Nicolò Balzarotti writes: >> 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. >> > This is, by (some) definition, non free. Yes. >> 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. >> > >> In the case of snes9x no one is able to monetize the software, including >> the creators, because many people have a stake in the non-commercial >> clause, but the software is freely modifiable and you can share it >> non-commercially. >> >> 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. >> >> We’re not restricting software which displays non-free online comics >> either. >> > Comics aren't software. Free as in Freedom can apply only to software, AFAIK It can apply to non-software, see for example the Wikipedia and Stackoverflow. I experience that regularly since I’m writing a GPL-licensed roleplaying book: it uses graphics from Battle For Wesnoth, under GPL, and getting cc by-sa GPL-compatible was a major pain point for many years -> https://www.draketo.de/english/free-software/by-sa-gpl >> Installing the fastest and most compatible free software cores by >> default (pre-installed) would minimize the effect of cores bound to >> non-commercial use being available online without restricting the users >> in using RetroArch — and it would make retroarch more convenient to use. > > If I understand correctly (i.e. shipping free cores with our retroarch > distribution, while still allowing non-free software download from the > software), I half-way agree with you. However, IMO, we should not encourage > the use of non free software, at all. Those non-free cores available in one > click, and a user might not even know that 1. s/he is downloading some kind > of software and 2. that this software is non-free (no license details). Looking at the interface *if you have some cores installed* it first presents those cores and only afterwards says "download core". And for available cores there’s actually a license entry (but that currently says N/A — which looks like a bug to me). So while there is no license in the listing, you are presented with the license before running a core. > I was upset in discovering that I downloaded a non-free core, and I > realized just because of the ".so.zip" name. If upstream they change > the name to "core.zip", future users might not even understand what > they are doing. The .so file ending is already something that takes domain knowledge to recognize. But not from the domain of the program: The domain of the program are emulators and roms. For these "this uses a core for the specified hardware" is pretty clear. > Finally, in a purely reproducible interest, having random software > downloaded is just bad. I agree in principle but not in practice, because we also ship npm, pip, gem, package.el, cargo, maven, … Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken