bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG

[Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3052 bytes --]


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

> They patch[0] it to hide the Updater by default but it's trivial to
> reënable (tested):
>
>  $ echo 'menu_show_core_updater = "false"' >> \
>      ~/.config/retroarch/retroarch.cfg
>
> This does not appease me.  I'm implementing more incisive measures.
>
> Thoughts?  Am I an anti-choice extremist?

I do not like to put people into boxes. I can judge actions, not people.


Implementing more extreme measures than changing the default uses
practical power against users. It limits user freedom.

As committer to Guix you are in a position of power over users. You can
use that position to liberate them from shackles, or you can use it to
limit their freedom.


When I look into ethical decisions, I need a basic goal. The mission of
GNU is "to promote computer user freedom". This is too vague to use on
its own to check an action, therefore I’m using the more actionabe
mission of the Hurd:

“Our mission is to create a general-purpose kernel suitable for the GNU
 operating system, which is viable for everyday use, and gives users and
 programs as much control over their computing environment as possible.“

Giving programs as much control over their environment is not relevant
to the discussion (it is only relevant for a kernel with the assumption
that the program acts on behalf of the user). For this ethical check
I’ll therefore simplify the mission to:

“Our mission is to give users as much control over their computing
 environment as possible.“


Does it give users as much control over their computing environment as
possible if you make it harder for them to re-enable the updater?

By making it harder, you limit the number of people who can take the
decision to re-activate the updater, therefore fewer people have the
practical freedom to do so, though they can still do so in theory.

But using a license like the GPL is all about practical Freedom. If we
were only talking about theoretical freedom, then any binary blob
(without DRM) would give as much freedom as an AGPL program. Game
modders have been demonstrating that for decades. Therefore theoretical
freedom does not suffice: The goal must be practical freedom. The
freedom to hack as easily as possible. Giving as many people as possible
the freedom to change the operation of as many parts of the system as
possible.

Implementing measures to limit user freedom beyond choosing defaults
that ensure that they do not accidentally fall into a trap they do not
see goes against that. It limits the practical freedom of users.

As committer to Guix you have practical power over every Guix user.
When you use that power, it is your responsibility to further their
freedom, not to create new chains.


That would be consistent with the mission to give users as much control
over their computing environment as possible.


Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1076 bytes --]