I just checked it out. That licensing documentation is a mess. They say that it's released under the AGPL, but not all of it? So what they are saying is that the whole product is not actually under the AGPL. I wonder if their "freeware" part can actually be removed without major loss of functionality. Because if that's possible, then you could simply rebundle that one.
But I suspect it exists exactly to "taint" the open source nature of the product.
Note that they said "not intended" and not "not allowed". you are perfectly within your right to use the program under the GPL without licensing it otherwise.
But the company would prefer if you paid for a license (and support). If you weren't allowed the use you do, they would have said as much, but they didn't.
This is a common business practice with open source software and I don't particularly think it s "wrong", but the fact that they are apparently trying to use confusion to make it look like you have to buy a license for commercial use is very icky in my opinion (but is unfortunately also very common).
No, DNSSEC simply moves the trust problem around a bit, but there's no fundamentally different answer to the question of "who do I trust to verify who someone is on the internet".
The CA system is terrible, but I'm not aware of any system thats a.) technically "better" by some relevant measure and b.) still sufficiently convenient (a technically perfect system that no one can use correctly is still pointless).
There's several steps to make the CA system less terrible with things like certificate transparency logs, but those really only help to find out if a CA was abused, not really to avoid it. It's an improvement, but it's of the "we can kick out untrustworthy/incompetent CAs after they abused their power/messed up their security" kind and not of the "this prevents abuses of CA power" kind.
Es gibt einen guten Grund warum viele Near-Future SciFi stories sowas wie "Resourcenknappheit führte zu Kriegen und letztlich zusammenbruch der Gesellschaft" im Vorspann haben.
Es ist (vor allem wenn man "live" und nahe dabei ist) nicht immer erkennbar, aber viele Kriege laufen auf Resourcen-Beschaffung hinaus und wenn die Resourcen (wie z.B. auch Nahrung, sauberes Wasser und hochwassersichere Wohngebiete) knapper werden, werden auch diese Konflikte mehr.
There's plenty of reasons why you would not want to have a Jellyfin server be publicly available (even behind authentication). It's simply not a well-secured system at this point (and may not get there for a long time, because it's not a focus).
I strongly suggest keeping it accessed via VPN.
But note that VPN access is not necessarily any slower than "publicly" serving the HTTPs directly, at least not by much.
If you don't already use Wireguard as the protocol, then maybe consider running a wireguard VPN instead, that tends to be quicker than classic OpenVPN.
And last but not least: a major restricting factor in performance of media servers from afar is the upload speed of your ISP connection, which is very often much lower than your download (100Mbit/10Mbit are common here, for example, so only 10% of the speed up than down).
Please don't give them ideas, there's enough populist politicians who would immediately follow up on that idea with disastrous results.
You are right that there's a distressing amount of "Russia-affection" in Austria, especially on the right side of the political spectrum and in some areas of the industry.
Some of that has historical roots, because due to the neutrality Austria has long been the place where the two sides of the cold war have met and had a neutral ground. While Austria has been (and is) definitely "West" aligned (whatever that vague term means), this means that there has been and is more contact to Russia than pure geography would suggest. Note that I'm not trying to "excuse" it, but just describe some of the reasons.
You have a very poor understanding of what science is. Of course it does care, because those two things are different, and the purpose of science is to collect all information there is, discern everything, catalogue all differences of all things.
If all there is a lifeless ball in space, what would science "care"? There would be no one to do science and "science" as a concept can't care.
But the fact you did so isn’t - unless you suffer from a mental illness, you were bound to choose something. That’s simply how your brain evolved.
And now we're slowly getting to the crux of the matter: just as our brain evolved to produce morality of some kind, it also evolved to make up stories (grand and small) to try to explain the world.
Some of those "stories" eventually formed into what we now call the scientific method (i.e. try to make sure your stories are verifyable and falsifiable and produce "facts".
Some of those stories were used as a social tool to develop some shared morality, to agree on which acts were good and which ones aren't.
And some of the latter category turned into religion.
Because “sanity” is a measure of how one’s brain behaves as compared to the collective of humankind - how “average” your brain is. Because morality is baked into humanity, it’s sane to make a choice regarding, say, murder being wrong or not. Believing in flying unicorn robots that sing heavy metal, on the other hand, isn’t.
Can you seriously look at human history and say with a straight face that religion (and made up stories) aren't just as "baked into" the human brain as morality is?
It's one thing to argue that a neutral, as-objective-as-possible brain should disregard religion (and I pretty much agree with that), but it's an entirely different thing to argue that "humans believing in religion is abnormal" in a historic scale ... that's just being blind to the facts.
And their belief in a benevolent sky daddy also can’t be falsified or proven.
Fallacy: Non Sequitur. Give me a description of a god, any god, and I’ll disprove them. No god can be described and exist, and a god which can’t be described might as well not exist.
Last Thursdayism or the five-minute hypothesis is one great example. They don't usually mention a god in the common phrasing, but it's easy to rephrase it to include one: "There is a god that created the universe exactly 5 minutes ago with all the signs and properties that make it look like it's a lot longer. That god created you and all your memories as well as all the uncountable cosmic radiation rays that have yet to hit earth and everything else as well. After that creation that god stopped interacting with the universe.". Go ahead and disprove it.
I'm an agnostic atheist myself, but I really don't understand the obsession of some people with "disproving god".
If there was any kind of real scientific proof of the non-existence of god, don't you think that several Nobel prices would have been given out for that by now?
Most current religions have developed to a state where the existence of their god is basically un-falsifiable, because if you can ever prove any specific thing about them wrong, then they can always just use the "gods ways are inscrutable" escape hatch.
That makes any god effectively un-falsifiable. And any theory that can't be falsified is irrelevant to the scientific method.
Not all "gods" thought history were all powerful, some were very limited in their powers. not all "gods" were abrahameic.
But let's pretend that a good has to be all-powerful.
Then let's posit that there is a god that has created all life on earth by making sure that he preconditions for life on earth were just right and then leaned back and just wachted.
That is powerful enough, right? and while I don't believe that this (or any other) god exists, there is no logical inconsistency here.
I leave it up to everyone to interpret it, but my personal interpretation is that there probably ain't no thing such as gods, but there also ain't no such things as "justice", "mercy", "duty", "good", or "evil".
Yet I choose to believe that some acts are better than other.
I believe that helping someone achieve their goals is usually better than hurting them.
Why? Is there a "scientific fact" that makes it true? No, there isn't. Science doesn't care if earth is full of life or if it's a glassed sphere in an infinite void. Both "work" just fine for science.
So my "choice" to prefer one of those is arbitrary (scientifically speaking).
Now why is my believe in that "big lie" any more sane than other peoples believe in the "small lies"?
My belief can't be scientifically falsified (or proven).
And their belief in a benevolent sky daddy also can't be falsified or proven.