[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG
From: |
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice |
Subject: |
bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 01:02:26 +0100 |
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
Disabling the Updater seems like an open & shut case to me.
This is a shame, because I think these non-commercial clauses are
silly and legally void. Core authors can't place arbitrary
restrictions on derivative works of a GPL3 project.
Unfortunately, that obvious fact is for a court to point out, and
until then we must act as if it makes any sense.
Arne, to address your last point first:
Arne Babenhauserheide 写道:
It is also not advertised (I just tried) but simply one in a
long list
of possible cores. A very long list. And you have to actively do
the
online-lookup.
For the purpose of this (FSDG) discussion, that's exactly what
‘advertised’ means.
I install Retroarch with Guix. When I run Retroarch, it prods me
to (literally) ‘use the Updater if available’. When I do that, I
can select from many cores, at least two of them non-free.
There is no way for me to know this important fact; I have to type
the name of the core into a search engine and dig, possibly deep
(not everyone knows the awesome power of a Debian copyright file
:-).
You're not required to agree with any of the above, but Guix must.
We’re not restricting software which displays non-free online
comics
either.
Indeed, that would be against our stated goal of user freedom.
Comics aren't software so don't count, but take Linux-Libre: the
fact that it refuses to load non-free firmware supplied by the
user is a *bug*, and even upstream acknowleges this. IceCat is
another obvious example.
Same with Retroarch: if the user has a non-free core Guix's
Retroarch must, IMPO, run it.
The difference is that at no point do Linux-Libre or IceCat ask me
to ‘visit our cool firmware shoppe!’. Indeed, the FF ‘Get New
Add-ons’ button that directly advertises non-free software is
disabled for that reason.
Aren’t we overblocking here? This is not a case of a program
restricted
to push someone into proprietary software, but a case of a
program
restricted to not-for-profit for everybody.
It's just as bad for the same reason. Like proprietary licences,
this one restricts redistribution *and* use of the software:
“Permission to use, copy, modify and/or distribute Snes9x in
both binary
and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted
without
fee […] Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only.”
That violates a fundamental software freedom (#0: the freedom to
run the software as you wish, for any purpose).
Contrast this with the GPL, which places zero restrictions on use
— I don't even have to share the software or my improvements with
anyone!
It is a similar case as allowing to ship GPLv3 software in a ROM
without
the option to modify it, as long as no one is able to modify it
on that
medium, including the propagator.
I don't see any similarities. With any GPL3 software, I am always
allowed to copy the software and do with it what I want, no matter
the underlying storage at some point in time.
Kind regards,
T (not a lawyer but talks to them at parties when no one else
will) G-R
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Nicolò Balzarotti, 2019/11/25
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Ludovic Courtès, 2019/11/26
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Nicolò Balzarotti, 2019/11/26
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Jesse Gibbons, 2019/11/26
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2019/11/27
- bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <=
- bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2019/11/28
- bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG, Mark H Weaver, 2019/11/29
- bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2019/11/30
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Nicolò Balzarotti, 2019/11/27
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2019/11/28
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/11/30
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Ludovic Courtès, 2019/11/28
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/11/28
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/11/29
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/11/29