position about installation under GPLv2. I've shown specific text written by FSF's Executive Director, which was also verified by FSF's legal counsel and FSF's Licensing and Compliance Manager as recently as May 2020 - wherein Conservancy and FSF are in full agreement. I can also further confirm that I spoke with John Sullivan on the telephone earlier this week, and he reconfirmed that he still agrees with the paragraph as written as correct policy for the situation.

I then quote my 2012 exchange with Stallman to point out clearly: the installation information definition in GPLv3 expands the requirements and does not reduce the existing installation requirements that we all saw as present in GPLv2 from its first publication in 1992. McCoy's article contains a simple logical fallacy: it assumes that since the installation information requirements in the GPLv3 are (in some respects) more expansive than those in GPLv2, that the requirement for installation information in GPLv2 are non-existent and/or are diminished merely through public discussion of GPLv3's policy goals by FSF during GPLv3's drafting. As I show above, it's clear that Stallman's rhetoric about extending installation information requirements in GPLv3 had complex additional policy goals that don't exist in GPLv2. Specifically, I don't think that GPLv2 reinstallation requires that all "merely aggregated" works continue to function as designed upon reinstallation of the GPLv2 works. Stallman has agreed with that GPLv2 interpretation, but differed from me regarding forward-looking policy (in that he finds such disabling of proprietary software deplorable) and thus Stallman wrote GPLv3 to prevent that practice that GPLv2 permits.

Furthermore, and most importantly, I quote the May 2020 recent exchange with Sullivan to point out that FSF policy regarding GPLv2 and installation has not wavered since FSF established it during Bob Chassell's time, which continued on into my time as FSF's Executive Director and then into Peter Brown's and John Sullivan's time, too. As I've shown, this interpretation of GPLv2 installation requirements is at least a 17-year unbroken chain from at May 2003 all the way through to May 2020. If Bob Chassell were still alive today, I'm sure he could account for that position remaining consistent in the 1990s, too.

There is also a central and inherent flaw in McCoy's underlying argument: the idea that FSF's view, or Linus' view, or any single individual's or organization's view, is what matters. The license says what it says. If the license steward has a view, it would not mean their view is dispositive, and I say that knowing that their view happens to agree with mine! Indeed, Linus Torvalds has stated he doesn't agree with FSF's views about GPLv2, and has his own views, which McCoy himself quotes. (I'm not sure why McCoy thinks that forwards his argument, because Linus' view differing from FSF undercuts McCoy's argument that what FSF said during GPLv3 drafting is relevant.) Other contributors to Linux disagree with both FSF's and Linus' view; many prominent Linux developers have told me that they agree with Conservancy and/or FSF about this. Others have told me they have an even broader interpretation of the installation requirements under GPLv2 than I do!

Thus, McCoy makes a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy as the center of his argument. Regardless of McCoy's mostly unsupported opinion, I suspect even he would agree that only three things will really definitively matter regarding this issue: (a) what the wronged party who didn't get their complete, corresponding source code believes, (b) what the entity refusing to give them that source code believes, and (c) what the Courts says when the former sues the latter. All else is simply bluster - full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.

As I was completing drafting on this article, the Linux Foundation sent me a rejection letter for my talk about this issue at their annual Open Source Summit (taking place this September 2021), and simultaneously announced McCoy will speak on this matter instead. I invite McCoy to not take the easy way out of presenting his work unquestioned to a friendly audience. I would be glad to come to the Open Source Summit in September and debate McCoy publicly on this issue during this session. I believe the audience would benefit from hearing more than just the anti-software-repair view of this issue.

Finally, as a reminder, please keep in mind that (as I already said in the text above), I no longer have any affiliation with FSF (since October 2019) and do not speak for them - which is precisely why I quote the words they told me.

⁰ Please note that I have not personally looked into TiVo's GPL compliance since late 2003. As such, it's entirely possible that TiVo models released from 2004 onward may have violated GPLv2§3¶2 and failed to include required "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". However, any later non-compliance is not capitulation by me, FSF, Conservancy or anyone else that McCoy's and others' interpretation of that clause is correct.

¹Please be abundantly clear that even as I give an interpretation of what I happen to believe is correct at this given moment, I'm a flawed human being capable of error. (Also, IANAL and TINLA.) I can misspeak, misstate, and otherwise just be plain wrong about something one way or the other. This is also true of FSF, its representatives, and all the other pundits like McCoy Smith who opine on this question. One of the horrible "race to the bottom" traps that GPL violators constantly lay for us is unrelenting pressure that we choose between (a) reducing what we believe a given license requires, or (b) suing them to ask the Court to uphold our view. No one escapes that pressure cooker unscathed; nearly every pro-copyleft activist (including me) has fallen into this trap, and succumbed to the pressure of (a) at least once. I know, even as I write this footnote, that someday I'm going to have a GPL violator's lawyer quoting this blog post back to me in a deposition about some esoteric, "race to the bottom" issue of GPL compliance. They're going to look for a way to twist my words to argue that somehow I've given their client carte blanche to trample users' rights that GPL protects. Everyone who stands up for copyleft faces this constant challenge now that intentional GPL violations are the norm rather than the exception. Conservancy simply will not capitulate when standing up for users' rights to copy, share, modify, repair, reinstall and reinstall modified versions of their software on the devices they own.

Tivoization and Your Right to Install Under Copyleft by Bradley M. Kuhn is licensed the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Please copy and share.

Though the exploration and colonization of foreign worlds remains for now just a tantalizing fantasy, many scientists and engineers in both the private and public sectors are hard at work trying to determine how to bring the spacefaring aspirations of humankind into reality. But establishing a permanent human presence on a barren, freezing world 34 million miles from Earth is no simple task. Among the myriad hurdles that the task of interplanetary colonization presents, there are a few that are especially vexing for astronauts. The following is a list of the biggest impediments to realizing humanity's dream of reaching other worlds.

Getting There

The task of establishing a permanent base on the red planet begins with actually landing on its surface. Even when Mars is at its nearest to us, it is still more than 100 times farther away from us than our moon. That means that getting to Mars will require far more powerful rockets than humans have ever launched into space. And covering this astronomical distance is made even more difficult by the added burden of all the additional equipment that will be required to not only make the trip with humans on board, but to establish a long-term base of operations on the Martian surface.

A wide range of equipment would be required for colonization, including facilities to produce food, water, energy, and breathable oxygen. All of this added weight requires boosters with far greater lift than anything NASA has constructed to date. Since no space agency has made a serious attempt at a crewed spaceflight to Mars, there are no precise estimates for how much power would be required to get us there.

SpaceX is currently in development of a fully reusable super heavy-lift launch vehicle capable of carrying over 150 tons of useful payload into space. To put that into perspective, the total mass of the Command Service Module, which was the spacecraft used during Apollo 11, the first crewed mission to the lunar surface, was 28,801 kg, or just under 32 tons.

If successful, this rocket, which SpaceX has dubbed Starship, will be the most powerful spacecraft constructed to date. Whether this level of power will be sufficient to achieve a crewed mission to Mars is yet to be seen, but there appears to be confidence on the part of SpaceX, as their current projections are to use Starship as the basis for their first projected crewed Mars flight in the year 2026.

NASA is also in development of a launch vehicle capable of lifting a payload of more than 100 tons into orbit. The project is being conducted in collaboration with Boeing and involves the construction of a launch vehicle known as the Space Launch System which is intended, among other purposes, to enable human crewed missions to Mars. This rocket will contain boosters capable of lifting over 130 tons. The first crewed mission is projected for 2023.

Finding Water

Water is the key ingredient to all life that we have yet discovered, so securing a reliable source of it is essential to establishing a lasting presence on another planet. Large-scale water purification systems will be essential in order to successfully maintain a Mars colony. However, for a resource as essential as water, it would also be highly advantageous to locate reservoirs of water locked beneath the Mars surface in order to sustain the colony in instances where water filtration systems break down, or the amount of clean drinkable water is insufficient to sustain the colony.

Though all evidence suggests that the surface of the red planet has been bone dry and intensely cold for the last several billion years, some evidence suggests that the moisture that existed on the surface of Mars in past ages may have seeped down through the ground and formed deep aquifers within the crust, and that those aquifers may still exist.

Researchers analyzing data obtained from the Opportunity Mars Exploration Rover, which launched in 2003 and touched down on the Martian surface the following year, discovered evidence of groundwater activity in the Meridiani Planum region. This is an area of Mars near the equator known for its rare formations of crystalline hematite. On Earth, this iron oxide compound has been known to form in hot springs and other standing pools of water. For this reason, many scientists have speculated that the Meridiani Planum environment could be host to ancient stores of liquid water just beneath the surface.

Pictures taken by the Mars Global Surveyor, which launched in 1996, also present compelling evidence for the presence of ground water in the upper levels of the Martian crust. The satellite took pictures of a series of large gullies on the Martian surface. Over the course of its mission, the research vessel catalogued several new formations emerging from these gullies, indicating the presence of ground water aquifers very near the surface of the Martian crust. An extensive analysis of the Global Surveyor's data by Dr. Thomas M. Donahue in 2001 at John Hopkins University concluded that the Surveyor's images strongly suggest "recent seepage of groundwater" from these large gullies. Moreover, the presence of high concentrations of atmospheric hydrogen suggests a series of chemical reactions "involving efficient exchange of water between atmosphere and crust now and in times past."

More recent observations from the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) spacecraft, which was launched in 2013, and continues to collect atmospheric data from Mars' orbit, found high concentrations of molecular hydrogen in Mars' upper atmosphere, varying by season. This would indicate that there continues to be vast reservoirs of water trapped in the crust of Mars continuously escaping into the atmosphere, where it is then converted into hydrogen.

If indeed there are large quantities of water trapped within the Martian crust, it could serve as the foundation for a sustainable, long-term colonizing project. Water found on Mars would prove invaluable, not simply for drinking and agricultural purposes, but also as a fuel source for hydrogen gas powered equipment. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is a natural fit for space exploration, as it is far more efficient and longer lasting than its aging, environmentally wasteful alkaline counterparts.

Copyright © 2021 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I've renewed my FSF membership with $1,000 ($500 from me and $500 as an employer match.) I really like that I can donate to the FSF and my employer will match it.

I sent an email to the FSF saying my expectation is that they will stay true to those same issues in the way RMS has over these decades. It's important to preserve that singularity of vision. I intend to continue to be supportive of the FSF for as long as that remains true.

Copyright © 2019 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I've generated a Machine Owner Key (MOK) for this purpose. People that have machines that support Secure Boot, and that want to use it, can enroll this key on their computer to verify the kernel when booting.

It's possible to enable Secure Boot on a system that already has an existing Linux-libre installation. This is a multi-step process.

First you should make sure that your GNU/Linux distro and your hardware really do support UEFI Secure Boot.

If they do, and you want to use it, you should fetch and install the key with which the kernels are signed:

wget https://jxself.org/linux-libre-mok.cer

Check that it's the right one. The fingerprint is provided below as both SHA-1 and SHA-256 because SHA-256 is more secure but the mokutil program and MOK Manager will show the SHA-1. Providing both here allows for easy comparison.

openssl x509 -noout -fingerprint -sha1 -inform der -in linux-libre-mok.cer

EA:6D:07:60:A3:DC:1E:8A:BF:41:F4:4A:F1:FF:D1:2E:C8:63:E5:7B

openssl x509 -noout -fingerprint -sha256 -inform der -in linux-libre-mok.cer

5A:39:E0:D2:DD:1E:EF:F4:DB:D3:0A:F4:1E:CA:72:7E:B7:E7:FC:1F:5A:4B:88:CC:CE:3B:52:0C:D9:66:76:FF

As long as it matches, enroll the key. Note that enrolling a key is a multistep process. mokutil is used to start the process but the change can only be confirmed at boot time. First:

sudo mokutil --import linux-libre-mok.cer

You will be asked for a temporary password for this enrollment request. Remember this password; MOK Manager will ask you for it later.

Check that it's prepared to be enrolled:

sudo mokutil --list-new

Then restart:

sudo reboot

The MOK Manager screen should appear after your UEFI boot screen but before your GNU/Linux distro boots to confirm that the key should be added. Follow the on-screen instructions to finish enrolling the key.

Once completed you can check that it was enrolled:

sudo mokutil --list-enrolled

Once the key has been enrolled you should also enable validation in the shim bootloader:

sudo mokutil --enable-validation

Once again you will be asked for a temporary password. Make sure to remember it.

Restart again:

sudo reboot

The MOK Manager screen should appear once again. Follow the on-screen instructions to enable validation.

As the last step, make sure that Secure Boot is enabled at the firmware level:

mokutil --sb-state

You should see:

SecureBoot enabled

If not please reboot and modify your UEFI firmware settings to turn on Secure Boot. There are many different user interfaces and I can't cover them all. It may be necessary to refer to the information about the make and model of your computer to finalize Secure Boot.

Copyright © 2019 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This sets up some characters and gives them some missions. I'd like it to become a series so that the story continues and things grow and evolve.

I'm using the series as my first attempt at crowdfunding. I have set up an account on Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/jxself/donate where you can donate to fund new stories.

Keeping with the flash fiction format, the series would consist of long-form storytelling broken up into snackable pieces. New stories would be added to that git repository for everyone to read.

The amount of money raised in a month would determine how many stories get published that month, up to a maximum of 4 stories in a single month and essentially amounting to weekly publication.

• If I raise less than the minimum in a month the funds will roll over until that level is reached and then a new story would be published.
• If there's enough to cover one level but not enough to reach the next level, then I'll publish the number of stories based on whatever was actually reached that month and the excess will roll over into the next month and count toward the goal for that month.
• While I'm capping it out a 4 stories a month, if the funds in a month exceeds 4 stories then the excess will also roll over.

In this way unused funds are never lost. You can see the funds currently being received on the page at Liberapay, and also in the counter at the bottom of this page. That counter is manually updated, though, and so may be delayed but the Liberapay page is live.

Because I believe in free culture, the stories would continue to be licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later. After all: Since it's being funded by the public shouldn't it belong to the public? This is something I think other crowdfunding efforts seem to miss.

Will the people on Sierra One be able to accomplish their mission? And, what will happen to Tomás and B? I hope you found it intriguing enough to fund future stories and see where this goes.

Current amount raised for this month: $0.
Amount to reach next level: $60.
(This is manually updated and may be delayed.)
You can donate at https://liberapay.com/jxself/donate to increase this amount.

Copyright © 2019 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Since there isn't a standard RISC-V architecture you might ask which RISC-V? I mean the 64-bit little-endian variant. More specifically, -march=rv64imafdc or RV64GC for short. This seems to be what's been agreed on by major GNU/Linux distros.

I normally build all supported kernel versions on all supported architectures. In the case of RISC-V, though, versions older than 4.19 won't be supported since they lack the necessary drivers in upstream. This is the minimum version needed to boot into userland without patches.

This brings the total number of supported architectures to 7.

In alphabetical order:

• amd64
• arm64
• armhf
• i386
• ppc64el
• riscv64
• s390x

The master server has been updated. The mirrors will sync up over the next few days.

Copyright © 2018 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Back when I was young, people were taught not to install or run software from untrusted parties, very much like not to accept candy from strangers, or not to let the Big Bad Wolf in. Prevention is better than cure. Then came along application macros and the World Wide Web of Execution, that embed software in data files and web pages, respectively, so that it is automatically executed when viewing the file or the web page. Such automatic execution of untrusted software paved the way for plenty of malicious software, from traditional trojan horses, that, standing as desirable programs or data files, contain executable code that grants malicious third parties control over the computer, to stealthy cryptocoin miners in web pages, that spend users' compute power to surreptitiously transfer wealth to third parties.

Some of the common sense might seem to be coming back, as several governments have banned official use of security software and even customized operating systems from suppliers out of their sovereign control. Nevertheless, ordinary users remain just as vulnerable to untrusted software. Since Meltdown and Spectre became public, we have known of information-leaking attacks that can be carried out by merely viewing a web page, as long as the browser is configured to automatically run Javascript software embedded in web pages.

Meltdown and Spectre are not traditional attacks on software vulnerabilities that remotely take over control of computers: they rather enable even unprivileged software in sandboxed environments to access data in memory that is not and should not be directly accessible to such software. For example, while waiting for the completion of some slow operation, say checking whether access to a memory location should be granted, the processor may go ahead and tentatively perform likely subsequent operations. They might even use the data, from memory not yet known to be inaccessible, which may in turn bring to the cache other memory locations dependent on the data. Access time can determine whether memory locations are cached. Combined, these effects create the hardware side channel exploited by Meltdown and some Spectre variants to allow access to data in memory that should not be accessible. Other variants are already known, and it seems likely that more will be discovered and published, even involving other hardware features and side channels.

Now, really, how bad is that? Very bad, you might think, supposing you hold private data in your computer. But how bad would that be if all the software running on your computer was software you could trust, running under your control? Would it be a problem if one program, serving you, got access to internal data of another, also serving you? Surely you could have changed the latter program to grant the former direct access to the data it needed, instead of resorting to side channels. Why should you not do that? Maybe you're not allowed to make changes to one of the programs--but then could you still say the software is under your control?

In terms of user's freedom and autonomy, the crucial distinction is between software controlled by the user and software that controls the user. The former is Free Software, i.e., software that respects users' essential freedoms to run it for any purpose, to study its source code and adapt it to suit the users' needs, to make copies and distribute them, and to improve it and to distribute the improvements. As for the latter, if the user is substantially limited in any of the essential freedoms, then those who control the software, usually the developers or their employers, can (and typically will) use that limitation to exert control over the user.

Free Software is under community control, since users can cooperate to collectively audit the software and change it to suit their collective needs. It is also under individual control, as any user can, independently or with help from third parties chosen and trusted by the user, audit the software and adapt it so that the version on the users' computer behaves just the way the user wishes.

The Free Software movement has long defended the essential software freedoms as human rights grounded on ethics, and that users should perform their computing on computers under their control, using only software that respects their freedoms. This means using Free application software running on a Free operating system, avoiding any non-Free components that could interfere with the computing, be they applications, plugins, addons, libraries, or even peripheral, mainboard or cpu firmware. Non-Free Software fragments embedded in data files and web pages are not to be overlooked.

Even remote software services, being the users' computing, should be performed by Free Software running on computing devices under the users' control. This does not rule out hiring virtual computing devices from third parties, although it might require trusting the provider a little more than co-locating your own server, or keeping on premises a server that could grant third parties remote control through such preloaded firmware as Intel ME or AMD PSP. There is no ethical obstacle to using or offering such virtual computing devices, as long as the provider refrains from inspecting or interfering with customers' computing, and strives to not allow third parties to do so. For example, if the chosen hardware would allow one customer to access anothers' data, or interfere with anothers' computing, the provider should arrange for such separation, if not through software or hardware features, by assigning them to separate hardware.

While virtual server providers panicked as the features expected to enforce customer separation melted down, users who have refused to rely on non-Free Software or services as software substitutes for their own computing, relying on trustworthy Free Software on their own computers instead, have had little reason to worry about Spectre and Meltdown. When we can and do verify that all the software we use can be trusted to do just what we expect, the hardware side channels exploited by Spectre or Meltdown pose no threat, because the software we use serves us.

Any unwanted, deliberate features to obtain information through side channels, and to then transfer it to third parties, would most likely be noticed in individual or community code audits, if not caught as soon as their implementations are contributed to the software project.

Unlike elaborate features to exploit such side channels, that would be very hard to miss, coding mistakes might slip through, but those would still be caught by the existing if imperfect hardware features: despite the side channels, they still protect against accidental attempts to access directly data that should not be accessible.

Still, freedom doesn't magically repel each and every threat; rather, freedom, and control of our software, give us the opportunity to protect ourselves and each other. E.g., software freedom does not protect you from remote NetSpectre attacks, but if all the software running on computers under your control is Free Software, you can scan its source code for remotely-exploitable gadgets, modify them so that they are no longer exploitable, and be assured that none remain hiding in binary blobs, because such blobs do not belong in Free Software.

When it comes to software downloaded and run on a browser, absent better infrastructure to give users ultimate control, every single use may require a new audit. Meanwhile, blocking by default, even when the code is marked as Free Software, might be a safer policy. Trust isn't so easy to earn.

Software mitigations have been proposed to make it harder for malicious software to exploit Meltdown and Spectre. Some of the mitigations depend on modified cpu microcode. That amounts to throwing non-Free Software at the non-problem. Who knows what undesirable features would be brought in along with the promised mitigations? It is not like (non-Free Software) updates have never been abused to impose changes users would rather not have.

Indeed, most of these software mitigations, involving microcode or not, make the system run slower, in some cases a lot slower. Freedom-minded users have no need to incur that performance loss and additional power consumption, just to keep information from being obtained by other trusted programs running under our own control.

We have no reason to fear Spectre, Meltdown or similar side channels when we do our computing using only trustworthy Free Software on computing devices we control. Who knows what tricks that we do not know about might be at the avail of any non-Free Software, or even of not-audited Free Software, from firmware to in-browser Javascript, if only we let it in? Our long-standing advice has always been a matter of common sense: don't let the Big Bad Wolf in.

Copyright 2018 Alexandre Oliva. Who's afraid of Spectre & Meltdown? by Alexandre Oliva is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Please copy and share.

It's one of the distress calls sent by the Titanic in the early hours of April 15, 1912. Titanic was the largest ship in the world at the time, and seems an apt analogy to Intel's x86 processors.

x86 seems a sinking ship to me for software freedom. Newer machines have fatal freedom problems and the ones we can use without those problems are out of production (mostly; except for the KGPE-D16.) Those that aren't being produced anymore will become harder and harder to find over time, which is a big problem for our own sustainability.

It's very much like Stallman described in his talk from LibrePlanet a few years ago:

Thinking on all this is what got me to decide to embrace support for other CPU architectures, starting with the IBM Power CPUs. I have added this support to my APT repository for Linux-libre. It needs POWER8 or above, like those machines from Raptor Engineering.

There's no way to know what is going to work out well for software freedom in the long term. It doesn't make sense to put all of our eggs in one basket. Indeed, there can be multiple efforts going on and EOMA68 and RISC-V both seem interesting too.

Let's begin a planned and orderly evacuation of x86. This will take years. Please put your life jackets on and proceed to the boat deck. It's very cold out tonight. I understand the Carpathia is making full steam ahead for us.

Copyright © 2018 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Women's Liberation Movement of the 1960s started a change in society. Prior to that time, women were expected to get married, tend to the house, and take care of the kids. Women with careers were few and far between. Even fewer could expect to have a position of authority in what was considered to be a man's world. While some women worked low level jobs due to financial problems at home, the idea of a woman pursuing a profession was generally scoffed at and dismissed. (Sadly, this expectation persisted long after the 1960s and is still prevalent in some places today.)

It was about that time a television show came along that presented a future of gender equality. In this series, women and men worked alongside one another without gender even being an issue. Professional women were shown to be as efficient at their jobs as their male counterparts. For 1960s America, this was revolutionary.

As early as 1964, Gene Roddenberry produced his first pilot episode for what would become the original Star Trek series. In that pilot episode called "The Cage", viewers were introduced to a 23rd century starship called the U.S.S. Enterprise. Shockingly for many viewers of the time, the episode featured a female first officer.

NBC executives rejected this pilot. Gene Roddenberry has said that one of the issues was having a woman in such a high level position of authority. Still, he was given the rare green light to produce a second pilot episode. The stipulation: He had to recast the crew. The only survivor from the original cast would be the Vulcan science officer, Mr. Spock. In the second pilot, Spock also assumed the role of the first officer while serving under Captain James T. Kirk.

While a woman would no longer serve as the first officer, Roddenberry did feature an African American woman in another prominent role in the original Star Trek series. Nichelle Nichols was cast as Lieutenant Uhura, the ship's communications officer. Uhura had the respect of her crewmates and proved to be skilled at her job. While she would never actually be shown to assume control of the ship, she was fourth in the chain of command.

Each week, viewers would see a woman working alongside men with no sense of inequality. As shown in the parallel universe of the episode "Mirror, Mirror" Uhura was quite capable of not only performing her duties but defending herself, as well.

Sadly, Uhura was the only regular female character that exerted much authority. Nurse Chapel and Yeoman Rand were both in positions of servility. Not even Star Trek was able to push the envelope too far. Men continued to dominate the top positions in the series. But women were interspersed among the men in other upper level positions.

In the first season episode "Space Seed", Lieutenant Marla McGivers served as the ship's historian specializing in 20th century. Unfortunately, she proved to be weak-willed and easily manipulated. In "Mudd's Women", the crew of the Enterprise happened upon three strong and sexually-powerful women. It was later discovered, though, that the main goal of these women was to find husbands.

In most cases, women in the Star Trek series were cast as love interests and/or as disposable characters. When women were to exude some level of competence, they were typically cast alongside a strong male counterpart. Such was the case in "Patterns of Force." Daras, a woman who had successfully infiltrated a Nazi-like regime, was offset by a man (Isak) who had also infiltrated the regime.

Perhaps the most powerful depiction of a strong woman by a guest star was in the Hugo Award-winning episode, "The City on the Edge of Forever." Joan Collins played Edith Keeler, a progressive woman from the 1930s. Keeler was a social worker at the 21st Street Mission in New York City. Three members of the Enterprise crew -- Kirk, Spock, and McCoy -- traveled back in time and met her. Keeler greatly impacted Kirk with her passionate and optimistic view of the future.

In the subsequent series of the Star Trek franchise, women were able to assume a variety of prominent and powerful roles: chief medical officer, head of security, captain, starship engineer, ambassador, planetary leader... even as admirals in Starfleet.

The original Star Trek series started strong and with good intentions, but it failed to live up to its potential. While it was progressive and supportive of the Women's Liberation Movement in many respects, it was hampered by the prevailing attitudes of the day. Still, Star Trek helped promote and legitimize the plight of women in an era that preferred to repress them. Even though it didn't always get it right, Star Trek pointed forward to the gains women would make over the next decades.

Copyright © 2018 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

At first the repository only provided Short-Term Support (STS) kernels, focusing on always having the latest version. These were only supported for 2-3 months at a time.

In 2013 I added Long-Term Support (LTS) versions, supported for 2 years.

Now I am expanding on that by introducing Extended-Term Support (ETS.) ETS versions are supported for 6 years, instead of 2 years for LTS. They are a good choice for someone that wants the reliability and dependability of an LTS version for an extended period.

Kernel 4.4 will be the initial Extended-Term Support (ETS) kernel, supported until February 2022.

Copyright © 2018 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The kernel developers actually began moving some of the proprietary bits into a separate location many years ago: The first commits to linux-firmware.git were in 2008, while 2009 marked the addition of a file to the kernel tree telling people not to add new stuff to the firmware subtree anymore. It seems that they just forgot to delete that subtree once the transition was done. Well, they finally remembered.

We can tell that software freedom wasn't their motivating factor because they deleted all of what little free firmware was in there too.

As Alexandre Oliva explains in his release announcement of Linux-libre 4.14, the actual location of the proprietary software doesn't really matter since there are some indicators that they may very well be derivative works of the kernel, and a GPL violation regardless.

Since even what little free firmware existed was also removed and there wasn't really a clean place to send people to get it (because linux-firmware.git primarily consists of proprietary software), I took Alexandre's recommendation and started a replacement that only would only consist of freely-licensed firmware, naming it linux-libre-firmware.git.

I quickly found that some of these free ones either weren't buildable from source, or didn't run if they were, and had probably been like that for a long time. In one example the assembler that was needed did build but immediately segfaulted. In another there were some problems building the cross-compiling toolchain, which was a prerequisite to building the actual firmware.

My guess was that most people probably didn't build these from source and instead just grabbed the binaries from linux-firmware.git and so didn't notice when there were problems.

As I continued looking into this I found that Debian had these firmwares and decided to see how they were handling it, in case patches to fix the problems already existed but had not migrated upstream. I found that Debian also didn't build them from source either: They just re-used the same pre-compiled firmware files from and provided the same (broken) source. I imagine that's probably a violation of their own DFSG.

In the end I was able to either locate patches or make them (and sent upstream) but that's only part of it if no one actually ever bothers to compile the software from source. I wonder how other distros handle it. I've not yet looked.

Copyright © 2017 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Digital technology can be used as a tool to spread knowledge and information. It drastically lowers the barrier for people to create, modify, publish and distribute creative works. It can empower the masses. Anonymity can be available to everyone. Censorship could become impossible. Easy copying could destroy the traditional movie and music industries. There is much potential for technology to liberate people and make society a better place. It could also turn out that digital technology is a disaster for us because it also enables things like Digital Repression Management (DRM), mass surveillance, and more. There are individuals and organizations out there actively working against this utopian vision. The war over whether digital technology will empower or repress us is ongoing but one thing is certain: Things won't be the same anymore.

It should be clear which side of the fight I'm on, and I try to use all of the means available to me to help the fight. This usually comes in various legal, technological, and political means. One of those methods is using strong copyleft licenses like the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) to prevent covered works from being proprietarized and used against us in this ongoing fight. I also ask others to use it, and tell others what I am doing. Using a strong copyleft licenses like that doesn't stop those who are working against us from continuing to do that, but it does remove one possible piece of ammunition, and it works as a sort of "shield" around the thing so-licensed, so as to protect it. As more people adopt these sorts of "communal shields," the more protection there is.

Drafting licenses is hard work. Indeed: The Free Software Foundation's drafting process for version 3 started in January 2006 and went until the final version was published in June 2007. And, January 2006 is when the first "discussion draft" was published so this timeframe doesn't include the FSF's own internal deliberations on what they wanted to accomplished with v3, making the actual drafting timeline even longer.

While drafting licenses that try to address social and political problems you try to anticipate future issues as best you can but this isn't always possible. Indeed: version 3 addressed problems like Tivoization, which had not been envisioned when version 2 was written back in 1991 - a full 16 years earlier. The technology world moves fast and 16 years is a lifetime. In fact, 1991 saw the first version of the kernel named Linux announced. Gorbachev was still in office, until the Sovient Union was dissolved later that year, and a man named Bill Clinton announced that he would run for President of the United States. It feels like such a long time ago.

Despite putting forth the best effort to forsee future problems, no one is perfect. There had been numerous legal and technological changes in those 16 years and it was time for a new version to address those matters. Fortunately the Free Software Foundation predicted that this might be necessary and recommended that people include the words "or (at your option) any later version" when licensing something under the GPL family of licenses. Allowing upgrades to future versions provides an escape hatch through which those community shields I mentioned earlier can be upgraded.

Depsite this I have talked to some that refuse to use those seven words. One argument that they've used with me is a purely hypothetical scenario of not wanting to give the FSF control over what the license says in the future, using the argument along the lines of "what if the FSF 'goes bad' and makes a proprietary license"? It's important to keep in mind that this is purely hypothetical: The FSF has shown itself to be a very good copyright and license steward since it started in 1985. Contrast that to the very real attacks against our freedom that are going on non-stop as individuals and organizations work to find ways around the GPL. It seems like being penny wise but pound foolish.

In truth the FSF has several levels of defenses to prevent such a thing from ever happening:

• One is Stallman himself. He'll never allow it.
• Nor will any of the other board members.
• Another is that the FSF is a 501(c)(3) charity and needs to operate for the public good. Making proprietary software licenses would run contrary to their mission and put their status at risk.
• Another is all of those copyright assignments that people have assigned to them over the years. They included GPL-like language in them to bind the FSF.
• The final level is the public: Even if everything else were to somehow fail the ability to upgrade is specifically worded as "at your option" so we'll be able to review things and decide to upgrade for ourselves.

But for this last option to work permission to upgrade must be granted. Upgrading isn't possible if the copyright holder(s) didn't authorize such. Yes, there can be discussions after the fact but this works only so long as all of the copyright holders are both alive and contactable. It quickly falls apart once either of those two things change. This also contributes to "permission culture."

The argument presented to me is so hypothetically remote while the other problems are so real and present that it's almost like arguing that they don't want people to be able to upgrade their shield generators to provide better shields (after it's been compromised) because the generator itself might theoretically explode some day and harm them. But I'll tell you what: Not upgrading is a way to guarantee failure and harm, because those working against our freedom haven't stopped. I don't know what will warrant GPL version 4. Or 5. Or 6. But, it will surely be something significant that needs addressing. I want for our community to be in a position where it can be.

Don't forget that we're in the middle of a war that will determine whether digital technology will empower or repress us. Please don't undermine community defenses by not allowing upgrades to our collective shields. Let's use technology to empower people, not cripple them and let it be used to repress them.

Copyright © 2017 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This person is already supportive of free software.

I decided to put my response here:

Apply those same questions to software. It's a multi-part answer.

Free software (and also free culture) is for everyone. Even people doing it commercially (i.e., for money) like companies or individuals. Otherwise it treats people differently, with different classes. Because if commercial usage was disallowed for everyone else the copyright holder isn't barred from doing it. Avoiding that (because everyone should be treated equally; isn't that what this whole thing's been about to begin with? Avoiding the power control of one over another?) means companies should have the same rights to free software (and free culture) as individuals do and use the free software (and free culture) stuff for their own purposes. Why can't they use that scheduling program to manage the appointment schedule of their haircutting business? Why can't they use that music for their hold music (i.e., a "commercial use.") So that's part 1.

Part 2 is: Do we want free software (and also free culture) to be limited to the sidelines where people do the free software (and free culture) stuff only at night and on weekends while during the day time they go back to their day job making proprietary things instead? I certainly don't. I want free software (and free culture) stuff to become culturally relevant, if not dominant. And to eventually stamp out the non-free entirely. That means said person needs to be able to quit their job and work on free software (and free culture) things full time if they want to and still be able to pay their rent. That would actually be a good thing: We need more free software (and free culture) stuff - not less.

That means being able to make money from them. Don't forget that creativity isn't just "I had this wonderful idea and now I am the only person that can use it." See All Creative Work Is Derivative. Part of being creative also includes reusing stuff from others, since it's already derivative.

So let's look at it another way: Take Mimi and Eunice for example. Nina is no longer working on them. But even if she were what's the harm if someone decided that they wanted to continue making new episodes while getting some money via, say, Patreon? There's no harm at all.

If we want free software (and free culture) to be more than a side activity from hobbyists on nights and weekends doing bits here and there gratis then money needs to be allowed.

And hence we have "a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution", says the FSF in their Free Software Definition. The same should apply to free culture too, and for the same reasons.

Copyright © 2017 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The book contained many embarrassing revelations about Wright's time as a secret agent. It led to the book and reviews of it being banned in England. Ironically, it was sold freely in Scotland because Scotland has a separate legal system and is not subject to English law. It was also legally available in many other countries including the United States, Canada, and Australia. Anyone who wanted to get a copy, even in England, was able to do so without too much difficulty. While the book's revelations were embarrassing to the British government, the fiasco surrounding the futile attempts to gag it were even more so. The public was less interested in the book's content than in the government's panic response to it. The legal attempts to ban it created huge publicity and helped the book sell millions of copies worldwide. Today this is called the Streisand Effect.

The ultimate failure to prevent the contents of Spycatcher from becoming public highlights the global and slippery nature of information. Once it exists in any form, it's like the water in a rusty tank: some will eventually leak.

Today, because of the Internet, keeping information secret is nearly impossible. Publications by WikiLeaks of confidential documents makes front pages worldwide but this furor diverts attention from two very important things. The first is that the Internet has fundamentally changed the paradigm in which information exists. The second is that governments and other organizations around the world were caught off-guard, yet only have themselves to blame. Anyone with minor technical knowledge of the Internet would have known for years that whistleblower sites were inevitable and unstoppable, and that WikiLeaks is just the tip of the iceberg. Attempting to stop them by intimidating those involved or sabotaging their fundraising is like trying to stop an overflowing dam with a few buckets.

There was an empty seat at the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize ceremony because the winner was unable to collect his award. Liu Xiaobo is serving an eleven year sentence in a Chinese jail for publishing a single document that his government didn't like.

Organizations, state or private, need to accept that any of their communications could become public at any time. The more compromising those communications are, the more likely it is to happen.

Whistleblowers do democracy a service by exposing the illegal activities of large corporations, state agencies and other organizations. It's hardly good for democracy that some group covertly employ foul means to achieve their ends. Up until disclosures from Wikileaks and Snowden, the public was mostly unaware of the less savory measures used; now and in the future, we'll know most of the murky details. Some might prefer not to know, but it's too late: The horse has bolted.

Copyright © 2017 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

My understanding of the original motiviation is that Stallman began including copies of things like the GNU Manifesto along with the Emacs documentation as a way to tell people about why that software was made, what free software was and why it was important, and that he wanted to find a way to be sure that people who didn't believe in these values couldn't remove (or change) that part. (And for that reason, the GFDL also conditions invariant sections on being exclusively about "the relationship of the publishers or authors of the document to the document's overall subject (or to related matters)." Invariant sections were born.

There are those that, rightly, object to invariant sections. As I've said before all creative works should be free. There are still others that go even further though and claim that, since the GFDL allows for invariant sections, that it should be considered a non-free license. I'm not linking to that page in order to avoid promoting it further but I will argue why such a position is ridiculous.

The first thing to keep in mind is that invariant sections are an optional feature of the GFDL and there's no requirement that they be used. If they are not then there are no freedom problems.

The first argument I call the Alternate Universe Theory.

The problem I see with calling it non-free is that it is based on considering what could have happened, not what actually happened. The logic is that, since invariant sections could have been added, it's non-free.

I argue that we should base decisions on if something is free or not based what they actually did (i.e. did they actually use invariant sections, etc.), not what could have happened in some alternate universe.

The reason for this is because, under current laws, any given copyright holder "could" do anything. They "could" have made it entirely non-free for example. This is actually the default for copyright: All Rights Reserved. So, anyone "could" have not applied a free license. Using this same proposed standard where we must consider what the author "could" have done, we can't consider anything to be free all because of the possibility that they "could" have done something else.

I call my other argument The Copyleft Theory.

Using the same logic that the GFDL is non-free "because it allows for so-called invariant sections to be added to your documentation which cannot be modified or deleted", we'd have to also consider any other license that allows for non-free modifications to be made to similiarly be a non-free liense. That's going to be pretty much any non-copyleft license. Since they'd all allow non-free things to be added into an otherwise free program, are we to consider those similiarly non-free? It would mean eliminating large swaths of free software and free culture works merely over something that could have happened, but didn't.

Do we really want to adopt the standard of thinking that, as long as someone could have made something non-free, that we should consider it non-free in actuality? I don't think so.

Copyright © 2016 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In there he seems to be claiming that any free software license that requires preservation of the license notice (and almost all do) means that anyone getting a copy gets those original permissions. Essentially that all such licenses are some form of copyleft. This is nonsense, as I'll explain.

But first I wanted to mention that he seems to contradict himself.

In paragraph #3, while he's making the claim, he talks of misconceptions: "One is that it allows you to claim additional restrictions to the code and require anyone you pass it onto to get a different licence from you. This is nonsense..."

But then when talking of MIT he says "you can even sublicence it, make a additional licence with more restrictions..."

So which is it? Can you add more restrictions or not?

Anyway: You can, as I'll explain.

His whole point is that the license requires the notice to remain there. So what? Yes, someone may voluntarily pass on the source code and the freedoms to copy, modify, etc. but they're not required to. They're only required to include that particular blob of text, not to actually give you those permissions. There is a subtle difference.

Because, just like the license says, it can be sublicensed. Let's imagine a program under a proprietary software license that also just happens to incorporate some code under MIT. Let's also imagine that said proprietary program just happens to come with source code and so you can see the source and that blob of text from the MIT license.

Copyright © 2016 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

It's time to have a conversation with her about all of the problems. She's my mother and I want to respect her wishes even if they're bad but this one seems particuarly bad. She sells out not only herself but also her friends and family by becoming an informant for the state. I never saw that coming.

Copyright © 2016 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

So what's good about dial-up? The slow 56 kbit/s speed can be a big turn-off in today's fast-paced world, but that's not to say this form of internet connectivity doesn't have its upsides.

One is that dial-up is cost-effective. As far as pricing for high-speed internet service, I pay almost $100 per month. And that's just for internet access. It's not one of those bundled packages that I've seen the cable company offer with TV or whatever else included.

In addition to being expensive, in a study by Ookla Speedtest, the U.S. isn't anywhere near the top 10 -- ranked 42nd globally for upload speeds -- in countries where those faster internet connections are far less expensive. Why pay all that money for something that ranks so poorly globally?

I almost had access to a 1 gbps fiber optic connection. This city already has a fiber network that's been built and paid for with taxes from the people living here. Why not let the people use it? The telephone and cable companies made sure that didn't happen. Now the people here get to be stuck with their slower internet access.

While dial-up isn't going to work very well for everything that someone might want to do online, it will be significantly cheaper, usually anywhere from $10 to $30 per month, depending on your service provider. This is more in line with what people in other countries pay for much faster internet access. Let's face it - some folks want/need internet access, but either can't afford the high prices that US ISPs charge for high speed access (and for static IP addresses, the ability to run servers, which is normally banned by their Terms Of Service, etc.) or can't even get it at all. The U.S. also ranks poorly for nationwide availability of high speed internet access, where millions of people cannot get it. Dial-up isn't spectacular, but it's available to anyone with a phone line, and it's better than no internet at all.

It's sad to have to think of it that way but the lack of competition means that costs, speeds, and availability are unlikely to improve in the future. At least dial-up beats out high speed internet access in terms of costs and availability. Two out of three isn't bad.

What other benefits might there be to dial-up? You get a new IP address with each connection. Not only does it make running a server more difficult (hey, basic email doesn't need much bandwidth), dial-up basically serves as a free proxy server: It would be much more difficult for any websites you're on to keep you permanently banned... if you do something warranting loss of your account, that is. Many sites will ban via IP address along with the offender's username, so if you've got a constantly changing IP, you can easily keep on going back under new names (so dial-up can be a good thing for internet trolls).

Another benefit is free virus protection. Just about all viruses floating around out there right now are so large that they require a fast internet connection just to infect someone's computer. Dial-up is so insanely slow that there's no way your connection could even download a modern virus. If you've got dial-up, you can toss out your anti-viral software and free up some space on your hard drive because your internet connection will, quite frankly, be too terrible to facilitate a virus.

Believe it or not, there are a handful of internet service providers who still offer dial-up today. The reasons to have faster internet connectivity (assuming that you can even get it and then afford it) almost certainly outweigh any "benefits" dial-up can provide, but if any of the aforementioned "benefits" tickles your fancy (and you're willing to sacrifice things that require a high-speed connection), perhaps you should consider looking into dial-up. As a small aside, you will probably want to make certain that your phone service has a call waiting option (which can be used in conjunction with most dial-up services) to ensure you don't miss any calls while your phone line is occupied.

Copyright © 2016 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Software Freedom Conservancy helps member projects avoid non-profit administrative stuff so that they can focus on doing what they do best: Write code and collaborate.

The most important thing that Conservancy does, though, is GPL compliance work.

Free software would probably not be where it is today without copyleft. In an alternate universe where Richard Stallman founded the GNU Project -- and with it, launched the free software movement -- but without copyleft, it likely would have been simply gobbled up by proprietary software companies by now and never amounted to much. If it did somehow survive it'd be much smaller and less relevant and we'd probably not have free software in as many places as we do currently.

As Bradley Kuhn said, the GPL is not magic pixie dust. Merely slapping some text on a program doesn't magically make it stay free: It takes work. First, by talking to people that are not following the license. If, despite the best efforts to resolve things amicably, they remain intransigent you have two choices: Give up and let them continue violating (and in that case why was the program put under the GPL in the first place?), or push the matter with legal action.

I've heard comments from Bradley Kuhn about how long Conservancy's queue of violations is so it seems there are too many out there willing to turn a blind eye to GPL compliance and hope they don't get caught. We need more people doing GPL enforcement under Conservancy's princinples, not less, but for now the question before us seems more dire: Do we even want Conservancy's work to continue at all? I have voted "yes" with my money and I hope you do too.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The ability to argue convincingly, to put one's point of view across clearly and convincingly, is not just a valuable asset; it is an essential life skill. If people are weak communicators, they're unlikely to make good lawyers, salespersons, managers, politicians, teachers, police officers, soldiers, negotiators, spokespersons, or mediators. Indeed, without a demonstrable ability for effective argument, many job applicants wouldn't get beyond the first interview.

By nature, some people are competent arguers and just need to fine-tune the skill. Most people, however, are not and need to develop the skill from scratch. That means becoming competent in four areas. The first three are critical thinking, emotional intelligence and argument formulation. The fourth is presentation, i.e. the ability to put forward an argument persuasively.

Critical thinking means being able to analyze a situation without letting personal biases influence judgment. That's more difficult than it may seem because preconceived ideas and ego influence most people's thinking, often without them being aware of it. Developing an open mind by letting those preconceptions go is the first step towards being an effective arguer. Only with an open mind can a person see all sides, adopt a balanced personal stance, and build an effective argument.

Emotional intelligence is closely related to critical thinking because it concerns overcoming biases and ego. More than that, however, it's about learning how to see things from other people's perspectives and developing empathy with them. It's a powerful skill that can turn another person's antagonistic attitude to one's benefit.

Argument formulation means being fully conversant with all sides of the issue. It means carefully studying the facts, considering the various points of view, arriving at a personal stance and then developing arguments to back it up, step by step. Occasionally, people have to build convincing arguments for points of view that are not their own and sometimes that they may not even agree with. Lawyers do it all the time in the courtroom, as do members of debating societies.

The fourth area, delivering an argument persuasively, only comes with practice. If the argument is to be made in person, for example, at a meeting, it's a good idea to compose the main points in writing as if it were a speech. For a speech to be effective, the elements must be in a logical sequence, and it's easier to see that sequence when it's written down. Repeatedly practicing a speech consigns the important points to memory. Most people don't have to make strictly formal speeches at meetings, but by preparing in this way, all the different arguments and responses can be practiced in advance and can easily be retrieved from memory when needed.

The basic ability to argue starts in early childhood. It may be crude and egocentric at the beginning, but it can be directed and nourished as you get older, and turned into a valuable life skill. Adults who didn't do that can still become effective arguers by concentrating on the four areas highlighted above. It may take a little more time and effort, but regardless of a person's age, it's never too late to start.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Many free software projects have had safeguards put in place on WiFi chipsets that prevent them from operating outside of regulations. Once these safeguards are removed or bypassed, all bets are off. Instead of punishing everyone in the Free Software community for the actions of a few, individuals who operate devices outside of regulations should be fined instead of taking away everyone's freedom.

The libreCMC project and other members of the Free Software community would like to ask everyone to send a comment to the FCC about these new proposals and why they won't help fix the misuse of WiFi or SDRs. More information about this issue and how to submit comments can be found at SaveWiFi.org.

Will you help us save WiFi by Bob Call is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Please copy and share.

I started this APT repository to scratch a personal itch: I wanted to be able to play WebM files with the VP9 video codec and Opus audio codec and embdedded WebVTT subtitles on Trisquel 7 ("Belenos".) Looking in to the matter, I found that Belenos had new-enough versions of most everything needed already, except for VLC. VLC itself wasn't quite there yet either and didn't include support for embedded WebVTT subtitles, which is the subtitle format used in WebM files. I made a feature request to add that support, which was then added for VLC 3.0. I applied that diff to the then-current VLC 2.2.1. This repository provides that missing component by having the latest version of VLC, with the backported patch for WebVTT subtitles.

Using the logic that if it took more than 3 minutes to make it's worth sharing I've made this APT repository available to the public.

I hope that this repository will help the adoption of VP9 and Opus by increasing the number of people that are able to play it.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The primary reason for allowing derivative works is because creative works contribute to our shared history and culture and rightly belong to the people of the world once published. There's a whole separate argument to be made there, which I won't do here. I'll just address the point that was raised in support of not allowing derivative works: Avoiding misrepresentation. The idea is that, if people can't change what you wrote, they can't make it seem like you're saying something different. This argument quickly falls apart when you examine it.

This is because the license can only regulate stuff beyond what the law already allows. Keep in mind regardless of that a license says, people don't have to accept it and can instead simply treat the work as if it was under normal copyright. Quoting people and re-using portions is already allowed as a fair use exception to copyright in the U.S. and in the various laws of other countries around the world. As long as people are able to quote you and re-use small snippets legally without accepting the license then the potential for being quoted out of context, being made to seemingly say something else, and such will still exist regardless of the license.

In fact, CC BY and CC BY-SA do a better job of addressing the concern over misrepresentation because they require that modified versions be clearly marked as such so as to avoid attributing someone else's changes to the original author. That automatically prevents someone from modifying the document and then claiming it's what the original author said. (And if someone is concerned that someone won't follow the license and clearly mark it as having been modified then what makes them think that they're going to follow the ND license either?)

Another thing is that CC BY and CC BY-SA both include a provision that the copyright holder can contact someone and have the attribution removed (see section 3.a.3 in version 4.0 of both CC BY and CC BY-SA.) So if the author didn't like the modified version so much that they wanted their name off of it, they can invoke that clause to have the attribution removed.

Not only does ND not address the stated concerns, it also prevents uses that the original author might want to allow, such as translations. Yes, someone could contact the author to ask for permission to make a translation (aka a "derivative work") but this works only so long as they're both alive and contactable. It quickly falls apart once either of those two things change. This also contributes to "permission culture." This culture of permission is why orphan works, for example, are a problem where you can't find the copyright holder or their heir to get that needed permission from.

It's far simpler to grant that permission upfront, especially since licenses that do not allow derivative works do not really address the stated concern of misrepresentation.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The United States has had a history of racial struggles. Slavery had been legal in the United States for much of its history as people were able to buy, sell, and dispose of others as if they were property. The abolition of slavery was one of the aims accomplished through the American Civil War.

Even after the war, though, racism flourished. Segregation was practiced in many locations throughout the first half of the 20th century as people were denied basic rights.

This reached a head in the 1960s as the civil rights movement gained ground and as white supremacist groups fought back. In 1963, the bombing of an African American Church in Birmingham, Alabama left four schoolgirls dead and several others injured. In 1965, the killing of Jimmie Lee Jackson by a state trooper during a peaceful protest drew attention to the struggle for equality. Jackson's death inspired the three Selma to Montgomery marches of that same year. When those marches were met with violent opposition from law enforcement as well as civilians, the nation was shocked by the images of brutality. Just five months later, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Less than three years after that, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. While the primary racial divide was between white and black Americans, other minorities were also repressed.

This was the backdrop for many Star Trek episodes. In an era when racism was rampant, Star Trek featured a racially mixed crew. Prominent bridge officers included Lieutenant Uhura as a communications officer of African descent and Lieutenant Sulu as an Asian helmsman. Having cast members in such important roles was revolutionary for the time.

Nichelle Nichols, the African American who played the role of Uhura, claims that she considered quitting the series early on. It was at that time Martin Luther King, Jr. contacted her and persuaded her to continue in the role. He emphasized the impact she was having as a black woman seen every week in a prominent and powerful position.

Star Trek, a series about the future, actually created history on November 22, 1968. The episode broadcast on that date - "Plato's Stepchildren" - is recognized for featuring the first interracial kiss to be broadcast on American television.

With characters from racial minorities showing a future of human equality, writers had to look elsewhere to deal with the topic of racism. The most common target chosen? Mr. Spock, the Vulcan science officer. In particular, Dr. McCoy regularly berated Spock and his half-Vulcan/half-human heritage. Since none of the show's viewers were from Vulcan, none of the viewers were offended. Without igniting a personal response, the writers were able to show the ignorance of racism and racist comments.

Even so, an argument can be made that Dr. McCoy was using his skills as a psychologist to force Spock to come to terms with his biracial background. In several episodes, McCoy directly or indirectly expresses his respect and friendship toward Spock.

The episode "Balance of Terror" introduced a new enemy to the series: the Romulans. Romulans and humans had waged a war a century earlier, but neither had ever seen the other. Only audio communication had been used. When the first visual image of a Romulan was seen, it became clear that Romulans and Vulcans had a shared history. They were related. Due to this revelation, the navigator - Lieutenant Stiles - overtly showed his prejudice toward Spock throughout the remainder of the episode. Apparently, Stiles had relatives who had died in the Earth-Romulan War. Yet his bigotry toward Spock was unfounded, distasteful, and disruptive to the function of the crew. This led to a rebuke from Captain Kirk.

In "The Omega Glory," Captain Tracey of the U.S.S. Exeter used Spock's pointed ears to convince the Yangs (a tribal culture on the planet Omega IV) that Spock was a devil. Likewise, in "Patterns of Force," the antagonist Melakon judged Spock based on racial features. "Note the sinister eyes and the malformed ears. Definitely an inferior race... Note the low forehead, denoting stupidity." Viewers familiar with Spock's logic and intelligence clearly understood the inanity of Melakon's racist words.

The most obvious treatment of racial tensions was in the episode ""Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." This episode introduces two characters. Bele, a police commissioner from the planet Cheron, was pursuing Lokai, a political refugee. The distinguishing feature of both men was that they were half-white and half-black, split right down the middle. While the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise did not seem to notice, the colors were reversed between them. Bele was white on the left and black on the right, while Lokai was white on the right and black on the left. This seemingly insignificant difference was the sole reason Bele was pursuing Lokai. On Cheron, those with Lokai's coloration were seen as inferior to those with Beles coloration. The episode concluded with the realization that a racially-motivated war had annihilated the population of Cheron.

Star Trek took some big risks by including racial minorities in the cast in such prominent roles. The series also tiptoed around offending the NBC sponsors and censors. With the potential of a backlash from viewers in the Southern United States - the hotbed of racism in the 1960s - Star Trek presented a future of racial equality. By doing so, Star Trek helped advance the cause of civil rights in 1960s America.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

• GitLab.com - The canonical upgrade path provided by GitLab B.V. is moving people from Gitorious to the hosted GitLab.com. I do not like the idea of moving to GitLab.com since that runs their Enterprise Edition which is not free software. Proprietary sofware is never a solution so this option is automatically disqualified.
• GitLab Community Edition - From a purely technical perspective this seems to have some nice features. GitLab B.V. only makes money when people buy the proprietary version though so they're clearly betting on people doing that. They also have a CLA, which I don't like. The lax pushover license used for the GitLab software already allows them to make proprietary versions though. I suspect it's only there so that they can be sure there are no issues with them proprietarizing people's contributions because it seems very big on making sure that they can sublicense the contributions under whatever terms they want. This is backed up by history: The CLA appeared in October 2013 and the license change for the Enterprise Edition was announced in February 2014 (it used to be free software), so the work on the CLA could be seen as preparing for the later license change. I'd like to be able to make contributions to a project without having to agree to such a thing. As a result, while it's free software, using the Community Edition seems like propping up GitLab B.V.'s proprietary software business which I find distasteful. Disqualified.
• Gitorious - It appears that GitLab B.V. will discontinue this so I'd be using abandoned software. That's not appealing to me. Also disqualified.
• Phabricator - Like GitLab B.V.'s Community Edition, this seems to have some nice technical features. It also comes with a CLA, which I don't like. Also disqualified.
• GNU Savannah - I can see that some may complain about the web interface not being HTML5-ified, responsive, or whatever other terms the kids are using these days. On the other hand, Savannah supports multiple version control systems, has issue, patch, and other trackers, mailing lists, website hosting, and more. Also, the GNU Project and FSF are unlikely to be going anywhere anytime soon.
• Kallithea - This seems rather appealing. It's community-developed, doesn't have a CLA, but it's missing some features some may want such as issue tracking. From reading about their future plans in the documentation this is and more is planned though. Seems like it could be a good candidate.
• Fossil - This seems like another good candidate. It has a bug tracker and a wiki in addition to source code hosting.
• Gogs - This seems like a good candidate. There's no CLA and it seems to have all of the features I'd want (namely, an issue tracker.) I've talked to some of the developers on IRC and they seem very responsive and accepting of feedback. Based on my suggestion they now plan to add an option to the web interace for people to export their issues and such so that they can take them with them if they decide to move to another instance.
• GitWeb - Basic, but would do what I need. My repositories are small, don't have lots of contributors (it's really just me) so I don't need bug trackers. I don't even get pull requests, really, having received exactly one. People can send their stuff to me via email, if they have any.

In the end, I've decided to go with GitWeb and letting people do anonymous cloning over HTTP. Someone with different needs (like an issue tracker) might do well with their own Gogs or Fossil instance though. I know of hosted Gogs instances at gogs.io and notabug.org and a hosted Fossil instance at chiselapp.com. Snowdrift.coop has a list of some other options too but whatever it is you should really run your own instance of it. The demise of Gitorious has shown just how easy it is to have the rug pulled out from under you. Do you really want to be in a position where it can happen again? I don't.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Advertising has come a long way. With the advent of the internet, it became a big money maker. However, this has lead to a sinister turn of events where advertisers track people's progress across the internet in order to gain insight and make even better ads. To some extent this information is obtained through the use of spyware. It is common for people to be completely unaware that their privacy is being violated.

II. Historical Background and Definitions

Spyware is software that gathers information from someone's computer typically without their knowledge or consent. This software may also be used to make changes to their computer without their consent as well. Spyware is often categorized into four basic categories: system monitoring/key loggers, tracking cookies, adware and malware/trojans.

System monitoring software generally collects data on someone's inputs, often in the form of a key logger that is used to monitor the key strokes that they type. Tracking cookies are used to monitor someone's browsing habits on the internet and is often transmitting the data to an advertiser without permission. Adware is a form of spyware that will either display ads on web pages, or in the form of pop-ups in someone's browser. Adware is often used in conjunction with tracking cookies so that an advertiser can tailor ads specifically to a someone's interest and browsing history. Trojans/malware are typically the most difficult and most malicious software to remove. The malicious purposing of this software often makes it hard to detect since it may be embedded in core operating system files. Malware and trojans may even be used in phishing expeditions to deceive someone into giving up information that could potentially hurt them.

Spyware has also been incorporated in proprietary software packages as a means of letting a company know compatibility boundaries and people's hardware specifications and usage patterns so that the software can be more efficiently developed and improved. This is often mentioned in the license that someone sees during installation, giving people (in theory) a choice of accepting the installation on the computer. However, most spyware is installed without consent or knowledge, sparking a controversy and debate on the legality of this practice. Lenovo was recently found to be doing this. As a result of people's awareness of this ever-growing problem, internet security software and spyware removal tools have become more mainstream.

III. Obtaining personal information without knowledge or consent is theft

Obtaining personal information without knowledge or consent is considered theft by varying ruling governments across the globe. Advertisers and spyware developers should be held accountable. As a general consensus, most countries recognize prosecution against theft and consider many forms of theft a crime. For example, stealing personal information from an individual without their knowledge or allowing consent is considered a crime with in the United States.

The United States government has also progressively considered the implementation of laws to counter spyware abuse. The Internet Spyware Act also known as I-SPY was put to vote in both 2005 and 2007 (H.R. 744 and 1525 respectively) due to many complaints concerning the lack of prosecution and personal defense with malicious software that advertisers had been embedding in online advertisements both on websites and in pop-up form. Although neither of these bills ultimately passed it brought awareness to the public that spyware was being used against people, often without their permission.

Constructivist Theory: Act Utilitarianism

An action is bad if harms someone, the goal is to minimize harm to the most people. Theft is often considered harm and stealing personal information to use against someone is often considered a wrongful action by society. By not allowing spyware to be as prevalent as it has become within recent decades, the harmful actions it can impose on society through theft and malicious action can be minimized or controlled so that consent must be given by those who wish to share their private information.

IV. Many People Worldwide are Opposed to Advertisements and Spam; Spyware Abuse Only Increases Discontent With Advertisements

Web pages have been using ads to offset hosting costs for a long time. Often it is profitable for both the advertising company and the hosting site as a result of people either viewing or clicking on advertisements out of curiosity. As a result, advertising companies may place tracking cookies or other programs to monitor what web pages people have visited and tailor their ads according to what information the tracking cookie provides them. Adware and malware may also initiate programs on someone's computer to generate pop-up ads, resulting in a myriad of web ads that make internet browsing a frustrating experience.

As a result of people's frustration with over-advertising, a small anti-spyware community has developed to rid the internet of spyware and malicious software. One of the most popular programs created by the anti-spyware community is AdBlock Plus. AdBlock Plus originally started out as an extension program for Mozilla's popular Firefox web browser. This extension enabled people to block internet advertisements from showing up on web pages, prevent pop-up advertisements and stop spyware installation. The result of this web browser extension was astronomical, with over 100 million downloads and constant updates to block the latest advertisements. The extension is now offered on several browsers and has made many people aware of the dangers of advertisements.

Constructivist Theory: Kantianism

An action is considered good if it benefits someone; blocking web advertisements in order to prevent harm and making others aware of the harms of malware can create a minimization process that prescribes to duties and guidelines of the first formulation. Since the development of anti-spyware tools and web pages dedicated to educate people on advertisement abuse and the potential malicious intent of adware design, it is beneficial and helps to negate harm for many people.

V. Placing Tracking Cookies and Spyware on an Someone's Computer Without Their Consent May Lead to Further Fraudulent Actions

One major problem with spyware is the malicious software often associated with it. Malware and trojan software can often be damaging and create a causation effect where personal information can be stolen from an individual without their knowledge. Keyloggers have been used by employers to track employee whereabouts when using computers on the job. However, keyloggers can be installed via covert spyware installations. Identity theft, personal information and passwords for sensitive material are often what is stolen when a keylogger is employed for malicious intent.

Within the last decade it has been reported that more personal information has been stolen with the use of spyware than ever before. Identity theft is often one of the most prominent result of personal information being stolen and has become more common as more people enter sensitive information, especially since more things like federal student aid (FAFSA) and tax information (IRS E-file) are often entered on a computer.

Malware can also create re-directing scenarios in someone's web browser in an attempt to steal personal information. For example, malware may create an alert that would prompt someone to enter personal information under the guise of a bank or website that they would frequent. The entered information would be stolen and sent elsewhere typically to be used against them.

Constructivist Theory: Rule Utilitarianism

If harms outweigh benefits of an action, it should be cast aside. With spyware being attached to many advertisements, very few benefits are associated with personal information being stolen through keystroke logging or phishing. Since it only benefits the developers the software used in tracking, it does very little in terms of happiness on society.

VI. Counter-Argument(s)

Web advertisers may claim their use of spyware as economical or even similar to social advertising strategies such as polls or marketing trends. Increased popularity of data tracking in software has also lead to trend setting for programming spyware into free use data such as demos or trial software. More often than not, it is argued that spyware used by reputable advertising sources do so without malicious intent.

In some cases, certain software developers use a form of monitoring in their software as a means of reporting errors and providing interactive feedback as a means to create a patch or create a targeted maintenance structure. Because of the nature of these feedback systems, many people are prompted to agree before installing the software in order to allow the people the option of providing feedback through the use of the monitoring software. Apple's iTunes program is a very popular example of this method of debugging software through a monitoring program.

Another argument for spyware is the efficiency of creating advertisements tailored to an individual audience. In theory, the effectiveness of advertising would be to tailor your advertisement to an audience that holds interest in the area being marketed. Because of this, many forms of analog advertisements were very generalized. The digital age ushered in a new form of advertisement through the means of personalized rendering, which allowed companies to tailor specific web page ads to individuals by the means of viewing a browsed history. This makes advertising for products much more successful than in previous decades of advertising to a general audience. However, one of the means of acquiring the browsing history of an individual would be through the use of a spyware program. Many supporters of spyware would also argue that malicious software is not the intent of most spyware usage. Because of this, it is often assumed that most, if not all spyware is bad or malicious, giving spyware in general a bad name.

Advocates of spyware programs often argue the use of spyware improves the flow of internet traffic to websites that pay advertisement companies to do such. The suggestive nature of a tailored advertisement that was marketed through spyware often has many individuals looking into the company's web page as a form of curiosity or even to bring business to the company itself. Because of the nature of this method, companies who pay for advertising across a series of popular websites would argue the case for spyware use since it benefits them to a indirect degree.

VII. Rebuttal to Counter-Argument(s):

Since companies are looking for ways to further advertise, they should consider alternative approaches to placing potentially dangerous software that could be manipulated to do harm. Although advertisers use this option as an inexpensive way to get their message across it is still considered harmful by many (enough to get the house of representatives involved with legislative action.) To some extent the ideology of directing traffic to websites is also flawed as it has caused programs such as Ad-Block Plus to be extensively used.

VIII. Conclusion

Both the public and advertisers have had a long and relentless struggle for both their privacy and the opportunity to create business through internet advertisements. However, there is a flawed understanding that web advertisers assume that many individuals consent to having their personal information and web browsing data shared with the hopes of creating better business opportunities that extend to the individual level. If it's wrong to take personal information without consent, then why are advertisement agencies allowed to take information gathered without explicit consent? Many of these problems are being countered with the use of ad blocking software and malware removal tools, but legislation has been created with the purpose of protecting internet users. The ultimate consideration is privacy - advertisement agencies need to ask permission before taking people's information.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Whoever worked on the site in question did a poor job, in my opinion. (I'm not linking to it so as to avoid giving it more credit.)

Their arguments revolve around how "the GPL is not a free license" and "it restricts freedoms" and ends with a call for people to not only not use the GPL but to contact projects that are and and asking them to change to a pushover license.

If they're going to be against the GPL then, in order to be logically consistent, they must also be against proprietary software which by their own standards must be even worse than the GPL is. But they're not. That would at least make for a consistent position. But it's not.

In a world where the free software movement won, all software everywhere was free, and no one ever made proprietary software then in that hypothetical world maybe an argument could be made that copyleft isn't needed and could be safely retired. Until then, it remains a good strategy to ensure collaboration and protect software freedom.

It's possible you're going to hear some anti-GPL stuff. I urge you to ignore it.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Free software projects may not always think of it, but they have trademarks. Some are intentional, like names and logos. Some are accidental - brought about merely by common reference or familiar association. In both cases, proper trademark management is important. Free software projects need to figure out what what sort of trademark policy they want to have and what level is apprpriate for them.

In the United States, there are three levels of trademarks:

Common Law Trademarks

In this case the trademark isn't registered with the USPTO. Typically, the first person to use the mark in commerce is the one who gets the trademark. You just add the ™ symbol. This serves as a notice to others that you claim a trademark. Keep in mind that common law trademarks only apply to a specific geographic location, such as your city or county but would be enforceable in courts in that area.

State Level Trademarks

In some cases it may be more appropriate to register the trademarks at the state level. This can be done by applying for a trademark with your state. Keep in mind that this only applies to the state its registered with.

Federal Level Trademarks

These are registered with the USPTO and in this case you add the ® symbol. It covers all 50 states. Obtaining federal trademark registration can be a lengthy and complicated process, though, but once you are done it gives you more standing for trademark enforcement and it will be much easier to prevent infringement. Additionally, if you want to register the trademark in other countries, registering it in U.S. is a prerequisite.

Trademarks are an important factor in a free software project. As people modify and use the software in different ways and people begin to associate the marks with the project, your reputation is on the line. It's important to consider what sort of things you do and don't want and draft a trademark policy accordingly. A good place to start is CollabMark.

Copyright © 2015 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This time, due to a request, it's Supernova. Originally published about 30 years ago, Apogee Software released the source code for Supernova and a few other titles under the GPL back in 2009 but they could only be run in an emulator and couldn't be built from source on any modern system. I took advantage of the GPL's freedom to modify, and with about 20 hours (or more? I lost track) of work invested, it can now be built from source and run on modern systems without needing an emulator.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Originally published about 30 years ago, Apogee Software released the source code for Beyond The Titanic and a few other titles under the GPL back in 2009 but they could only be run in an emulator and couldn't be built from source on any modern system.

I took advantage of the GPL's freedom to modify, and with about 17 hours of time invested in the ancient game source code from the 1980s, Beyond The Titanic can be compiled and run on modern systems without an emulator. There's more that could be done (and git merge requests are happily accepted) but this represents the minimum amount of work needed to make it playable all the way through to the end. The resource editor is also working.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Skein was one of the finalists in the NIST competition to develop a new hash function called SHA-3. Skein made it all the way through to the end but was ultimately not selected. There was a later announcement that the winner, Keccak, would have some changes made so as to increase performance but some saw these changes as weakening it. Given that we know the NSA has played a role in weakening cryptographic standards, some wondered if this was such an attempt. Regardless of whether it was or not, the fact that there was such a huge uproar over the changes goes to show just how little trust there is of the NSA and NIST.

I'm not necessarily proposing that anyone not use NIST standards but at the same time, my interest in Skein comes specifically because it was not selected by NIST. While Skein can be used as a drop-in replacement for the entire SHA family of hash functions perhaps using multiple cryptographic hashes would be a good defense against any one of them being compromised, so here's one.

skeinsum is free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, licensed under the GNU GPL version 3 or (at your option) any later version.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

At the beginning of May I packaged my new key into a .deb, signed with the current key, and added it into the repository as a dependency. In this way people updating their kernels automatically pulled in the new key. For those people, the key transition will be mostly invisible.

If you haven't upgraded since then or aren't sure please take a moment to run this command to check if the new keyring package is installed:

dpkg -s freesh-keyring | grep Status

You should see:

Status: install ok installed

If you do not see that output please take a moment to install the freesh-keyring package in preparation for the GPG key transition.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

There are some extremely appealing benefits to crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo. Due to their popularity it's possible for unknown people to fund projects by offering rewards to donors or simply by selling them on the brilliance of the concept. Crowdfunding can be categorized as a type of social networking, albeit one where the goal is to raise money. Indeed, utilizing other social networking is one of the primary ways that crowdfunding campaigns are publicized.

The downside to these crowdfunding sites is tied in with their very popularity. What could be more attractive than a low cost way to raise money? Almost overnight, the internet has been inundated with people, companies and organizations starting new crowdfunding campaigns. This has created an extremely competitive place, and one that favors the technologically savvy, well connected and/or well funded. Ironically, the whole idea of crowdfunding was to enable those without such resources to fund their projects. Now, however, it's easy for smaller projects to get lost amidst the many thousands of flashier offerings on crowdfunding sites.

Despite their popularity sites such as these should be scrutinized, especially for those of us in the free software and free culture movements. It's important to consider the terms of service and privacy policies that you and your donors would be required to agree to. In addition, these typically use proprietary software: The software that runs the system itself is not available, and proprietary JavaScript is usually needed as well. I'm reminded of Github: Many people use it despite the fact that you can't set up your own instance on your own machine. Although we was talking of development systems, I think Mako's arguments in Free Software Needs Free Tools also apply to crowdfunding systems.

I like that, when GNU MediaGoblin did their crowdfunding campaign, they partnered with the FSF who used only free software for the campaign. I understand that they used CiviCRM although there are other options like Selfstarter and Crowdtilt. I understand that it's also possible to use Bitcoin for crowdfunding through assurance contracts. With free crowdfunding software, you don't have to compete directly on popular but proprietary crowdfunding sites. You can run your campaign directly from your own website in software freedom.

Free software also eliminate the possibility of people having their projects declined. Kickstarter, for example, does not automatically approve every project. As crowdfunding becomes ever more popular, it's a safe assumption that vetting will become more stringent, further narrowing the field. These free software programs are designed to be user-friendly so that anyone can get a campaign started, even those who are not tech savvy or who don't have a substantial design or marketing budget. If I ever had the need to start a crowdfunding campaign I would use one of these free programs.

Crowdfunding using free software is not a panacea for all of the potential pitfalls of the crowdfunding model. For one thing, the mere ability to easily launch a campaign does not guarantee that anyone will actually visit the site, much less make a donation. The network effect of the established proprietary crowdfunding systems can be strongly felt here but it's important resist that. Despite their popularity using proprietary software to run a crowdfunding campaign can't be the answer.

To succeed with any type of crowdfunding campaign planning is essential. It's important to have an appealing website, the ability to optimize the site with the search engines and some ability to leverage social networking. In other words, free software crowdfunding does not actually eliminate the intrinsically competitive nature of crowdfunding. It simply shifts the focus. Rather than competing with other projects on a single site, one is competing on the entire internet.

The whole crowdfunding model is comparable in some ways to the widespread phenomenon of self-publishing in the book industry. It has become ever cheaper and simpler for authors to self-publish their books. Statistics, however, indicate that only a very small percentage of self-published authors sell more than a handful of books. As with crowdfunding, self-publishing offers many options. Authors can choose to sell their books on popular websites or to stay completely independent and sell only from their own website. Either way, a viable plan is essential to achieve even a moderate degree of success. The same is true for crowdfunding. It can provide a financial lifeline for people where traditional ventures fail. However it requires extensive planning as well as constant interaction and attention, in order to be successful. A poorly managed campaign, especially if the the organizers take on too much responsibility, is unlikely to succeed.

Being able to run a crowdfunding campaign using only free software is extremely important. It gives people the chance to create crowdfunding campaigns without having to agree to a terms of service or privacy policy for themselves which is unfair, or to expect their donors to. Free software crowdfunding programs offers the freedom, privacy, and autonomy that is missing with the leading crowdfunding sites and I hope to see more free software and free culture crowdfunding campaigns using them.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Crowdfunding: A Brief Explanation

Crowdfunding is a means by which any project or business can seek donations from the public through the internet. A call for funding is placed, usually through a dedicated crowdfunding platform, with a target amount to be collected within a certain time. In return, donors are offered rewards which can now include equity share in the venture. This is all dependent on if the target amount is reached by the deadline and if it is not then any money pledged is returned to the owner.

Whilst the concept of crowdfunding dates back as far as the erection of New York's Statue of Liberty, it has grown into an industry in its own right, with new crowdfunding platforms being established. Some platforms even specialize in certain fields, like publishing, and are becoming more competitive by offering unique promotional services and resources.

Some Important Points About Crowdfunding

• Laying the foundations using immediate contacts such as family and friends is vital. If they are convinced they will cascade this to their friends and contacts. This is the most important test as if authors cannot convince those closest to them to donate then it will be even harder to attract donors from the public.
• The target sum needed must also factor in the percentage to be paid to the crowdfunding platform and the cost of rewards, as well as publication and marketing costs. Allow enough time to raise the necessary funds, usually between 30 and 90 days.
• Whilst crowdfunding is largely a Web 2.0 tool heavily influenced through social media, it is important to build interest through local media such as newspapers and radio. Send out press releases and be ready for interviews if asked.
• Social media though is the most vital tool in the success of crowdfunding. Unless the project owner has experience connecting with hundreds or even thousands of poeple then using social media to promote their book could prove difficult. Set up accounts in advance and start posting updates to build a strong following.

Yet the most important task, one that needs careful consideration is selecting an appropriate crowdfunding platform. With so many to choose from, it's important to undertake careful research.

It's so important that I'll devote my next article to that very topic.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Some GNU/Linux distributions have stopped providing non-PAE kernels, essentially dropping support for those with these older computers. These people would typically need to compile their own custom kernels in order to disable PAE and potentially make their own custom installation media. This at least helps with the first part of that. I hope that this makes software freedom easier for those people by providing them with a non-PAE version of Linux-libre.

To determine if your CPU supports PAE run this command and check if to see if PAE is mentioned:

grep --color=always -i PAE /proc/cpuinfo

Instructions for using the repository can be found at http://jxself.org/linux-libre/.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Given that Trisquel is turning ten I wanted to list ten things that I like about it. I don't normally cite practical issues when talking about free software, but here are some.

• Trisquel is made up of only free software.

Trisquel has been endorsed by the FSF as complying with their criteria. While I used to use Debian back in 2007 and they claim that their distro only has free software they are also engaged in the practice of developing and distributing proprietary software as a side activity. I stopped using Debian because I didn't want to be attached to a project engaged in such activities. The Trisquel project doesn't do that so I have no issues with recommending Trisquel to anyone. Everything that the Trisquel project distributes can be installed, modified, and redistributed in freedom.

• Trisquel is easy to install.

The easier it can be for people to escape the jail that is proprietary software, the more people that will be able to make the jump. Trisquel makes it incredibly easy to switch to freedom. Interested people can try Trisquel before installing it by creating a bootable CD, DVD or USB drive or by ordering pre-made media from the website. The installation process doesn't have to wipe someone's existing operating system either; Trisquel plays nicely with other operating systems and creates a dual boot computer that lets them select between Trisquel and the other operating system at the boot menu, making the transition easy.

• Trisquel is easy to setup.

Setup is also easy. A common misconception is that the GNU/Linux operating system is only for advanced computer users. In truth, Trisquel is actually easier to use in a lot of ways than proprietary operating systems. Trisquel easily finds wireless networks, printers, and hardware with few snags. Setting up email is easy with Evolution, which recognizes most common email providers without issue and allows people to manage multiple email addresses from their desktop. Trisquel also comes with plenty of optional free applications that can do everything from weather to word processing.

• Trisquel looks nice.

Free software has come a long way over the last 30 years and Trisquel showcases this very well: The people behind it put a lot of effort into polishing the system and making sure that everything works well. The standard choice of backgrounds are masterpieces of photographic beauty, turning the desktop into the essence of joy. Rubén personally takes the pictures that make up the default wallpaper. I recall him saying that he made one of the Trisquel wallpapers by throwing his camera into the air tumbling about and catching it.

• Trisquel has great support.

Trisquel comes with great documentation and an active community so that problems can be quickly resolved.

• Trisquel is great for older machines.

Unlike proprietary operating systems, Trisquel runs very well on older machines. It doesn't take up as much space or memory to run and so is a great operating system to put on old computers that don't run proprietary operating systems very well. Trisquel is also great for putting on computers to give to others because it will do word processing, email, and web browsing quickly without needing to buy brand new hardware.

• Trisquel is reliable.

I like that Trisquel has long-term support versions. It doesn't break down - it is as simple as that. It is seldom to see people posting on blogs their traumatic experiences with murderous software updates or function seizures when they are using Trisquel.

• Trisquel doesn't cost anything.

An alluring benefit of Trisquel is its price tag. While you can donate or sign up to become an associate member to help support the project (and get some benefits), Trisquel is available without cost including support. Anyone that needs a functioning computer on a budget would do well to install Trisquel instead of spending money on a more expensive (and proprietary) operating system.

• Trisquel has lots of software.

A common misconception is that someone has to give up lots of functionality in order to have software freedom. In truth, Trisquel comes with comes with the "Add/Remove Programs" function where you browse through lots of programs to download and install ranging from education to graphics to productivity software to games and more.

• Trisquel is faster.

Trisquel is a lot smaller than proprietary operating systems, meaning you have more space to deal with what you're dealing with. This is loved by Trisquel users, who post that their computers are also quieter and cooler.

I want give a big "Thank You" to everyone that's worked on the Trisquel project over the last ten years. Here's looking forward to ten more.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

What is The Pirate Bay building?

They're building a peer-to-peer browser-like application that will let people access a decentralized DNS. Instead of typing in a standard domain name, you will use a parallel DNS with peer transfers to download the site to your computer. When you go there next time, you'll just get updates, not the entire site again.

Website owners will register a "domain name" with a peer-to-peer domain extension on a first come, first served basis. Instead of the site being hosted in one central location, it becomes distributed with people essentially keeping a portion of the site on their own computer and sharing it when others access the site.

In addition to a standalone program, it will also be available as a plugin for browsers.

How it will circumvent government IP blocks

The U.K. government tried to stop Pirate Bay users from exchanging files by issuing a court order demanding ISPs block access to the Bay. The British Phonographic Industry, the U.K. equivalent of the U.S.'s RIAA, put pressure on the government to issue a court order and force the ISPs to comply when their own efforts to censor the Internet were thwarted by ISPs that didn't believe in censoring the Internet. With the plan to store files and websites in a decentralized, peer-to-peer fashion, governments are prevented from having a specific IP to target.

What's to stop a government from continuing to seize domain names?

The U.S. government's Operation in Our Sites program regularly seizes domain names from both U.S. and foreign registrars. Now, there won't be a traditional domain name to confiscate since it's using a decentralized DNS with peer-to-peer top level domain names that don't rely on ICANN. Plus, there's no facility for authorities to storm and no servers to confiscate.

Sharing culture, such as movies, music and games, is good. The War On Sharing is only one battle in a larger war against Internet censorship and mass surveillance. When governments can force ISPs to censor what people access and demand search engines remove entire websites from search results, there is more than peer-to-peer sharing at stake. The Pirate Bay is showing the world that Internet freedom, the ability to surf the Web without surveillance or censorship, is possible and it's coming soon.

Here's to kickin' it up a notch.

Copyright © 2014 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The NSA has been in the news a lot lately, and for all the wrong reasons. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that all of this is happening. It's been coming for years now and anyone had the ability to see it coming, if they were careful enough to pay attention. The question now becomes how to deal with it. It's a complex problem and, like many complex problems, requires a multi-pronged effort to address it.

In order to explain how to do that it's best to understand how we got here. To do that we must back up first and trace things back a few decades to the beginning of the Internet. Some felt that the Internet would be used as a tool to spread knowledge and information. It would empower the masses. Anonymity was easy. Censorship was impossible. Easy copying would destroy the traditional movie and music industries. Even bigger changes seemed inevitable. Many believed that the Internet was the tool that was going to be used to begin a new world order. It was going to be the start of a utopian age in our collective history.

To some extent this has happened but that utopian vision never really did fully materialize, but two other things did that were critical in making mass surveillance possible.

One is that, little by little, people started becoming dependent on the Internet. It is a fact that many of the Internet-using public place their e-mail, photos, videos, calendars, address books, search terms, messages, documents, and perhaps their entire lives into massive data collection silos belonging to companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, and others. The existence of such huge repositories of information makes a tasty target to anyone that is interested.

The second thing that happened is that people began to increasingly access their data using devices that they have ever diminishing control over: iPhones, iPads, Android phones, Kindles, ChromeBooks, and so on. Unlike operating systems made up of free software (such as GNU/Linux), these devices are controlled entirely by vendors, who limit what software can run, what they can do, how they're updated, and so on. Even desktop computers are heading in the direction of more vendor control and less of your control. The lack of control over their own computing devices meant that people were forbidden from knowing what was being done with their data and, even if they did know, were powerless to stop it.

With most of the Internet-using public reliant on software that they cannot study and using third party services that sell them out, it began to create the perfect storm that made mass surveillance possible. It seems somewhat ironic that the public actually helped with their own surveillance by using these things.

That is how we got here. The next question is what to do about it. For that, it's important to understand how things are being done. When the NSA wants information, they get it and they have several methods at their disposal. This is probably not exhaustive but what is known so far is:

1. Cooperation - Some companies voluntarily give the NSA access to private information. Reports backed up by Snowden's leaked documents show that after September 11, 2001 a major American telecommunications company - rumored to be either AT&T or Verizon - voluntarily gave the agency access to its call records among other customer data. The NSA has invested a significant amount of time and money on personnel, software and equipment to sweep such data for important clues. Companies that choose this route are immune to prosecution, courtesy of the FISA Ammendments Act.
2. Legal Compulsion - If the company or person won't cooperate voluntarily, Section 215 of the Patriot Act gives the NSA the power to force Americans and American businesses to give up private information that it has. There is a supposed restricted set of circumstances that would allow the NSA to act in this way. These restrictions were set in place to prevent abuse of power. Unfortunately, by law, companies cannot reveal the number of times that the NSA requests this private information from them or the type of information that is requested. According to Snowden, companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple and others have all been forced to give up this private information.
3. Digital Splitters And Undersea Cables - Not every company is going to volunteer information to the NSA or their British counterpart GCHQ. There are times when of these governmental agencies, in their infinite wisdom, feel that it needs to resort to illegal methods in order to get information. According to documents released by Snowden from the second quarter of the year 2012, GCHQ has been tapping undersea cables. These cables move unfathomably large amounts of information around the world. This information is shared with the NSA, and together these agencies use the tools and resources they have to glean information from the stored data. The NSA has also resorted to installing digital splitters in company servers. These splitters allow the NSA to shunt communications traffic to the NSA.
4. Spies - When everything else fails, nothing works like good old-fashioned spying. According to the Guardian, GCHQ has a team of operatives that they referred to as the Humint unit. This stands for Human Intelligence. This team has the responsibility of recruiting and placing agents in telecommunication companies around the world. Now, with this large network of spies, the NSA is able to get information from almost any source that it needs.
5. Malicious Software - The NSA is not above using software and malicious applications to exploit software weaknesses. They can use the software to either extract, implant, or manipulate information. Stuxnet and Flame are two examples of the type of software that the NSA uses. They can deliver this either by using infected emails or other methods. They even intercept computers in transit to install malicious software, and some of their methods can survive hard disk replacement and operating system reinstallation. The idea is to make it easy to engage in long-term surveillance that is impossible to detect. It is reported that the NSA also has the ability to worm its way into devices that even use iOS, Android, and BlackBerry operating systems.
6. Backdoors - One of the ways that the NSA uses to find its way in and around encrypted data is by cooperating with technology companies. These technology companies will build backdoors into hardware and software. These backdoors are designed to be absolutely invisible to the individual who was using the software and in some cases can't even be proven to exist even when you suspect they might be there. However, it will allow the NSA to have unprecedented access to the electronic device that they want to spy on. For instance, the global technology community suspects that the NSA may have somehow compelled the US National Institute of Standards and Technology to approve the deliberately flawed Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator cryptographic standard.
7. Brute Force Attacks - It is difficult, if not impossible, for the NSA to snoop on a information that is properly encrypted. So, they will find other ways to get at it. They may try brute force to decrypt the data. Even if the NSA cannot, they will store the information for up to five years. When the technology advances to the point that they can decrypt the information, they will.

That covers how we get here, and what's happening now. After hearing about all of the avenues that the NSA has at its disposal to do surveillance on people, it is easy for a person to think that there is nothing that they can do in order to avoid surveillance. However, this is nowhere near the truth. There are a lot of things that people can do in order to avoid surveillance, minimize what information can be obtained, and make it harder to obtain that. Some of these are regulatory while some are technical.

Those giant repositories of information made the NSA's job very easy by providing a form of one-stop shopping for them. Tearing down those data collection silos is an important step, so the first step anyone can do is move out of that silo and host your own data instead.

When it comes to centralized social networks I can only say one thing about them: Get rid of them. Close your Facebook, your Twitter, and all of your centralized social media accounts and never use them again. Social media networks are a treasure trove of personal information that the NSA and other government agencies can easily have access to. Use decentralized social networking instead:

• GNU MediaGoblin is a replacement for sites like Flickr and YouTube.
• XMPP is a replacement for things like Skype and AIM.
• GNU Social can be used as a replacement for Twitter.
• Pump.io can be used as a replacement for Facebook.

Don't use a cell phone. Surveillance is inevitable in this case: Whenever your phone is powered on, your cell phone company is able to record where you are, the phone calls and text messages sent and received, and what was accessed over the Internet, etc. If you do use one, you'll have to accept that surveillance is inevitable although there are still steps that can be taken to minimize it:

• Use Replicant. It is a mobile phone operating system that is made entirely of free software.
• Encrypt your text messages using TextSecure.
• Encrypt your phone calls using RedPhone.

Don't use email. It is insecure. Look at something encrypted and decentralized like BitMessage. If you must use email, run it yourself on your own machine out of your own home and use GPG and SSL/TLS to communicate with the recipient, who should also be using their own mail server (or at the very least maybe arrangements could be made for them to use yours.) I have written about running your own server previously. Check the archive.

Don't store files in public cloud services. Going by Snowden's leaks, cloud service providers have been juicy targets for the NSA. Add to that the unresolved crisis that is Megaupload, and you can see why you should not store data in public clouds. NSA personnel do not necessarily need access to your cloud account - they can grab data as you upload your files. The same methods can be used to collect information from software-as-a-service applications like Office 365 and Google Drive. To protect yourself, store data in your own servers, encrypt your traffic, and limit communications.

Keep web browsing private - Avoid relying on the "Do Not Track" feature. It cannot prevent snooping. Use the Electronic Frontier Foundation's HTTPS Everywhere extension. It uses the popular Secure Sockets Layer encryption scheme to keep web browsing private but doesn't prevent the NSA from knowing what servers or people you're communicating with. To avoid that, an even better option is to use HTTPS Everywhere along with TOR.

Always use free software encryption. Unlike proprietary programs, they are less likely to incorporate backdoors and if there is one it can be removed by the people using the software.

Use free boot firmware. Most computers begin to run proprietary software as soon as you press the power button, in the form of the BIOS. Given that we know that NSA has BIOS exploits, it's more important than ever to use a free one. The Free Software Foundation recently certified a laptop to Respect Your Freedom, all the way down to the boot firmware. This can't be said of every machine running coreboot: It took specific hardware and a modified version of coreboot with proprietary software removed to pull this off.

Use 100% free software GNU/Linux distributions. The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of these at https://www.gnu.org/distros/. The combination of free boot firmware and a 100% free GNU/Linux distribution means that the people using these systems can be sure that their computers are working for them, and not against them.

These are just some ideas - there may be more. Please feel free to share your ideas with me so that I can update this. Ultimately, the methods I've mentioned will only serve as a way to make it more difficult for the NSA to collect information, but it will not be impossible. As it sits right now they have the full weight and power of the United States government behind them so if they decide that they want some information, they will find a way to get it. The only way that we are going to be able to protect our privacy is by demanding regulatory change. If you haven't already done so, start petitioning the relevant authorities.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I have no reason to doubt what their Social Contract says. It is, after all, an official document. I also have no reason to doubt what Debian Developers say either. Both of these seems like official and reliable sources to me.

In listening to Debian Developers I hear them say that people are on their own if they decide to go and install proprietary software on their computer but this seems to conflict with their Social Contract. In regard to proprietary software it specifically says that "we support their use."

Their Social Contract goes on to say that the Debian Project provides "infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists)." This means that people can file bugs against these packages and get things fixed or new features added, and even get help with using these proprietary programs on official mailing lists maintained by the Debian Project.

This seems to match with their Social Contract, that the Debian Project supports proprietary software but it seems to conflict with what Debian Developers say that people are on their own. I'm not sure why they say that. Perhaps they misspoke. Either way, the available evidence does seem consistent that the Debian Project does actually support proprietary software by helping people to install and use it and even says so in their Social Contract.

It appears that it's not just limited to just support. The classic piece of proprietary software is the one that comes in binary form only with no source code and a license prohibiting modification, redistribution, etc. Not everything in Debian's "non-free" repository is like that: Some do come with source code and can actually be modified but are in that repository for some other reason to do with the Debian Project's guidelines.

Since people are able to file bug reports against these packages (since the Debian Project does officially support it), Debian Developers are then able to make changes to them to fix those things, or to add additional features to them (such as bugs tagged as "wishlist.")

I'll skip over talking about how proprietary software mistreats people and why developing and distributing proprietary software is an unethical activity as these are issues well known within the free software world already.

In doing these things, if you think about it, Debian Developers are engaging in the process of developing proprietary software and therefore behaving unethically.

It's worse than that. In addition to developing proprietary software the Debian Project also distributes it, thereby engaging in another unethical activity. The Debian Project doesn't deny that they engage in any of these activities. It seems that the Debian Project instead tries to distance themselves from this by stating in their Social Contract that these packages are not "part" of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. The Debian GNU/Linux distribution is often considered a 100% free distribution because of this statement. Is it really? Can you really behave in unethical ways and then simply wash your hands of it, saying that it's not your fault if someone installs proprietary software as a result of your actions of distributing it and telling people how to install it? The distribution is only 100% free if you accept their argument that it is and only evaluate a subset of the activities that the Debian Project is doing. The argument quickly falls apart if you examine everything that the Project is doing. It certainly isn't necessary to consider everything that project members do in their lives -- just what they do in their official duties as part of the Debian Project.

As I see it all that the Debian Project has done is draw a circle around certain packages -- the inclusion of which would normally make them a non-free distro -- and then flip an administrative switch saying that the packages inside said circle are somehow not "part" of the distribution.

Let's think on this. What if, for example, Canonical decided to move all of Ubuntu's proprietary software packages into a repository called non-free? What if they then decided to not enable that repository by default and then make a public statement that those packages are not "part" of the distribution? Yes, I understand that there are additional issues beyond proprietary software (like spying) but in this hypothetical example, all such problematic software would go into non-free.

Well, they're already part of the way there because Ubuntu does in fact have a repository called non-free. All that's missing is a couple of more steps. Keep in mind that Ubuntu would not need to stop supporting non-free software in any way, since Debian also supports it, or make any other changes to what they currently do. They could even offer to turn on that repository for people if it were needed because Debian does this in their installer and also talks of it in their documentation.

This makes me wonder: If the project behind a distribution is able to support, develop and distribute proprietary software while at the same time redefining what constitutes their distribution so as to be considered 100% free then can't all distros do the same thing and make the same claim? Would we then not be required to accept them as being 100% free if they do these very same actions that Debian has done so as to avoid being hypocritical? Is it not becoming too easy for a distribution to say that they're 100% free?

Of course not. A distribution that is committed to freedom means that they behave in an ethical manner. Part of that means not developing or distributing proprietary software, regardless of how they might try to excuse or disclaim it. Being 100% free is more than a question of what packages live where, whether those packages are "part" of the distribution or not, whether a repository is "on" by default or not, how people are "warned" before installing proprietary software, etc.

Some have said to me that they need proprietary software in order for some peripheral to work or in order to do some particular task. Some have claimed that if the price of admission into the free world is that someone can't, for example, use their WiFi then we'll have fewer people using free software. When people make these arguments I am reminded of Bradley Kuhn's article called "Have To" Is a Relative Phrase. To these people I say that there can sometimes be hard choices to make but proprietary software can't be the answer because proprietary software is the problem. Furthermore, more people using free software doesn't necessarily mean more people believing in free software ideals. It's almost more important to spread the ideals of free software than the actual software itself. People will naturally start using the latter if they believe in the former.

Ultimately, the Debian Project doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the development and distribution of proprietary software. The Project would not engage in these activities if it did. That is really the core of the issue, I think. The statements made in their Social Contract seem like nothing more than an attempt at misdirection so as to avoid focusing on the real issue: That the Debian Project is engaged in the development and distribution of proprietary software. Whether that software is "part" of the distribution that they also maintain (as a separate activity, according to their Social Contract) or not is totally irrelevant. They can't engage in those activities and then just wipe their hands of it as they try by disclaiming it as not being "part" of the distro and therefore okay.

The sad part is that many people seem to buy their argument, believe it, and repeat it to others.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Mozilla has decided to implement support for H.264 in Firefox, since they themselves can use Cisco's software and get the patent license but this patent license doesn't cover indepdent implementations, only that which you get from Cisco. Further more, based on clarifications from Cisco, the royalty free version only comes in a binary form, rendering it non-free. To really be royalty free the patent license must be transferrable to anyone that comes into possession of a copy, regardless of where they got it from. It also needs to apply to both the binary and source versions.

What about sound? H.264 only covers video. Most people probably want to have sound. A clarification from Cisco confirms that their expectation is for people to add support for optional (and patent-encumbered, I might add) codecs on their own. This leaves people encoding video using H.264 open to patent issues from the audio codec side because H.264 is not commonly used with an unencumbered audio codec. Some may point to an earlier announcement from MPEG LA that H.264 encoded internet video that is distributed at no charge won't be charged royalties, but this obviously excludes video that is charged for or that isn't being distributed over the internet. Being royalty free needs to apply to all use cases, not just those that someone else decides they need to do in order to compete with the ones that really are royalty free. Thus, Mozilla's decision is shortsighted because H.264 is not going to be free of patent problems for everyone. Given that patents remain a problem for H.264 I would have preferred Mozilla to take a stronger stand in favor of unencumbered formats.

It's probably worth nothing that this sort stuff didn't start happening until unencumbered formats started making inroads. Perhaps the announcements from MPEG LA and Cisco would never have happened had it not been for competition from unencumbered formats. Also, nothing I've seen obligates Cisco to continue doing this going forward (perhaps one day they'll tire of paying these multi-million dollar royalties) so even if the patent encumbered formats are royalty free (for some limited use cases only) who can say that they will stay that way going forward? If they're able to regain lost ground, patent holders may feel less inclined to make concessions or even discontinue those already granted. It seems similiar to the classic situation where it's free to get you hooked. To avoid this patent licenses must be irrevocable. Formats that are not encumbered with patent problems are the only way to avoid these problems and ensure freedom both now and into the future.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Instead of using a password manager to store your passwords, this eliminates the need to store passwords entirely.

Just make up a salt which you keep to yourself and use each time while combining it with some other value that's specific to the site/server/email account in question, like the domain name or email address or whatever.

In this version your salt and site-specific thing are concatenated together, hashed, and then base64-encoded. The first 32 characters are returned as the password.

Since the hashed value of your salt and that site-specific thing will always be unique you get a different password for each place. You also need never fear the loss or corruption of your password database, have to deal with backing it up, etc. since there isn't one. You can also always regenerate your passwords from anywhere using standard programs.

#!/bin/bash
echo -n "Enter your salt (won't be displayed): "
read -s SALT
echo -en "\n"
echo -n "Confirm: "
read -s SALT_CONFIRM
echo -en "\n"
if [ $SALT != $SALT_CONFIRM ]; then
        echo "Confirm did not match. Program ending."
        exit 1;
fi
echo -n "Enter your string: "
read STRING
echo -n "Confirm: "
read STRING_CONFIRM
if [ $STRING != $STRING_CONFIRM ]; then
        echo "Confirm did not match. Program ending."
        exit 1;
fi
echo -n "Your password is: "
PASSWORD=$(echo -n "$SALT$STRING" | sha512sum | base64 -w 0)
echo ${PASSWORD:0:32}
exit 0;

To the extent possible under law, I waive all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this script. For more information see https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. This work is published from the United States.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1,SHA512

Sun Sep  8 21:22:50 PDT 2013

For various reasons I have decided to retire my 1024D (SHA1) GPG keys.
No attacks are known on them, and they are not compromised in any way
(if they were, of course, I would immediately revoke them). Still, to
be on the safe side, I am transitioning to stronger RSA keys.

My old keys will continue to be valid for some time to come, but I'd
prefer all new correspondence to use the new one. I'll also be 
switching my outgoing signatures (email and code) to the new key.

The old keys are:

pub   1024D/0x7129CE9F000BA8F5 2006-10-15
      Key fingerprint = 5D8B AE5F 0F14 35A3 ABF4  E0F8 7129 CE9F 000B A8F5

pub   1024D/0x6FCB32C947486962 2010-04-17
      Key fingerprint = 172F BCE9 8FCA C676 341B  75F7 6FCB 32C9 4748 6962

The new kew is:

pub   4096R/0x9D0DB31B545A3198 2013-09-07
      Key fingerprint = F611 A908 FFA1 65C6 9958  4ED4 9D0D B31B 545A 3198

I have submitted the key to public key servers. It can also be obtained
from my website at http://jxself.org/gpg.shtml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=Vg3i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

In it he criticized Canonical collecting search queries from Ubuntu users. He rightly called that spyware.

I've noticed though that some seem to have taken this and morphed it into something bigger in which they think the whole distro is spyware. That's quite a jump from the original. They even cite this as a reason to not use Ubuntu and recommend other people not use it either. Don't get me wrong: Ubuntu includes proprietary software, which makes it evil. Everyone should only use free software, which means not using Ubuntu, so I'm certainly not going to complain about people leaving Ubuntu.

This is something different because it didn't stop there. It seems to have grown from that single thing about search queries to people saying the entire distro is spyware to people even going so far as saying all Ubuntu-based derivatives (such as Trisquel) include spyware too.

It's like some form of mass hysteria.

Let's go back to the beginning: It all started with Canonical collecting search queries from Ubuntu users, nothing more. Claims that the entire Ubuntu distro is spyware are not supported by any evidence I'm aware of and making the further claim that all Ubuntu-based derivatives also include spyware merely by association is just nonsense. Derivatives can easily remove that package. If you have actual evidence to support any such claim then speak up and provide it. Otherwise it just amounts to FUD. Let's stop the hysteria here and now.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

My intention has always been that it should be usable by most any GNU+Linux distribution that uses APT but that wasn't always the case.

However, with the release of Linux-libre 3.4.58 and 3.10.7 I am pleased to announce increased compatibility for my APT repository.

Specifically it's now compatible with gNewSense 3 ("Parkes"), Trisquel 4.0 ("Taranis"), Ubuntu 10.04 LTS ("Lucid Lynx"), Debian 6.0 ("Squeeze") as well as all newer versions of those distros and their respective derivatives.

If you need compatibility with some other GNU+Linux distribution, and find that my repository doesn't already work out of the box, please let me know.

Instructions for using the repository can be found at http://jxself.org/linux-libre/.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Distantly related to the game Mastermind, you are given clues to help determine a random number combination. The object of the game is to guess the solution in as few tries as possible. Statistically, even when you are unlucky, the solution can be derived in no more than seven guesses with the default settings. You can also change the game settings for greater difficulty.

You've been challenged, now go to it!

The game can be obtained from the git repository.

This software's license gives you freedom; you can modify, propagate, and/or convey it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF); either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version published by the FSF.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Affero General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License along with this program in a file called 'AGPLv3.txt'. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0-standalone.html or write to the: Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This is a good thing: There are lots of people sharing files and more money being spent by those that do because study after study shows that by and large people that share files actually spend more money than those that don't.

Despite this, companies routinely spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year trying to prevent people from sharing with their friends through various legal and technological means. There are several technical measures employed across the board to try to stop it, but are unreliable, and some are downright lousy:

First up is DNS blocking. This technique consists of ensuring that someone doesn't get the proper response to their DNS query. They might be told the domain doesn't exist or perhaps the DNS response returns a different IP address, such that someone ends up at a different website with a message that access to the site in question is blocked. It seems like it would work in theory. Not so fast. World famous torrent search engine The Pirate Bay proved DNS blocking largely ineffective by simply moving their site to a different domain name. ISPs could block the new domain, but The Pirate Bay would simply opt to move again. In addition to this, people can use various proxies to bypass DNS blocking, use alternate DNS servers, or even a VPN connection where the DNS queries also go through the VPN. The ISP would not know which sites their customers were even accessing in the first place.

URL filtering is similar to DNS blocking, and is about as useful. The URL filtering system requires ISPs to maintain a database of blacklisted URLs. These URLS may be entire domains or subdomains. While this may seem like a workable solution at first glance, the solution falls flat because it is almost impossible to keep the database up-to-date and is also easily bypassed through the use of proxies and VPNs.

Enter swarm poisoning, a more clever, if not smarter, solution. Swarm poisoning is the practice of posting fake files on peer-to-peer networks in hopes of gleaning the ISPs of everyone participating in the swarm. This strategy worked well in the era of LimeWire and the like, but it can't compete with the one-two combo of the torrent and the VPN.

Even a fingerprint system has an achilles' heel. In a fingerprint system, an ISP "sniffs" packets of data as they pass through and assigns them a value, or fingerprint. The fingerprint is then associated with a particular item and stored in a database. From then on, if someone downloads something and there's a match in the database, the ISP and the copyright trustee can be alerted immediately. Unfortunately, the technology hasn't been shown to be practical for real-time operation. The Achilles heel? Digital fingerprinting is virtually blind to files stored in compressed and encrypted archives and to people using a VPN or a properly configured proxy.

By far the go-to technology is DRM, or Digital Restrictions Management. Reviled by everyone except companies, DRM is essentially a virtual lock on digital files. The noblest of hackers see it as their duty to crack DRM and release the goodies to all who would have them, and that's exactly what they spend their days doing. DRM is also completely ineffective.

Why then, when so much of the world sees nothing wrong with sharing copies of things they like, are companies trying to stop it? When will they realize they're ultimately playing a game of Whac-A-Mole where the mole always wins? When will they try to start working with their customers instead of against them? Indeed, research has shown that file sharing is directly related to the availability of other options and that availability is directly under the control of the industry.

If not, the people of the world will go on doing what they've been doing and sharing files amongst themselves and companies will lose out on the money that they could have recieved. File sharing really isn't a problem but an indication that people are unhappy with the current offerings. People that engage in file sharing, then, are really underserved customers.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Grue has eaten many adventurers. This game gives you a chance to get even.

The game and can be obtained from the git repository.

Grue Hunter gives you software freedom; you can share and change it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This is why Jeff could only use the expensive digitized DRM-encumbered and government sanctioned versions of historical documents that the University had uploaded to its network. Otherwise, he would have to find unapproved paper books or decrypted digital copies and risk the consequences. A few of his best research sources came from a black market street vendor downtown that had unofficial DRM-free electronic books and paper books saved from the library fires. They had information that the government versions did not.

Jeff was fascinated with the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment, which he saw as the reincarnation of western civilization. To him, civilization had nearly ceased to exist during the Dark Ages. Knowledge of all kinds, like mathematics, linguistics and medicine, had seemingly been lost. Discoveries of previous eras rotted in the dust of books that no one was literate enough to read. He thought that the present time was becoming a new Dark Age, ruled by political barbarians whose goal was to suppress human thought. Jeff wrote his research paper on how monks shared knowledge during the Dark Ages and paved the way for modern scientific thought by painstakingly hand copying manuscripts to preserve them for future generations.

Jeff had been friends with Lysander since their freshman year. They hung out frequently on campus at the Student Pavilion where the old library used to be. Lysander's girlfriend Zoe often joined them, and they argued about history, philosophy and technology. This day seemed like any ordinary day, but Jeff arrived late and was distracted. After Lysander kept asking what was wrong, Jeff revealed something disturbing. The state police searched Jeff's apartment last night, erased his term paper from his personal computer, and seized the paper books he had hidden. After arriving at school he found all of his digital books had been removed from the University server as well. Not only that, but all his music files, photos, emails, term papers and research notes disappeared as well. The digital book reader that he purchased from a major distributor remotely deleted every book that he bought in the past three months. Zoe was sure there was a mistake and asked Jeff to log in to the network on his phone and show her. Jeff saw that his username and password were now invalid, although they had worked this morning. Zoe checked her phone and discovered that Jeff's name was no longer listed in the address book.

The next day, Jeff met Lysander and Zoe at a coffee shop off campus. He pulled two things from his jacket pocket. One was a ripped envelope with a letter jammed inside and the other was an eviction notice. He was getting kicked off campus before the end of the week. He was also being summoned to a court hearing to discuss his term paper. Lysander and Zoe spent the next few days helping Jeff clean his dorm room, pack his belongings and move into an apartment. Jeff applied for a janitorial job to help cover his expenses, but he already had a criminal record before the hearing even began. He was degreeless and no one would hire him.

Toward the end of the week, Jeff's hearing took place at the courthouse. There were no juries or lawyers anymore, since Chancellor Pankrat's government believed that evidence collected by the state police and computer to be irrefutable. When Jeff entered, there was only the judge and a television camera on a tripod. Before Jeff could say a thing, the judge told him that he had already made up his mind. The government had reviewed his research paper and found his ideas too radical. The law said that copying in any form was unauthorized, and the judge believe that a paper talking about how monks hand copied manuscripts to preserve them glorified copying. Jeff remembered when his mother was forbidden to perform Debussy's Claire de Lune at her piano recital since the sheet music she used was photocopied. The judge continued that the offense was so severe a reprimand wasn't sufficient. Jeff was sentenced to death for circumventing the state mandated Digital Restrictions Management system, for possessing those paper books he bought from the street vendor downtown. A death sentence for doing historical research was not the way he ever thought he would die.

Four security agents entered the room, and tied Jeff's hands and feet with plastic cables. He was led away to a sanitized room in the execution hall, where his death was broadcast on every television network to set a public example. Lysander and Zoe witnessed it all in horror on the television in Jeff's apartment. They spent most of the night together grieving for the loss of their friend, eventually going their own way home to get a couple hours of sleep before going to the University the next day.

While enroute to the University the next morning Lysander grabbed her phone to call Zoe but found that her name was no longer listed in it.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

My repository has always provided the latest version available. I will continue to do that but today I am announcing expanded support by also providing Long-Term Support (LTS) versions.

What's the difference? The latest version provides all of the latest changes and features but is only supported for about 3 months - you then need to upgrade to a newer stable release series to continue to receive support.

In contrast, the long-term versions are suported for at least 2 years but won't necessarily have the latest stuff. If you want to use Linux-libre and prefer a kernel that isn't changing as much, the long-term versions are probably what you want.

A new long-term version will be selected roughly once each year, and versions will be refreshed every year to maintain at most 2 versions in 2 years. Kernel 3.4 will be the initial long-term kernel in my repository, supported until October 2014.

Instructions for using the repository can be found at http://jxself.org/linux-libre/.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

COBOL is an acronym that stands for "Common Business Oriented Language" and it was created in 1959 by a group of programmers known as the "Conference on Data Systems Languages." In the late 50s, the Department of Defense requested that a business language be created so certain features of businesses could be automated, and by 1960 the COBOL-60 language was released to the public. By 1965 COBOL had become highly popular and was in widespread use, but due to radical modifications of the language by various companies over the years, COBOL had to be made more compatible between various machines and so the American National Standards Institute stepped in to create a standardized version in 1968, which is now known as ANS-COBOL (American National Standard COBOL). The ANSI institute has since made more modifications to the standardized version of COBOL, primarily releasing an object-oriented version for modernization purposes.

A woman by the name of Grace Hopper was largely responsible for the development of COBOL. Grace Hopper was a Rear Admiral in the United States Navy and also a pioneer in the field of computer science. She designed the first ever compiler for a programming language and is now known as the Grandmother of COBOL. In 1949 she joined a computer corporation called Eckert-Mauchly and initially worked as a research mathematician, but soon she was helping develop the UNIVAC I computer. After the Remington Rand corporation took over the company, Admiral Hopper began writing compilers. Her first compiler was known as the "A-0" and others such as MATH-MATIC, ARITH-MATIC, and FLOW-MATIC compilers soon followed. When she began working on the COBOL language, it was primarily a combination of her FLOW-MATIC compiler and an IBM language called COMTRAN. Admiral Hopper was the first person to realize computer languages should be closer to English language instructions for readability and to speed up coding time, rather than using opaque and tedious machine code (1s and 0s that the central processing unit can understand). For over ten years Admiral Hopper was the main director of the Navy Programming Languages Group and in 1969 she was named "man of the year" by the Data Processing Management Association. In 1991 she was given the prestigious National Medal of Technology. Grace Hopper's motto was always, "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."

COBOL has been around for so long many people associate it with old mainframe computers, fluorescent green computer screens, core dumps, and obsolete technology, but COBOL still retains many advantages for solving business related problems and has been highly modernized since 1959. COBOL is a solid dependable language that relies on useful batch-processing functions and due to COBOL's long variable names it is basically "self-documenting," which is highly useful for programmers. Despite news articles occasionally announcing the death of COBOL, it is still ideal for accounting and business transactions and it won't be going away anytime soon.

Traditional COBOL code is characterized by long variable names being written in all capital letters. Here is an example of a very brief COBOL program:

IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. ShortProgram.
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
DisplayPrompt.
    DISPLAY "Hello, World!"
    STOP RUN.

There are certain drawbacks to COBOL as a programming language (it's not particularly suited to interactive or World Wide Web applications, for example) but mainly it suffers from extreme disrespect by software developers since they see it as being a nearly obsolete language. Many programmers wouldn't be caught dead composing a line of COBOL code or even using a COBOL compiler since they view it as harking back to the Dark Ages of computer technology and development. Nevertheless many COBOL programmers are needed by reputable companies to maintain existing code and even extend it in some cases. Computer Science departments also see COBOL as outdated and inferior when compared to more modern software languages and rarely offer COBOL classes. But if you are a programmer looking for a job, you should realize that a huge amount of COBOL code has been written since 1959 and programmers are desperately needed to maintain and even add to what is presently in use. Numerous financial institutions and stock companies use COBOL daily and most companies don't want the high costs involved with re-platforming their old programs and would much rather hire legitimate COBOL programmers to maintain what they already have (experts estimate roughly 250 billion COBOL source code lines are in use today; and about 15 billion lines are added each year! Furthermore, about seventy percent of ALL transactional systems around the world are written in the COBOL language.)

Still COBOL programmers are rather hard to find and many companies are searching for them right now. So if you are a programmer and would like to have more job security, make plans to get some COBOL training as soon as possible. COBOL will live forever.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The software can be obtained from the git repository.

It's written in Perl and needs Getopt::Long, Pod::Usage, YAML, File::ReadBackwards, and Date::Manip.

Run usertracker.pl -h to get more information.

In order to specify the log files and the patterns to match, you must specify the appropriate values in user-track.cfg.

user-track-cfg is in YAML format. A sample file is included, just follow the pattern and it will work. For each log you want to parse, you must specify 3 values: First, Second and Pattern:

Pattern is the regular expression that will match the date and the user in the line.

First and Second specifies the expected order in the line of the date and user field.

There is another file that will keep track of the last time it was run, the file is user-tracker.run, if will be created the first time the script is run (you'll receive a warning message).

usertracker.pl is copyright © 2013 Jason Self

usertracker.pl gives you software freedom; you can copy, modify, convey, and/or redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program in a file called 'GPLv3.txt'. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html or write to the: Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Afterward, I remember our teacher trying to get the computer to boot again. As I recall the computer was having difficulty reading the floppy disk. I made the suggestion to boot the computer using a different but working disk, then re-insert the problematic disk, and run the program. It worked. As it would turn out this was the start of a journey in my life.

My fourth grade classroom had an Apple IIe. I have a vague memory of playing some rabbit maze game. I continued to use computers as time went on, mostly being various Macintosh models as that's what my schools had. It's no wonder that, after leaving school, I bought my own Macintosh computer running Apple's proprietary operating system. I didn't yet know about free software. I'm a perfect example of why RMS is right and free software in schools is so important.

Enter 1999.

I'd been using the internet for a couple of years and grown unhappy with the email options that I could find. Every email service provider I tried had some problem: They were slow, unreliable, disappeared, were lacking some feature I wanted, etc. After being inspired by reading a magazine article about running a server in your own home I decided that I could do better, took the plunge, and bought a machine to use as a dedicated server.

Since I'd only ever used Apple's proprietary Macintosh Operating System that's what I used for my very first server. It provided email and a very basic website for a few years, despite the server software on the Macintosh being, in one way or another, totally deficient: They were missing features that I wanted and those it did have were very basic.

Around 2001 or so I decided that I wanted something that did everything I wanted. After some time searching I found exactly that. It was expensive, with per-user licensing. It was also proprietary. I still didn't know about free software at this point and evaluated the program only its cost and technical features, eventually deciding that it was worth it.

It ran on an operating system I'd never heard of before, something called GNU/Linux. I installed this on my PowerPC-based Macintosh using a now-defunct distribution and began using this new server software.

At the time I found GNU/Linux to be very foreign. Apple had released version 10 of their Macintosh Operating System around this time, and the developer of this proprietary mail server software said it could run on Mac OS X too, so I switched. I continued using this proprietary mail server running on Mac OS X until 2004.

At some point that year the developer of this proprietary software had changed their policies. Whereas I'd previously been able to download updates for free they were changing to a subscription model and I was cut off unless I continued to pay them a yearly fee.

I didn't like this at all. The software had been expensive enough to begin with and I didn't like the idea of paying them what amounted to a yearly rental fee. While this was about money I realized that it didn't have to be: Holding their customers hostage for money was just one thing that was enabled by proprietary software. They had the power to do anything they wanted, whether I liked it or not. I didn't like that they were able to hold my computer, and ultimately me, hostage for any reason. In this moment I realized the problem with proprietary software. I was determined to find a way out of this. What I was looking for was free software, although I didn't know it yet.

During my searches I found out about something called "open source" and how Apple's Macintosh Operating System somehow had this in it. I quickly got rid of this proprietary email server software and started using programs like Courier, SquirrelMail, etc.

As time went on I became unhappy with some of Apple's upgrade policies where bugs and security problems would go un-fixed and that I could not fix them myself. I realized two things: The first was that while Mac OS X might have some free software at the lower levels, the upper levels were entirely Apple and proprietary. The second was that despite having removed that proprietary email server program, I'd only switched masters and hadn't yet escaped the control that proprietary software enabled over me.

In 2007 I switched to Debian GNU/Linux full-time in order to escape the control made possible by proprietary software. The time I spent using Mac OS X had gotten me used to and familiar with UNIX-like operating systems. I later learned that the Debian Project also distributes proprietary software and have since changed. Having personally experienced being held hostage by the developer of a proprietary program I had an ethical objection to that and didn't want to associate myself with a project that distributed proprietary programs, even though the Debian Project tries to disassociate itself with it. Whether this proprietary software is "part" of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution or not is the wrong question to ask. It's still being distributed, and that's ethically wrong. Now I use the Trisquel GNU/Linux distribution, because the Trisquel Project doesn't do this.

My journey to the land of the free took a few years, and I've made some missteps along with way, but I've learned a lot. I've learned to value my freedom, and by not steering people to projects engaged in unethical activities I'm standing in solidarity with the rest of the free world against others that might try to cast the issue of developing and distributing proprietary software in a different light. I steadfastly refuse to use proprietary software. I can happily say that I'm in control of my own computing, not someone else that has the power to hold me hostage at any time.

Copyright © 2013 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The next step is to download Trisquel GNU/Linux. Head on over to https://trisquel.info/ and do that.

You'll probably notice that there are multiple editions. Trisquel has both Short Term Support (STS) and Long Term Support (LTS) editions. The Short Term Support editions are newer but not supported for as long as the Long Term Support editions, which are older and more tested.

I opt for the Long Term Support edition because I like my server to sit quietly in the corner going about its business without me needing to get involved too much. The Short Term Support edition would mean I would be upgrading to a newer edition more frequently since they're not supported for as long and a server doesn't necessarily need to be running the latest bleeding-edge versions of stuff anyway.

Whichever you choose each edition has multiple options. I recommend downloading the NetInstall image. It's small and there's no need to download the full 700MB image because a server doesn't need a graphical desktop. In the server world, less is more.

Once this file is downloaded you can either burn it to a CD or put it on a USB stick. Not all computers can boot from USB but not everyone necessarily wants to use a CD for something that might only be used once. The decision's up to you.

I'm using Trisquel 5.5 as I write this, running the GNOME desktop envrionment, so to burn the downloaded file to a CD I would just right-click on the file, select Write To Disc, and follow the instructions.

To make a bootable USB stick I would open System Settings and run the Startup Disk Creator, where you specify which downloaded file and which USB device to use.

Either way you now have something that can be used to boot your server for the first time.

When the installer starts you'll have a menu of choices. I recommend going to Advanced Options and selecting Command-line Expert Install.

The Trisquel installer main menu will appear. Just select the first item in the menu to specify your preferred language. The installer will advance down the menu items as you progress.

You'll be asked for basic information like language, location, and keyboard information before coming to the section about configuring the network. This touches on parts three and four of this series where your ISP may assign you a fixed or dynamic IP address, and where you may be connected (more or less) directly to the internet, meaning that your computer has a "public" IP address assigned directly to it or there may be a router in your home (often, the very same device that handles your internet connection) that is assigned that public IP address instead and hides all of your devices behind it by assigning them "private" IP addresses. If you have this later setup there are additional things to consider when setting up your server.

Once you select Configure The Network the installer will ask if you want to automatically configure the network. Whether you say yes or no here depends on how your access to the internet is established, using the information I mentioned in parts three and four. Here's a chart of how to answer the question:

Once the networking is configured the installer will continue to walk you through the rest of the installation, advancing down the main menu as things progress. Eventually it'll complete and you'll reboot into your new installation.

Where you go from here is entirely up to you and depends on what you want your server to do for you. There are so many possibilities that I can't really cover them all but if you'd like me to cover something please contact me. One thing that will be needed is a domain name server, which I mentioned in part three. I'll cover that in part six.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

There had been numerous legal and technological changes since these older versions were published and it was time for a new version to address these matters.

One improvement clarified the distribution of source code. If you were distributing software licensed under version 2 of the GPL solely over the internet, version 2 said in part that

...offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

I know some that take this to mean they can tell their users to "get the source code from my upstream provider", in the cases where is one, but that's not really what it says. When someone has to go somewhere else to get the source code for the program then you're not really offering "access to copy the source code from the same place" which is what the license says. I read this that the source code and object code need to be available from the same place, side by side.

Version 3 provides additional flexibility for source code fulfillment in section 6 by saying that the source code can be on a different server and that server can be operated by a third party (your upstream for example.) This isn't something that GPLv2 says, so this is yet another an example of how version 3 has improved the license when compared to version 2.

Although version 3 may permit someone to refer their users to their upstream provider it's not a requirement. When someone does this I say that they're "outsourcing" their GPL obligations and it raises certain concerns. For example: Can you guarantee that your upstream will still be available in the future, at least long enough to satisfy your obligations under the license? Depending on the specifics your obligation to provide the complete and corresponding source code for that particular version of the program could last for many years if you're using #2 from section 6b.

Even if they are still around can you guarantee that they will still have that particular version of the software available for download later on?

Although version 3 permits you to outsource fulfillment of the source code to someone else this can't be used as a way to get out of your obligations. You remain responsible for ensuring that there is source code available but how can you ensure it will be if you're outsourcing the fulfillment of that critical component to someone else? Yes you can save some disk space and bandwidth by referring people to somewhere else - which is worth exactly a penny and a half at the current price of each - but the potential savings are so small while the potential costs for non-compliance are so high that outsourcing your GPL obligations really doesn't make sense.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Our lives are becoming ever more dependent on computers, and specifically the software - in the form of firmware - that runs on them. You'll find computers, and the software running on them, not only in the computer on your desk but other places you may not think of: In cars, airplanes, buildings, televisions, cameras, and many more places. Many people already carry firmware in their pockets, and if Google Glass is any indicator it's going to become far more intimate and we'll start wearing it too. It's also found in places where lives depend on it, like medical devices. In short, software is everywhere and will only continue to spread.

This rightly raises the question of who should control all of this. The free software movement says that you should be the one deciding what these miniature computers in your life are doing. That necessitates the software on those computers be free software so that you can understand what they're doing and change it.

The goal of the free software movement is nothing less than getting freedom to everyone, everywhere, over every piece of software. Getting freedom to everyone means that everyone becomes the master of the technology in their lives - where the user decides what that device does and does not do - and is not a servant to a master that decides for them.

What sort of things happen when you're forbidden from knowing what's going on inside and changing it? Let's consider one example of something that happens when you don't control the technology and look at the ThinkPad laptop. All models come with proprietary firmware that runs as soon as you power the computer on, in the form of the BIOS. This BIOS has an anti-feature in it, where it will refuse to boot if you replace the WiFi card with a different model.

Regardless of why you might want to do replace your WiFi card, the manufacturer has decided that you shouldn't be able to. Workarounds are available in the form of hacked BIOS firmware images and other tricks but these shouldn't be necessary: Your computer should obey you, not someone else. By including this anti-feature the situation has now changed from your computer obeying you to you finding a way to get around the control that the manufacturer has imposed on you. Imagine what sort of control becomes possible if the manufacturer gets to decide what other kinds peripherals you're "allowed" to plug in to your computer.

Imagine also optical drives that only read disks marked for use in a specific geographic region, or printers that only accept ink from a given company, or that print imperceptible tracking dots on your documents. Imagine also ebook readers that delete books you've bought, television tuners that refuse to record certain things, and computer displays that refuse to display certain images.

Oh wait - all of this already exists.

Imagine if that were to expand to include not only what you plug into the computer but also what software you run on your computer, where it would only run programs that the manufacturer has authorized. Oh, wait - that exists too with things like the iPhone/iPad and with the upcoming Restricted Boot in ARM devices that will never run anything but Windows 8.

It's not limited to just anti-features. There can be privacy problems too: Think of cell phones. They usually have proprietary software in the form of the baseband firmware, the part that's responsible for interacting with the cell phone network. It operates independently of your phone's main operating system and is actually a full operating system in its own right. A common design shares the phone's main memory with the operating system you see on the screen and the one you don't. This design also gives it access to the microphone and GPS. Cell phone carriers have the ability to remotely update this firmware. Read the contract with your carrier, buried in the fine print was: "Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice." What control does this give carriers? The power to push updated versions to handsets - without your knowledge - that contain surveillance features to activate the microphone and report your location. You take this with you everywhere you go. Your carrier may say they'd never do this but policies can be easily changed, while the infrastructure will persist for many years.

Why is any of this tolerated? Perhaps part of it comes from people that are used to being mistreated. Maybe they're used to this and don't think much of it or don't think they deserve any better?

Even without any anti-features or surveillance features I can say one other thing about these proprietary programs: They have bugs. You are at as much risk of an accidental software bug, such as one that shocks your heart when it isn't supposed to or that causes your car to mysteriously speed up and crash into things, as you are a malicious feature. Of course most people will never modify it but the fact that you can (or have someone else that you trust do it for you) keeps you safe and means that you - and not someone else - has the control over the technology you're using.

That you're forbidden from studying, modifying, and sharing the software - through both legal and technical means - means that you don't have sufficient control. Being able to run the software but not modify it only gives you the ability to do - or not do - whatever the developer said you could do or not do. If you can't use it for any purpose that you want, if you can't study and modify it so that it does (or doesn't do) whatever you want, then who is that device really taking orders from? Certainly not you. At that point it begins acting as the agent for someone else, enforcing their rules, policies, and agendas - not yours. Unless you control the technology the technology will in the end control you.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

I'll continue with the same theme as last time: Your internet connection.

You may be connected (more or less) directly to the internet, meaning that your computer has a "public" IP address assigned directly to it or there may be a router in your home (often, the very same device that handles your internet connection) that hands out a "private" IP address instead. If you have this later setup there are additional things to consider when setting up your server.

For some background, every device connected to the internet requires a unique address. Version 4 of the Internet Protocol (aka IPv4) can, at most, support just a little bit under 4.3 billion unique IP addresses. Since a single person could easily own a cell phone, home computer, work computer, wireless tablet, wireless ebook reader and video game system, each of which could be connected to the internet and each of which would need their own IP address, it becomes easy to see how 4.3 billion addresses are nowhere near enough to provide an address for every device on the planet.

A private IP address is a way to conserve these 4.3 billion IP addresses by using a single public IP address assigned to your router for a block of locally connected computers or other devices. It can also also lower your costs since you need fewer public addresses because most ISPs will charge extra for multiple public IP addresses.

Imagine a ten-person office where everyone needs to participate in a conference call. One way to do this is to have everyone dial into the conference call from their phones at their desks. Another way to accomplish this is to have them all sit in the conference room where a high-quality conference phone broadcasts the call to all of them. The latter is an example of how private IP addresses work -- although everyone gets to hear and speak on the call, they connect through a single point of contact. The phone is the router, and each person's "connection" to the call is through a private address -- they get to hear it with their own ears, but the signal comes through the one phone.

Using this method a router which is connected to the internet assigns every computer connected to it a unique private IP address, but then aggregates all of the inputs and outputs from all of those computers and sends it to the internet over its own single address. Depending on how the router is configured, it could give every computer a specific address, or randomly assign them as needed. Since many ISPs charge extra for multiple public IP addresses, using private IP addresses can reduce your connection charges by needing only a handful of public IP addresses -- usually just one -- to serve tens, hundreds or even thousands of computers and devices at a single location but this also creates an additional level of administration for you.

Since your router could potentially assign a different private IP address to your server at different times one thing you should do is configure your router to always give your server the same private IP address all the time. This is similiar in concept to having a static public IP address but your ISP isn't involved in this: It's just you & your router. Your server will need a fixed private IP address because your internet traffic is going through a public single IP address and your router needs to know where to send incoming connections to. If your server's private IP address changes that mapping will need to be updated or your server won't be accesible from the outside world anymore. The exact way to do this depends on the make and model of your router and there are so many I can't possibly cover them all. If your router doesn't offer the option to assign a static private IP address to your server one work around is to configure your server for a manual address rather than asking your router for one. I'll cover that when I get to the part of installing Trisquel.

In addition to a static private IP address, each program you run on your server that needs to communicate over the internet will listen for incoming connections on a so-called "port." There needs to be some sort of standard so an organization called IANA (short for the "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority") maintains the official list of what ports should be used for different things. If this didn't exist you would somehow need to know in advance what port someone's web server was listening on before you could access the site. Fortunately most people follow this list and all you need to do is type in their domain name or IP address. Your browser knows to automatically try connecting on port 80, or port 443 for a secure connection.

In addition, most routers act as firewalls and block incoming connections by default. For each port that you want to accept connections on from the outside world -- whether it's for your web server, email, instant messaging, or something else -- you'll need to do two things: Configure your router to accept the incoming connection on that particular port, and then specify which private IP address that connection should be forwarded to so that it can be received and properly handled by your server. This is often referred to as "port forwarding" or "port mapping" or "opening a port" or "poking a hole" in your router/firewall or other such similiar terms. Just like assigning a static private IP address the exact way to do this depends on the make and model of your router and there are so many I can't possibly cover them all. Time for more reading. There's no need to open any ports just yet since your server isn't even running and you can always open and close ports as needed, but you need to know about how to do this in your particular router.

IPv4 is well into the process of being replaced by IPv6, a new standard for Internet communications. Under IPv6, the number of addresses is orders of magnitude larger than under IPv4, eliminating the concern about a potential shortage of addresses in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, private IP addresses still make sense. Not only do they still represent good stewardship of network resources, but they also make it easier for system and network administrators to route and control internet traffic by having it pass through a single connection over a single router.

At this point I think I've covered all of the prep work so I think it's time to move on to installing and setting up Trisquel, but that's for another article.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The next part to consider is your connection to the internet.

When you're connected to the internet your computer has an IP, or Internet Protocol, address. Your ISP may assign one to you dynamically from a pool of available addresses and it will change periodically. On the other hand your IP address may be static and never change. If you're not sure whether your have a static or dynamic IP address your ISP can tell you.

While it's possible to run your server with either a static or dynamic IP address there are some additional technical considerations to be made if your IP address is going to change periodically. Since your server will receive data from the internet it needs to be possible for other machines on the internet to connect to you. I briefly mentioned DNS in my last article, explaining how it's used to to change human-friendly names like example.me into IP addresses. At a very basic level you can think of it as a mapping between domain names and IP addresses. If your IP address changes this mapping needs to be updated or other machines on the internet will no longer be able to connect to you and browse whatever websites you might host, deliver email, etc.

In addition to the need to continually update the domain name to IP address mapping whenever your IP address changes, which can be automated, it can also introduce a delay from the time when your IP address changes and when other machines on the internet are finally able to see the new IP address that your domain name maps to. This delay is because other machines on the internet will usually cache the information about what IP address a given domain name maps to, rather than look it up each time. During this time period, which you can work to minimize but never fully eliminate, other machines on the internet may be unable to connect to you. This can be compounded if your IP address changes frequently. How often a dynamic IP address changes is really up to your ISP.

In comparison, if you have a fixed IP address this need to update the the domain name to IP address mapping and the period where your server may be unavailable to others isn't an issue. Having a static IP address also means that you have one less process that could go wrong (that of updating the domain name to IP address mapping) and need troubleshooting. As servers go, "less is more."

As you plan your new server it's important to be aware of the difference between a static and dynamic IP address. As I continue to write these articles I'll be sure to address the needs of people using both kinds but I recommend using a static IP address whenever possible. Your ISP can set you up with one. They may charge extra for this but I think it's definitely worth it.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

It seems that copyright lawsuits are a common occurrence these days: Reference things like Adrian Jacobs v. J. K. Rowling, Jordan Scott v. Stephenie Meyer, Oracle v. Google, and Tetris Holding LLC v. Xio Interactive. This is why it is a good idea to be aware of what is and isn't copyrightable. For example, if you wrote a story about a boy wizard going to a magical school, and, years later, a former friend or colleague also writes a story about a boy wizard going to a magical school, is that copyright infringement? To answer this question there are a number of ways to determine in what ways copyright restrictions do and don't apply to a work. Please take note that this article is just meant to be a brief outline and should not be considered legal advice. You should always consult an attorney for your specific legal questions.

The first thing to be aware of is that copyright restrictions are supposed to be temporary, with all creative works eventually entering the public domain, where anyone is then free to copy or use them. I say that it's "supposed" to be temporary because, whenever their works get close to entering the public domain, major corporations just lobby the U.S. government for more time and they've always been given it. Considering this, copyright restrictions (in reality) last forever. These changes are also made retroactively to works that were already covered by shorter durations. I like how Richard Stallman described this as "perpetual copyright on the installment plan." The U.S. government has also taken things that were already in the public domain (in the U.S.) and re-applied copyright restrictions to them.

Although copyright restrictions are supposed to be temporary nothing has entered the public domain due to copyright expiration in my lifetime, and probably never will.

Another important thing to know is that "minimal creativity" is required in order for something to be eligible for copyright restrictions in the first place. It's easiest to think of this in terms of a list. A list in which names, addresses, and phone numbers are listed alphabetically is not eligible for copyright restrictions, because it is simply a compilation of raw facts that took no additional effort on your part to make. However, if you organized those names, addresses, and phone numbers into specific categories, that might meet the minimum requirement. As far as the law goes, "creativity" is broadly and objectively defined. It doesn't have to mean that you poured your heart and soul into bringing a brand new concept to life. Even just presenting information in a way other than how you received it could demonstrate creativity. As another example, a list of facts about President Lincoln would probably not be eligible for copyright. As soon as you turn it into your own creative work, however, assembling that research in unique ways and adding your own ideas, thoughts, and theories to it, that could be.

Next, in order for your work to be eligible for copyright, it must be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." This means that a story that you've kept in your head, no matter how hard you may have worked on it, how detailed it might be, or how much creativity might be involved, is not eligible for copyright restrictions. However, if you wrote that story down first onto a hard copy, it could be.

Perhaps the most important thing to realize, however -- and this is where the earlier example of a story about a boy wizard comes in -- is that you cannot copyright an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery. In other words, you cannot copyright your idea about a boy wizard going to a magical school. You can only copyright your own expression of that idea, meaning your specific story in your specific words. If someone else takes your story and copies it word for word it might be copyright infringement, but if that person just wrote a story that features a similar predicament to yours, it may not be.

There could be instances, though, where copyright restrictions might still apply. A specifically and intricately described character or plot could be subject to copyright restrictions. No one but J. K. Rowling can write a story about a boy wizard named Harry Potter, who has a lightning-shaped scar on his forehead, goes to a school named Hogwarts, and battles an evil wizard named Voldemort. Furthermore, someone couldn't simply change Harry Potter's name to Bob Smith while leaving all other details as-is. The character and his specific features are too distinctive. Copyright law, however, doesn't cover character archetypes, so if the only thing that Bob Smith has in common with Harry Potter is that he is a boy wizard who fights evil (if, other than that, he goes to a magical summer camp and battles a witch, for example), it would probably not be copyright infringement. "Lovable, dashing rogue" is not copyrightable. "Lovable, dashing rogue named Han Solo, who travels in a ship called the Millennium Falcon and is on the run from a gangster named Jabba the Hutt" could be.

If you decide to publish your creative work please use a free culture or free software license, as applicable. You're not required to publish it but sharing creative works is a socially positive thing, and the public should be given equal rights to use, modify, and share it but that's something for a different article.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

How proprietary software mistreats people is well known in the free software world. Taking the first step and not using it anymore is a good change but it made me think about whether there was any ethical way to get rid of the device.

If they were to give it away to someone else they've taken a step to protect their freedom but what about the new owner? Their freedom has now been lost. That's not a good choice.

What ethical options are there? The best one was to have never bought it in the first place but that's already happened so it's too late for that. If the device could be made to run 100% free software one ethical choice would be to replace it with such software first but, from what I can tell, that's not currently possible with this device. To be sure it's possible to "root" these devices and run free software on them -- to some extent -- but the original proprietary software's still there, still used to boot and run the device so it's not currently possible to use it and still keep your freedom.

The only ethical options I can think of are to bury it away in storage somewhere, never to be used again, or to give it to someone that will work on replacing the proprietary software in it with free software.

While I think that both of these choices would be ethical the second one is better. It would be a contribution to society where everyone would be able to run free software on their device.

Perhaps the OpenInkpot developers would be willing to accept the donation of such a device?

If you or someone you know finds a similiar situation please consider the ramifications of the decision to get rid of a device that's dependent upon proprietary software: You're only protecting your freedom by getting someone else to be subjugated in your place.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This describes DVDs because they're encrypted with a form of Digital Restrictions Management ("DRM") called the Content Scramble System (CSS), and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) forbids both the tools to get around that, as well as the act of circumventing the DRM itself.

What about fair use? Surely making a copy to watch on your portable video player would be okay, right? You've already bought it so who's being harmed? Unfortunately, there's nothing in the DMCA that limits its reach. This results in an inability to decrypt the DVD under any circumstance. The courts have upheld this as well: People are found guilty just for "picking the lock" and thereby violating the DMCA, whatever their purpose was.

It is already legal for me to copy CDs to my portable music player. There's absolutely no question of fair use but if DRM is added that same task becomes illegal. By banning all acts of decryption, and all tools that can be used for that, it gives de facto control to the copyright holders to change the legal landscape.

It's not just DVDs. The chilling effect of the DMCA has already spread beyond them: You'll find DRM on downloaded music, ebooks, computer software, cell phones, and more. Bypassing it to reclaim your fair use rights has been made illegal, thanks to the DMCA.

Big Media would prefer you to think that the DMCA is necessary to prevent so-called "piracy" but there's no need to take the public's fair use rights away in order to do that. The recordings on a DVD are already covered by copyright restrictions. I think that the proper way to implement this law would be for the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA to apply only if what you're doing is also a violation of copyright. Some countries already do this. Anything more only serves to punish the innocent as well.

The DMCA has provisions for the Copyright Office to establish activities that are exempt from the anti-circumvention provisions. These rules are revised every three years, and some are pushing for exemptions to be added for DVDs and other things. If the effort succeeds it would be a small victory because the exemption would only last for three years. It would then need to be renegotiated and there's no guarantee of success.

Exemptions aren't enough. To establish lasting protection for our rights it's high time the DMCA be limited in scope to afford the public with the ability to make legal copies of the things that they own. The inability to circumvent copying restrictions under any circumstance is too broad and should not be tolerated.

In fact, don't. If you want to make a copy of something that you own then do it. Don't by stopped by the DMCA. The law is wrong and doesn't deserve to be obeyed. Think of it as a form of civil disobedience.

In the meantime, please write to your representative.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The eyeglasses can also tell you where other individuals are located although Google has not revealed the specific technology it uses to monitor the locations of Project Glass users. The glasses appear to have a built-in microphone that is always activated, and a button that people can push to take photographs.

My thoughts:

• Will the software that runs this be free? Will people be able to get a copy of the software, modify it, and then use that instead of the software that comes from Google?
• Will Google be able to see what you see?
• How does it know where you are? Since your location is being transmitted if you use this (and potentially the sights and sounds around you), will Google now know who you meet with, where you meet them, what you eat, and how many times you use the restroom?
• It seems that this could provide Google with far more information about people than they already collect by scanning your messages in Gmail, tracking the YouTube videos you watch, and logging what you search for on the internet.
• If everyone starts to wear these while walking around, immersed in their own assisted reality, the future could be a very lonely place.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Citizens copied printed works of dissent and handed the papers out to like-minded friends and others. Samizdat undermined the ability of the repressive communist regime. While the crackdown on independent thinking eventually proved unsuccessful, totalitarian governments around the world continue to shut down independent thought and free expression.

Free-thinking people in free countries deplore this and yet are willing to allow similiar restraints to freedom of expression in their own nations through DRM.

The recording industry and movie companies would prefer you to think of DRM as Digital "Rights" Management but DRM is better described as Digital "Restrictions" Management because it restricts your ability to access and share anything in a digital file. This covers ebooks, downloaded or streaming movies, TV shows and software. In other words, once you buy a DRM-enabled file and depending on the restrictions, you cannot share the file or use it on another device. DRM can also give the company access to whatever electronic device the file is stored in.

It is nothing more than an attempt to shut down free expression. It is being pushed heavily by the recording industry and movie companies. Ebook publishers have also signed on as strong supporters.

Sadly many people have purchased devices that implement DRM. When everyone owns devices with DRM and everyone buys files with DRM the company distributing those things gains defacto control over what is allowed to be read and shared.

Consider this disturbingly ironic example from Amazon. Some time back, Amazon accessed all the Kindle ebook readers it has sold and deleted the ebook "1984" from all of them. Talk about Orwellian!

It's not just the Kindle that is affected. The Nook and Apple's iPads and iPhones also carry DRM which allows Barnes and Noble and Apple to control what you can see and read with these devices.

Think about a traditional printed book. Once you buy it, it is yours. You can loan it to a friend. You can give it away. You can resell it at a used book store. You can swap it to someone for a different book. The same thing is true with buying a music CD v. a download from online music stores.

If you get the same thing with DRM all of that disappears. DRM is a basic matter of rights. Who owns a DRM-encrypted file? Under DRM, the company owns the file because they decide what you can do with it. Who really owns a DRM-enabled electronic device if the company can delete things without your consent and prevent you from using it however you want to?

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Like the primates we evolved from, we're social creatures. Sharing is in our nature. It's part of being a good person. It's no wonder that as music, movies, software and other things began to exist, we started sharing those too. Continued advancements in technology will help to ensure that sharing will only ever get easier.

Despite this, there are people opposed to sharing and they try to introduce new technical and legal methods in an attempt to stop, or at least discourage, people from sharing. These technical measures usually have workarounds very shortly after being introduced and the legal methods either fail to become law, or are ignored if they do. It's no wonder, because these technical measures and laws go against the human nature to share. Even the ultimate penalty of death hasn't deterred people. People share things they like and have done so since the beginning of time.

Given their lack of success with technical and legal measures some of the people opposed to sharing are slowly working to change people's attitudes about sharing. They're trying to convince them that it's somehow wrong even though everyone should have learned as a child that sharing is good, but it seems that some people forget this as they get older. In effect, they're trying to change human nature itself.

The sad part is that they are they are to a remarkable extent succeeding. Instead of thinking that creative works are published for the benefit of -- and rightfully belong to -- everyone in the world I know several people that think otherwise. They hadn't even questioned it. It's just propaganda they've heard for most if not all of their lives and never questioned it.

So will the war on sharing ever truly be won? I am confident that we will one day prevail. It may take decades or even centuries but it will happen. An important first step is to recognize the propaganda for what it is and ignore it. Most people over a certain age will have memories of recording chart music as it was played on the radio and sharing it with their friends. This is no different from teenagers now who share songs online.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Pi is, of course, a transcendental number. As every schoolkid knows, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and has an infinitely non-recurring decimal part. In other words, a very special, unique and remarkable number. Which is, coincidentally, exactly what the makers of the new Raspberry Pi computer want us to think of their device. Is it really?

The Raspberry Pi Foundation is hoping to re-introduce a passion for programming amongst geeks. It's certainly true that many schools do base much of their teaching on the use of proprietary software, with little or no reference to how they work. Even if the school did decide to teach that, they often continue to use proprietary software in those classes. It seems strange to me that schools teach people programming using proprietary software. Schools should use and teach free software exclusively. Some do. I wish they all did. Being proprietary, you're not allowed to study the system that's an implementation of what it is that you're learning. It seems that you're not really learning much of anything, except maybe how to be dependent on proprietary software.

The Raspberry Pi Foundation hopes to redress this by introducing a very cheap motherboard without peripherals into schools. Basically a single-chip processor with onboard graphics and 256MB of RAM, soldered onto a circuit board with USB, Ethernet and video outputs, the Pi seells for $35 and is intended to become the future of IT teaching in schools.

Will it work? The biggest problem I see is that the Raspberry Pi itself requires proprietary software so it's not really different from any of the other devices that were used previously. Sure students will be able to learn to write programs in Python, BBC Basic and Perl but then again they were already able to do that before the Raspberry Pi. The students that will be the most curious about computers and programming and how they work deep down and who would therefore benefit the most from having a 100% free software stack all the way down are the ones that will be directly prohibited from fully studying everything about the Raspberry Pi. They won't have access to the source code for everything. If they ask their professor about how that part of the Raspberry Pi works they'll be told it's a secret.

Whether the Raspberry Pi Foundation will succeed in their lofty education aims remains to be seen but if they're serious about their goal they'll quickly move to address this problem of proprietary software and have a device where students can really and truly learn.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

• Microsoft will always adhere to the promises it has made to standards organizations to make its standard essential patents available on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.

Well, duh. This isn't anything more than saying they'll respect the commitment they made in order to participate in the standard-setting process to begin with. The world should expect nothing less, so this isn't anything special. Moving on.

• This means that Microsoft will not seek an injunction or exclusion order against any firm on the basis of those essential patents.

But that doesn't mean they won't use other patents to do exactly that. Sounds nice, but means nothing if you think about it.

• This also means that Microsoft will make those essential patents available for license to other firms without requiring that those firms license their patents back to Microsoft, except for any patents they have that are essential to the same industry standard.

Well, of course. With these so called "RAND" licenses (which is really a misnomer), they're already required to offer the license to anyone anyway so just like the first bullet, this doesn't mean anything beyond following their previously-made commitment.

• Microsoft will not transfer those standard essential patents to any other firm unless that firm agrees to adhere to the points outlined above.

More of the same: They're continuing to follow the commitment they made to partiticpate in the standard-setting process to begin with.

In closing, the whole thing is an empty promise, and nothing in their announcement has changed anything. If Microsoft truly wanted to change things they'd be in favor of eliminating software patents entirely, but they haven't said that. So we should expect nothing less than for Microsoft to continue their patent attacks against the free software community.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

You've got the computer you're going to use as your server, you've got your copy of Trisquel, you know why you're running your own server, and why it's important to do that with with free software. Now what?

Domain Name Registration

The very first step is establishing your server is to choose your address. This is also known as a domain name. Domain name registration should be done carefully, since there are various important elements to take into account at this point.

• Choosing the Top-Level Domain (TLD)

The top-level domain is the final part of a domain name. The ones you're probably familiar with include .com, .net, and .org although there are many more. Some are generic, but each country and territory in the world also has its own specific TLD. Some are TLDs open to registration by anyone, while others will only allow those meeting specific criteria to register a domain name. There are many organizations that can register a domain name for you in a specific TLD, in exchange for payment of a fee, which brings up my next point.

• Domain Name Seizures

The United States government has started seizing the domains of people and organizations they do not like, as part of things like Operation In Our Sites. To avoid the potential for your domain name to be seized it's important to select a TLD that has no association with the United States (VeriSign, a U.S. company, operates both .com and .net for example), since the United States government claims that they can seize any domain name that has any kind of connection with the United States.

In addition, some domain registrars (such as GoDaddy) supported legislation (like SOPA) that was harmful not only to the technical infrastructure of the internet, but to human freedom itself. GoDaddy later changed their position after many of their customers left but the fact that they did support it and only changed their position due to financial concerns is reason enough to not do business with them. If you also consider the government-sponsored domain name seizures, I urge you to not use a TLD or domain registrar that has any affilitation with the United States.

A TLD such as .me should be safe since it's associated with Montenegro and operated by an organization named doMEn, but then you'll also need select a domain registrar that has no connection with the United States. There are other TLDs which meet these criteria, so it pays to do your homework in this area.

However, recent developments indicate that this may not be enough.

DNS

As you register your domain name you'll encounter another thing that you may not be familiar with: DNS. DNS, short for Domain Name System, is like a telephone book for the internet. It serves to change human-friendly names like example.me into IP addresses, which is a string of numbers (or a string of letters and numbers if we ever start using something called IPv6.) Domain names are easier for people to remember, but meaningless to the computer. DNS is used for translating URL and email addresses. The IP addresses tell the computer exactly where to go on the internet to find the connected information.

There are lots of places that will offer to handle the DNS for your domain. Your domain registrar may even offer to do so, but I recommend declining that and simply "parking" your domain name with them for now when you register it. It's much better to do it on your own, and I'll cover that in later segments. Stay tuned.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

There are lots of reasons why someone might want to run their own server, but I think the important ones boil down to freedom, privacy, and autonomy. If you're not sure why you should run your own server, Eben Moglen does an excellent job of explaining why everyone should. I recommend this recording to become familiar with the issues.

Now that you know why it's important, the next step is to get your own. The server for a single person doesn't need to be very powerful. Indeed, Eben was talking about computers that were no bigger than a plug, so any computer should work fine.

If you already have something that can function as your server, great. If not, I recommend building one from scratch. It's a great way to become familiar with computers (assuming that you're not already) and is currently the only way to ensure that you're only running free software from top to bottom.

Specifically you should select a motherboard that is supported by Coreboot. The Free Software Foundation explains why having a free BIOS is essential and I wrote about it in The Importance Of Free Firmware.

Computer motherboards come in a variety of sizes. The technical specifications don't matter as much in these cases, because practically any modern computer is powerful enough to run as your server. That doesn't mean you can ignore the technical specifications entirely, though: You should pay attention to which CPUs and RAM are compatible with whatever motherboard you select, and make sure to get compatible parts. In addition to a CPU and RAM you'll need to get a hard drive (I recommend at least two so that your server can perform automated backups), a power supply to run it, and a case to put everything in.

I recommend using free software on your computer. If you're not familiar with free software, Bradley Kuhn, former executive director at the Free Software Foundation, gave a speech that I consider to be an excellent introduction to free software. Richard Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, also regularly gives talks on this. Here's one. I recommend both of these recordings to become familiar with free software. (If you need a program to play these files, VLC can do so.)

Now that you're familiar with the basics of free software and why it's important, the Free Software Foundation maintains a list of GNU+Linux distributions that contain only free software at gnu.org/distros. I use Trisquel, and that's what this series is based on.

This covers the basics. In the later parts of this series I'll get more detailed: Getting a domain name, and things to consider before getting one, installing Trisquel, configuring it to do what you want, and more.

Copyright © 2012 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Launching with a catalog of over 20 million songs, and over a thousand movies, the iTunes Store in Brazil makes attractive bait in Apple's latest attempt to convince people to give up control over the technology in their lives.

In exchange for access to the iTunes Store people receive software that is proprietary and doesn't allow them to study or modify it, that requires people to agree to be subjugated by Apple and to never share or help their friends, that is Defective By Design, that only allows people to install Apple-approved software on their devices running iOS, reports where they go with the iPhone, and only allows them to watch the movies on a display that Apple approves of.

I hope that, as Apple's attack on human freedom moves forward, residents of these countries will recognize this as the poor deal that it is and refuse it. For their freedom's sake.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

This original design, however, has been subverted. The internet has gone through a great deal of centralization, with people in effect giving up control of what information they have access to, and leaving open the door for those who have an agenda to control the information that is available to suit their particular goals. By forcing other nodes to go through centralized services, the server administrators gain the ability to block access to information that goes against their overall ideals or agenda. It also creates the ability to manipulate the perception of events, political ideologies or what ever is needed to help shape perception and achieve the desired goal.

The advent of centralized services and the use of software developed to regulate the flow of information, has given these agenda driven individuals the tools they need to regulate access to information. To see a prime example of information control on the Internet, look no further than China (and soon, the U.S. if proposed bills become law.) The Chinese government has an elaborate software-based monitoring system that can block information based on certain words, political ideologies or what ever they deem to be not in the interest of their ultimate agenda.

Proprietary software used by the major search engines directs our searches to the information or ideas that those who control it deem the most appropriate. Although the U.S. is a 'free society', information deemed 'undesirable' can still be blocked, censored and even removed at the discretion of those who control the information. This removes the transparency necessary for free information flow. Does this sound like freedom of information for the general public or of the few controlling the access of the many?

Even more insidious is the amount of spying and lack of privacy that centralized services make possible. In the case of Gmail, it comes with an 'extra' that most of us don't think of: You are also agreeing to be spied upon. Google scans your email, performing a semantic analysis of your email to show you related ads. Online calendars, profiles like those on Facebook and in other places is also subject to similiar treatment. The privacy you think you have when doing things online is simply an illusion.

As if this weren't bad enough, these services comes other little 'extras', free of charge of course, that shred the vestiges of your privacy even further. Tracking software creates logs of your favorite videos or songs, your shopping preferences as well as the websites you like to visit, all under the guise of creating a more enjoyable web surfing or shopping experience.

Think of the data mining that becomes possible if you're the one with access to the logs of all of this. This gives more power to the 'few' to control us in ever expanding areas of our lives.

Eben Moglen gave a very good speech that covers these issues: (part 1), (part 2), (part 3).

Enter the YaCy project. YaCy (pronounced "ya see") is a free software engine that uses peer-to-peer connections to replace the current system of centralized control and surveillance with a free and decentralized model and provides everyone with their own local search portal.

What this means is that instead of going through a centralized server that acts as a gatekeeper and directs you to selected information, when you input search parameters using YaCy you go directly to the information that you requested with no censorship, and no tracking. Plus, you get to keep the logs.

The YaCy project is designed to move control of the internet back into the hands of the people that search engines such as Google have commandeered.

Like most, you are probably looking for ways to protect your civil liberties and freedoms. Now you have an alternative for Internet searches free of survillance and censorship. You can learn more about YaCy at http://yacy.net/ where the program can also be downloaded.

Let's move the internet back to the original design of peer-to-peer communication. Using a decentralized system for search isn't the only thing that's necessary to fully decentralize the Internet, but it is an important one. For others, you can set up your own status.net instance instead of using Twitter, or your Diaspora seed instead of using Facebook or Google Plus.

More work is also needed in other areas, but you can help by using decentralized services and becoming part of the movement to eliminate censorship and restore privacy, freedom, and autonomy on the Internet.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Copyright is a law which restricts the public's natural right to use, modify, and share creative works such as a written report or the original sheet music for a song. It also covers works such as poetry, movies and computer software. The work may be published or unpublished but it is placed under copyright restriction the very moment the work is authored. It should, however, be noted that copyright does not cover the ideas for a work. The work has to be tangible and fixed.

Works that are restricted by copyright cannot be copied or modified without the permission of the copyright holder and this includes reproducing the work in another medium. For example, if a poem has copyright restrictions someone is unable to make a derivative work in the form of a movie. The copyright restriction still exists and the permission of the copyright holder must be obtained. The holder of the copyright, therefore, has the ability to allow or exclude the public from reproducing and distributing their work.

Nothing forces someone to publish their work, but once they do the public should have the right use, modify, and share it and this is normally done by way of a licence. The licence covers the specific terms of how others are able to use the work.

Under copyleft, the author claims a copyright on the work and makes a statement in the form of a license that other people have the right to use, modify, and share the work so long as their modified versions are put under that same license and that anyone receiving a copy of the work - whether modified or not - must also be given these same rights. If someone does not follow the the terms set by the copyright holder it becomes copyright infringement, which is subject to the full penalties of the legal system.

Those key concepts - that modified versions must also be under the same license, and that the rights to use, modify, and share the work must be passed on to anyone that gets a copy - is what copyleft is all about.

Copyright gives power to restrict what other people can do with their own copies of things. Copyleft is about restoring those rights: It takes this opressive law, which normally restricts people and takes their rights away, and make those rights inalienable.

To learn more about copyleft visit http://copyleft.org/.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Steve Jobs was no friend of the computer user: Most people think that the products they buy should obey them, not someone else, but the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) found in most of Apple's devices and software takes the control of the product's functionality out of the hands of the owner, overriding it and bending it to the will of someone else. Everyone deserves the freedom to do what they want with the things that they buy, but Steve made it cool to give that up.

Everyone deserves to have control over their own computers. They should have the freedom to run their programs (or "Apps" in Apple's lingo) to do whatever they want, to study and learn from them, and to be able to modify and distribute them so that everyone can benefit. If you can't run them for any purpose that you want, if you can't study and modify them that they do (or don't do) whatever you want, then who is your computer really taking its orders from? Certainly not you, which is where the control needs to be. If your computer isn't controlled by you then it's controlled by someone else. Since our lives are so dependent on technology today, the question of who controls the technology is really just another way of asking who control us. Without this control you're essentially subjugated and, just like DRM, Steve made people think this was cool.

I think that will be Steve's longest lasting legacy: That he made millions of people think it was cool to give up their freedom and control over the technology in their lives in exchange for proprietary, DRM-encumbered, user-subjugating devices and software.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The Linux kernel hasn't been free software for several years now, as the FSFLA explains. They maintain a modified version of the Linux kernel with all of the binary blobs, obfuscated code and portions of code under proprietary licenses removed.

I hope that this repository will make software freedom easier for more people, either by allowing you to replace the kernel in your existing GNU+Linux distro with one that is entirely freedom-respecting, or for people already using fully-free distros to more easily get a newer kernel version if you need it.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

The problematic part seems to be:

"If you want to distribute the unchanged official binaries using the Mozilla Marks, you may do so, without receiving any further permission from Mozilla, as long as you comply with this Trademark Policy and you distribute them without charge."

The added emphasis is mine. This means I can't include it in a collection on CD where I charge $5 to cover my costs because that's not "without charge."

Mozilla even has a "fraud report" page (based on the name in the URL) where you can "report" people that charge money for software.

Calling it a "fraud report", along with what they write in the Introduction part of their trademark policy, is very telling about Mozilla's view on this. The majority of free software is available without cost, but that's not what really matters. It seems that Mozilla has confused the two meanings of the word "free" and doesn't understand that the Free Software Movement has always been about freedom, not price.

Free software doesn't mean noncommercial, although I understand that some people also confuse that term as well.

Requiring unmodified versions to be distributed noncommercially seemed to conflict with what the FSF says in their Free Software Definition. Specifically, that you should be able to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere.

Brett Smith later confirmed that requiring people to rebrand the software before distributing it commercially makes it proprietary.

I hope that Mozilla will learn to separate the two meanings of the word "free" and update their trademark policy accordingly. I would also like to see them address their other freedom-related issues, like the fact that some of their programs suggest installing proprietary software through plugins. A program that is truly freedom-respecting doesn't steer people toward proprietary software, and at least two Mozilla programs do just that.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

Sure, there's Replicant and the various distros that run on the Neo FreeRunner. Even if those are entirely made of free software, the devices they run on still need other pieces of proprietary software for full functionality. The Replicant project posted an analysis of the proprietary software needed to run all of the hardware in one device: The camera, Bluetooth, accelerometers, and WiFi just to name a few.

Even if you leave all of these out and only make phone calls, or work to develop free replacements, there's still one piece of proprietary software left: The radio's firmware. Newer versions are released from time to time, so there's no question that this is software and raises all of the same ethical issues as installing any other piece of proprietary software. Some of the updates are even mandatory. I'm not sure what would happen if people refused.

The OsmocomBB project is working to make a free replacement firmware for a couple of devices. Their work is to be applauded but I fear that even this won't be enough to get the free software community to where it needs to be because of other legal and technical problems.

One of the legal problems is that the FCC's approval is lost once other radio firmware is installed, and using a device that isn't FCC approved is very likely illegal. Even if the free software community were somehow able to partner with a cell phone manufacturer and have them use the free replacement from the start, along with FCC approval, being free means that the user has the ability to install modified versions, and this then takes us back to the beginning where the FCC's approval is then lost.

The law needs to change. It shouldn't be illegal to use your own stuff once you've installed your own software into it.

The other problem I see is the lack of standardization. Computers are very standardized so, all things being equal, you generally don't have to worry if the computer from Vendor A will be compatible with the computer from Vendor B. The cell phone industry doesn't really have this level of standardization, and I think that will hurt efforts to make a free radio firmware widely available to lots of people with lots of different cell phones from lots of different manufacturers. It's also very easy for cell phone manufacturers to discontinue models or implement other internal hardware changes at any time, which only serves to frustrate the efforts of the free software community.

Increased standardization is also necessary, and I think this can only be done with the cooperation of cell phone manufacturers.

Here's hoping that, one day, everyone will be able to use a cell phone without any proprietary software anywhere and without any legal or other troubles.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

That might seem like a strange statement to come from me, but it's true. Large companies accumulate lots of patents. They then cross-license with other companies so, in their view, they only get the benefits of patents without any of the negatives.

You can't cross-license with a patent troll, though, since they don't make anything. Your only options are to somehow prove non-infringement, invalidate the patent, or to agree to a license. All of these options will cost money.

We need more patent trolls. In fact, we need lots and lots of them. Enough to bring about a patent nuclear war. We need for things to get so bad that companies start to realize they're going to lose more than they gain from the software patent system, and it will probably take patent nuclear war for that to happen.

Not that I think this is the best option, so don't get me wrong: I would love nothing less than to see software patents disappear tomorrow but, given how things are going in the courts, it seems that it will have to get worse before it gets better. Oddly enough, having lots of patent trolls might actually be good for the free software community in the long term.

Bring on the patent trolls. Let them sue the proprietary software companies into oblivion. Let's have patent nuclear war.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

If you have all of these freedoms, then the program is free software. If not then the program is proprietary. Proprietary software is a dark alley. Only a select few can legally know the ins and outs of the program. If you can't run the program for any purpose that you want, if you can't study and modify the program so that it does (or doesn't do) whatever you want, then who is your computer really taking orders from? Certainly not you.

In addition, the license attached to proprietary software often says that you're forbidden to share copies with anyone else. If you can't legally share copies with your friends, what what does that say if you're forced to choose between obeying the license of the software or being a good friend and making a copy?

The developer would have you believe that the restriction to never share with anyone anywhere ever needs to be in place so that they can get paid, but there are ways for the developer of a free program to be paid and still give their users freedom. Since free software is about freedom and not price, this means that the developer of the program can charge as much as they like for the software as long as the user of the program receives those four essential freedoms. Anyone that you give a copy of the program to could also make a donation to the developer if they like the program and find it useful. The developer can also sell support contracts, and the users of the program can hire the developer to implement specific features in the program or make other changes. These are just a few ideas.

Free software does create a different economy. The difference is that the software remains under control of the users. With proprietary software, the users are dependent on the developer for bug fixes and other enhancements, who may (or may not) do what their users ask. The developer may also add anti-features that spy on the user or report information back to the developer. The developer also has the ability to change their policies at any time. As a result, the developer has control over the users and their computers. This is kind of control is unjust. The free software community believes that everyone needs these freedoms in order to have power and control over their computing.

The only way out of this is not to use proprietary software, and that's actually pretty easy. In the 1980's a man named Richard Stallman set out to create a free operating system for people to use and named it GNU, which is short for "GNU's Not UNIX" and he started the GNU Project to work on it. With this, Richard launched the free software movement.

While working on the GNU operating system, there came a time where almost everything was finished, except for one component: the kernel. A kernel is sort of the central component of an operating system. The GNU Project began working on their own kernel, which they named the HURD. While working on it, a man named Linus Torvalds came along and wrote a kernel of his own. He named that kernel "Linux." Originally, the kernel that Linus wrote was not free software but he later changed the license so that it was.

Developing an entire operating system from scratch is a huge task so Richard was always looking for shortcuts to take, trying to find some existing free software program that could be used so that they could get to a complete free system sooner. Once the kernel that Linus wrote was free software, Richard decided to take that kernel and fit it into that last gap in the GNU system. The resulting combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU+Linux operating system, although many (incorrectly) simply refer to it as "Linux."

In that moment it was possible to run a computer in freedom, but that only lasted for a few years. Linus Torvalds later decided to allow proprietary software into his kernel. In addition, people would package up GNU and Linux into a "distribution" that people could easily download and install on their computers. That's good, because it makes free software more accessible to the world, but the developers of these GNU+Linux distributions decided that they could become more popular if they also added proprietary software into the mix. While that may be true, it also meant losing sight of the original goal. The goal of the GNU operating system was to make something that people could use in complete freedom, not 95% freedom or even 99.9% freedom. The world already had proprietary operating systems that people could use if they wanted to so creating another one wouldn't be improving the situation, and doing so certainly wouldn't help people escape the control that proprietary software gives the developer.

There were also people that didn't believe in the message about free software and how proprietary software gives the developer unjust power over their users. They started an offshoot called "open source" that focuses on the practical benefits of free software with questions like "What can I do with it?" or "How powerful or reliable is it?" etc. They don't view proprietary software as something unethical, only less ideal since they can't study the ins and outs of the software on their own and try to make it technically better. As a result, the open source movement focuses on something different than the free software movement.

Fortunately, there are some who still believe in the original message and have stepped up: There are people working on a project called Linux-libre, to liberate the Linux kernel. They have a modified version of the kernel with all of that proprietary software stripped out. In addition, other people decided to create their own GNU+Linux distributions that don't contain any proprietary software at all. The GNU Project maintains a list of these completely free GNU+Linux distributions on their website. This makes it very easy to get started using free software. Today, there are thousands of free software programs available which let millions of people the world over have control over their computing.

If you want to learn more about free software, Richard Stallman has an extensive travel schedule. If you miss him, locals will often record his speeches. You can also visit your local GNU+Linux User Group. The free software community is very welcoming to computer users looking to jump ship from proprietary software. You can also attend a free software conference. Every year, the Free Software Foundation holds an annual meeting called LibrePlanet in Boston, Massachusetts. There are also other free software conferences around the world.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

• the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
• the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
• the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
• the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works

Digital technology has the potential to provide people with all of these freedoms and liberate our culture. It drastically lowers the barrier for people to create, modify, publish and distribute creative works. It is a technological innovation that benefits so many of the people of the world. It could also turn out that digital technology is a disaster for our culture because of the existence of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM.)

Big Media would prefer you to think of DRM as Digital "Rights" Management, but the term Digital Restrictions Management is more accurate. Most people think that the products they buy should obey them, not someone else. DRM takes the control of the product's functionality out of the hands of the owner, overriding it and bending it to the will of someone else.

For them, the free flow of information and creative works represent a direct assault on their desire to both control society and profit from the artificial scarcity of creative works. So, companies have turned down a path to restrict society through both legal and technological means.

On the legal side, Big Media is spending millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions in order to induce politicians to pass laws that forbid anyone to break the digital handcuffs of DRM and to also increase the lengths of copyright. Indeed, the first federal copyright law gave exclusive control of works for only 14 years. Yet, this has been distorted to the extent that copyright law now allows for exclusive control for the life of the author plus 70 additional years. And this has been done without showing how this huge increase in monopoly control benefits society in any way whatsoever.

On the technology side, Digital Restrictions Management undoes many benefits of digitization. Sadly, this technology has been embraced by many of the largest companies in the world including Apple, Microsoft, Disney, Sony, IBM and Intel. DRM is designed to do one thing: prevent people from exercising their freedom, and doing anything that Big Media doesn't approve of.

The use of DRM is part of a campaign by Big Media to raise their own profits by treating people as de facto criminals. It prevents you from using your rightfully acquired things in a way that is consistent with a person's private property rights. It prevents you from having the freedoms that everyone deserves. Indeed, people can use a physical VHS in ways that are prevented with DRM. This is not progress. Rather, it is an attack on society and on our rights.

This is why we must protest all forms of DRM. On May 4, I hope you will do just that by taking action in the Day Against DRM.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.

We have to ask these questions because of events that have happened around the world. Iran protestors made use of Facebook to organize their demonstrations. Egyptian students also used social media outlets to assemble and orchestrate civil unrest about their government. At any time, all of these protests could have been curtailed or even completely eliminated if any of the social media's centralized services were cut off. In fact, the governments of each of these countries were pressuring these outlets to shutdown services to their countries. Fortunately, they didn't. But, with high financial interests at stake for players like Facebook, social media outlets could have easily relented to these demands.

However, do not think that it will take civil unrest for these outlets to also spy and monitor your data. They are already doing it. The centralized nature of the system allows vast repositories of data to be maintained about all of your interactions on these sites. In fact, the free email accounts that most of you are using are being scanned for this very purpose. Right now they can send you targeted ads. Imagine what else might be possible, and how easy it would be to obtain full data maps of people's lives. There is no greater threat to your civil liberties, privacy and autonomy on the internet.

So, how can we make sure a kill switch cannot be flipped to disconnect individuals protesting for their rights? Equally important, how do you regain control over your data and start enjoying your privacy and autonomy once again? The short answer is that we need to decentralize the internet. Decentralized services are not tied down to one location or to private ownership. The manner in which they are set up also provides a means to communicate with others without the loss of your data which means you can keep your privacy.

More importantly, you don't have to wait for this to happen. GNU Social is a free software program that operates in a decentralized way, allowing you to interact with family, friends, or whomever you wish. Since this allows you local control over your interactions with others, all your data remains in your home and under your protection. This also means that you and others who are using the software do not have to worry about a kill switch being flipped to disconnect anyone. You also keep the logs of everything.

In short, if you want to have more control over how you interact on the web, and regain your freedom, privacy and autonomy from outside interference, you need to start moving towards using programs like GNU Social.

Copyright © 2011 Jason Self. Unless otherwise noted material on this site is licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. A copy of the license is included at gpl-3.0.shtml. Please copy and share.