bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3429 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]