From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 29 23:26:06 2019 Received: (at 38360) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Nov 2019 04:26:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33724 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iauKc-0008GX-Go for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:06 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:35318) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iauKa-0008GG-Ni for 38360@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:05 -0500 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iauKY-0004M0-6i; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:02 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: Arne Babenhauserheide Subject: Re: bug#38360: Retroarch does violate FSDG References: <87d0df7wpv.fsf@gnu.org> <877e3lkpv9.fsf@web.de> <874kyoamwd.fsf@nckx> <87d0dc2u2z.fsf@web.de> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:24:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d0dc2u2z.fsf@web.de> (Arne Babenhauserheide's message of "Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:06:44 +0100") Message-ID: <87wobi3s9f.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 38360 Cc: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice , 38360@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) 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