I donate to Ladybird and Servo, and I hope they succeed. We need serious competition and a check on Mozilla (not to mention Chrome and Safari).

That said, I’m sad that neither Ladybird or Servo are licensed under strong copyleft licenses. We need user-oriented browsers now more than ever, and strong copyleft enables that. I worry that, even if these engines are successful, they will be co-opted by proprietary browsers and eventually superseded by them.

This happened before - both Chrome and Safari ultimately derive from KHTML, Konqueror’s browser engine. If KHTML had been licnesed under the GPL instead of the LGPL, Chrome and Safari (and not just their engines) may have been free software today. Or, at the very least, it would have been much more difficult for Apple and Google to get started.

That said, I wish Ladybird the best. There donation = no influence policy is excellent, and I really, really hope they can stick to it in the long term.

I made a comment about this on another thread, see this comment.

You can do this using JMP Chat, which bridges phone numbers to XMPP. Unfortunately, it’s USA and Canada only, for now.

Alternatively, you can use a “SIP Trunk Provider”. For instance, in the UK, Andrews and Arnold offers this service. You can then connect any compatible SIP client (e.g. Gnome Calls).

I’d prefer having both analogue and digital options for things, but I’m fine with requiring technology, as long as open standards are used throughout. That is the only way to ensure equal and non-discriminatory access.

You should never have to use any particular piece of software, or be forced to sign a terms of service, to go about your daily life. Requiring an app for everything only entrenches iOS and Android, and most apps really don’t cater well for people with disabilities or other requirements.

Meanwhile, open standards allow a variety of software to be built that can cater for everyone’s needs.

This affects me a lot day to day. I have a phone, but it runs postmarketOS, not iOS or Android. It really shows me the importance of open standards. I feel that every business should be required to support open standards for each of the services they offer.

For me, buying train tickets used to be ok, but is getting harder now. Some train operators are really pushing you to use their app now, and getting rid of the option to download a PDF. It really frustrates me: it’s not like it costs them more to offer PDF download - if anything, it’s much cheaper to offer that functionality than to build and maintain an app for iOS and Android.

Back when I had an Android phone, I used Monzo, and it was so easy to send money to friends, set up standing orders etc. I wish they offered a proper web interface. Now, I use Natwest’s online banking, and it’s a real pain - I use the card reader to authenticate, then the website logs me out seemingly every 2 mins of inactivity. Some features, like pre-notifying that you’ll be travelling abroad, are only available on the app. I only see this trend continuing.

The concert tickets example in the article is insane to me. I can’t think of a use case that is better suited for PDFs, and that’s what we’ve been doing for the last 10+ years without any issues. It really is user hostile and excludes people on the edges of society who don’t fit, for whatever reason, with what the 80-90% do.

I think (and hope!) it would likely only get applied to the biggest services, and would be enforced by removal from the app stores.

Then, the logical next step for the government when this doesn’t work would be to allow this requirement at the OS level.

To answer seriously: unfortunately, the UK is one step ahead with the Online Safety Act. They’ve already given Ofcom the power to enforce client-side scanning. Ofcom themselves are deciding whether they want to use this power yet and this should happen sometime next year.

Just as a warning, this is licensed under the AGPL, with a CLA that requires copyright assignment. So, they could pull the rug at any time:

2.3 Outbound License. Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses.