Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:
> They patch[0] it to hide the Updater by default but it's trivial to > reënable (tested): > > $ echo 'menu_show_core_updater = "false"' >> \ > ~/.config/retroarch/retroarch.cfg > > This does not appease me. I'm implementing more incisive measures. > > Thoughts? Am I an anti-choice extremist? I do not like to put people into boxes. I can judge actions, not people. Implementing more extreme measures than changing the default uses practical power against users. It limits user freedom. As committer to Guix you are in a position of power over users. You can use that position to liberate them from shackles, or you can use it to limit their freedom. When I look into ethical decisions, I need a basic goal. The mission of GNU is "to promote computer user freedom". This is too vague to use on its own to check an action, therefore I’m using the more actionabe mission of the Hurd: “Our mission is to create a general-purpose kernel suitable for the GNU operating system, which is viable for everyday use, and gives users and programs as much control over their computing environment as possible.“ Giving programs as much control over their environment is not relevant to the discussion (it is only relevant for a kernel with the assumption that the program acts on behalf of the user). For this ethical check I’ll therefore simplify the mission to: “Our mission is to give users as much control over their computing environment as possible.“ Does it give users as much control over their computing environment as possible if you make it harder for them to re-enable the updater? By making it harder, you limit the number of people who can take the decision to re-activate the updater, therefore fewer people have the practical freedom to do so, though they can still do so in theory. But using a license like the GPL is all about practical Freedom. If we were only talking about theoretical freedom, then any binary blob (without DRM) would give as much freedom as an AGPL program. Game modders have been demonstrating that for decades. Therefore theoretical freedom does not suffice: The goal must be practical freedom. The freedom to hack as easily as possible. Giving as many people as possible the freedom to change the operation of as many parts of the system as possible. Implementing measures to limit user freedom beyond choosing defaults that ensure that they do not accidentally fall into a trap they do not see goes against that. It limits the practical freedom of users. As committer to Guix you have practical power over every Guix user. When you use that power, it is your responsibility to further their freedom, not to create new chains. That would be consistent with the mission to give users as much control over their computing environment as possible. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
