Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > Hi Arne, > > Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> writes: > >> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes: >> >>> Guix, >>> >>> This is not about Schrödinger's proprietary-until-proven-innocent >>> binary. The Updater includes at least two cores explicitly marked as >>> non-free in Debian: >>> >>> libretro-genesisplusgx >>> libretro-snes9x >> >> In non-free because they are non-commercial, not because they >> treacherous to users. > > Your words "In non-free because they are non-commercial" are unclear. > I guess you meant to say "They are in non-free because they prohibit > commercial use". Is that right?
Yes. More exactly: They are in non-free, because they prohibit commercial use, not because they are treacherous to users. Most proprietary programs are treacherous because they give their creators power over their users. This is not the case for these cores. >> This is a distinction the FSF used to make until 2010 but dropped since then: >> https://web.archive.org/web/20100126044451/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#semi-freeSoftware > > What distinction do you think was dropped by the FSF since 2010? The distinction that was dropped is that non-commercial software which provides the source and allows non-commercial use, changing and sharing is less problematic that closed-source software. The distinction to call that software semi-free. > If you're suggesting that the Free Software Definition was changed in > 2010 to allow programs that prohibit commercial use, you are certainly > mistaken. I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying that before 2010 it had a friendlier stance towards this non-commercial software. I don’t know why that was changed, but I would assume that people abused non-commercial licensing to trick people into using software for which they would have to pay to use commercially. But this is not the case here: The non-commercial cores do not offer an option to pay for commercial rights. They are non-commercial because this used to be the only way how you could release them without being sued by Nintento, Sega, Sony & co. > Moreover, the GNU FSDG states: > > A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any > nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. Now the question is whether allowing them to obtain such information is encouragement or steering towards. I agree that if there are no cores packaged, so users are forced to use the online list to run retroarch at all is steering. However when this is not the easiest way to use retroarch, it is no longer steering them towards that. And if there are cores available, retroarch presents the cores first, along with license information (or at least it should display license information, since there’s already a license-line shown). > where "information for practical use" is defined as: > > “Information for practical use” includes software, documentation, > fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It > does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than > functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment. > > <https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html> I disagree with this, because I consider aestetics and and statements of opinion or judgement as functional, too. They function on the mind instead of computers, but they do function. This is why what I write is copyleft licensed where I have that option. But that’s another discussion. For what I’m saying in practice, see my other longer email. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
