From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arne Babenhauserheide Subject: bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 17:05:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87tv6mzn06.fsf@web.de> References: <87d0df7wpv.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhggt186.fsf@gnu.org> <87wobj953k.fsf@nckx> <87h82m908a.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38218) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iainS-0007Kw-Rf for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:07:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iainO-0004Zq-H9 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:07:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55725) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iainO-0004YH-2n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:07:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iainN-0004OJ-Ty for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:07:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-reply-to: <87h82m908a.fsf@nckx> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: 38360@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix write= s: > They patch[0] it to hide the Updater by default but it's trivial to > re=C3=ABnable (tested): > > $ echo 'menu_show_core_updater =3D "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=E2=80=99m using the more actionabe mission of the Hurd: =E2=80=9COur 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.=E2= =80=9C 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=E2=80=99ll therefore simplify the mission to: =E2=80=9COur mission is to give users as much control over their computing environment as possible.=E2=80=9C 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 =2D- Unpolitisch sein hei=C3=9Ft politisch sein ohne es zu merken --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE801qEjXQSQPNItXAE++NRSQDw+sFAl3hQcwACgkQE++NRSQD w+tnfQ//aXarehFIyf4jxB/0SaVAbxWAzjCRjOvXrI2aNjfsqYbP7Kt79GRYCKnW r42Z852Q3c11uLA9hXlGEzS7LRECEjs7YRIeRcwEfudnug3TUyJmIa33TUOXA7sC jM+DKyZJDHkmlgNlC6Zwe38KzT5J5tAhhnj/8wiQMtvri7i9NBETrFAxuD3IgB2o aRDAUP114y6/7a6NvsyerWSxrh2fCHe64aqX408No9vOrS6aDTcgBuXlUR6eNLrQ 4dwrLjLltppz9LITo9oYZkF/zbiaeWOS/W7yQT9ya5Iey5BL4ftn/zmiPvrsMLxi y4K8bZSRI9ogC37OVB5yl4or2fl3jYW6AYQ8GT/G1O++H7BlmcozAgut9d1rxID3 nDZVg0gvO50fG6mXU7ieWFX/LrzSjzbf62HJ7dMCtbwWD8GEyjhPJ/kusVwaeOud qwZMbJWQKHFWqKwoQsJ/v949to9aItRpTps4cspBdW/nbn79pXAPwVDjKiLGUFBD lW8nJ2jOVrkHg02qb0CM1U7blYCisGkGI4Di+BV4lbcNO3SUJgmA6Lvs3UUZ/YaW MI3Ek3tcIJRt4LJkO1QrbSmaChdsEddZuV6UFbs1b+MLKJAQ5l6Q27WIzgKwAcEF fqPeoCc0ji0AgoBnCh25jTPuOS6/Fh4BmYKD5T1C/8y8g5OSgo2IswQBAQgAHRYh BN0ovebZh1yrzkqLHdzPDbMLwQVIBQJd4UHMAAoJENzPDbMLwQVIoVkD/iUXR+Kn SX4YUHf63k+kdAOXFKO4xCvLFfRwFa7JXvpkQc7LlwW2dpXc4gXTeR0vuHkguf0m sAT4wZM21Pt0/zV8N4GlziCEIj9La9gMLQp4ay+IYwFph3J3ZareqVpMC6Gn/9rQ m6Q0ZfuL+GCOfR0n6kAx57Pe9Lnf+VlCQ7yI =SiZv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--