Notices by Adonay Felipe Nogueira (adfeno@ecodigital.social), page 143

@NeoTheThird Similar observation was made by the speaker of that talk.

@NeoTheThird Perhaps we think alike them, as I also know it's not a simple matter of licensing, the build system and maintainability is broken.

@NeoTheThird Will watch the talk indeed, i was at work. There is a group of people responsible for reviewing the freedom status of electronics sold to the general market in its default software state, see https://fsf.org/ryf/ . The #FreeSoftware movement is aware that more respecting hardware is needed.

@neoncipher @strypey #Prosody doesn't need to support XEP-0184, only clients do, see https://prosody.im/doc/xeplist .

@deejoe @adfeno @strypey See https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Talk:Riot.im , https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Talk:Chromium and also the description and goal of #LibreJS: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ .

@strypey I like that it brought #XMPP as good example. I don't know why some people favor nonstandard federated real-time communications (as far as I know include: #Matrix with it's flagship currently-assumed-non-free #Riot / #RiotApp; #Telegram; #Actor; #Zulip / #ZulipChat; and #Slack) because these are often "implement everything or nothing". A standards document can't fit all cases, thus I like #XMPP doc. setup of defining a foundation responsible for approving extensions.

@strypey Offline text messaging works if one interacts through servers and clients that support the most recent compliance suites (2018: XEP-0387, https://jmp.chat/suggested_servers.html ), and optionally XEP-0077 In-Band Registration ( https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0077.html ) to ease users registration without requiring a web browser. To see a short list with such providers, see https://jmp.chat/suggested_servers.html (last paragraph links to more details. Also comment or share this: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/XMPP

@cal @ElfLord In any case, once your "request to follow" me is accepted (by me), then you will see future publications.

@cal @ElfLord As far as I can tell, at least for "privacy"-enabled/private" profiles in a #Mastodon instance, a third-party can only see publications already made visible to the person at some point before the visit. @cwebber can perhaps correct me on this but I think this is also part of the #ActivityPub #W3C #standard, which #Mastodon also follows.

@tagomago @emacsen As far as I have talked with #GNU #IceCat and other reviewers in #fsf IRC channel on chat.freenode.net, it is a software freedom issue because of the #trademark policy. These are good to have, even #GNU has one for their logo, but #Mozilla's is problematic because it forbids one of the freedoms that the software ought to have according to the #FreeSoftware Definition.