From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:24:49 -0500 Message-ID: <87wobi3s9f.fsf@netris.org> References: <87d0df7wpv.fsf@gnu.org> <877e3lkpv9.fsf@web.de> <874kyoamwd.fsf@nckx> <87d0dc2u2z.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51913) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iauLX-0006uL-RI for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:27:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iauLW-0003Ml-FH for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:27:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55984) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iauLW-0003Mg-C1 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:27:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iauLW-0008Js-9N for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:27:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87d0dc2u2z.fsf@web.de> (Arne Babenhauserheide's message of "Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:06:44 +0100") 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: Arne Babenhauserheide Cc: 38360@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Arne, Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix wri= tes: > >> Guix, >> >> This is not about Schr=C3=B6dinger'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 t= hen: > 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: =E2=80=9CFree software=E2=80=9D does not mean =E2=80=9Cnoncommercial=E2= =80=9D. 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. 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: =E2=80=9CInformation for practical use=E2=80=9D includes software, docume= ntation, 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. >> Disabling the Updater seems like an open & shut case to me. Agreed. Thanks, Mark