[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:24:49 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Arne,
Arne Babenhauserheide <address@hidden> writes:
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix <address@hidden> 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?
> 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?
If you're suggesting that the Free Software Definition was changed in
2010 to allow programs that prohibit commercial use, you are certainly
mistaken.
The current Free Software Definition states:
“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free program must
be available for commercial use, commercial development, and
commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is
no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may
have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got
your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the
software, even to sell copies.
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
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.
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>
>> Disabling the Updater seems like an open & shut case to me.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Mark
- 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, 2019/11/27
- bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2019/11/28
- bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG,
Mark H Weaver <=
- 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
- bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2019/11/29
- bug#38360: [PATCH] gnu: retroarch: Disable Online Updater [FSDG fix]., Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, 2019/11/29