Guix, This is not about Schrödinger's proprietary-until-proven-innocent binary. The Updater includes at least two cores explicitly marked as non-free in Debian: libretro-genesisplusgx libretro-snes9x Disabling the Updater seems like an open & shut case to me. This is a shame, because I think these non-commercial clauses are silly and legally void. Core authors can't place arbitrary restrictions on derivative works of a GPL3 project. Unfortunately, that obvious fact is for a court to point out, and until then we must act as if it makes any sense. Arne, to address your last point first: Arne Babenhauserheide 写道: > 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. For the purpose of this (FSDG) discussion, that's exactly what ‘advertised’ means. I install Retroarch with Guix. When I run Retroarch, it prods me to (literally) ‘use the Updater if available’. When I do that, I can select from many cores, at least two of them non-free. There is no way for me to know this important fact; I have to type the name of the core into a search engine and dig, possibly deep (not everyone knows the awesome power of a Debian copyright file :-). You're not required to agree with any of the above, but Guix must. > We’re not restricting software which displays non-free online > comics > either. Indeed, that would be against our stated goal of user freedom. Comics aren't software so don't count, but take Linux-Libre: the fact that it refuses to load non-free firmware supplied by the user is a *bug*, and even upstream acknowleges this. IceCat is another obvious example. Same with Retroarch: if the user has a non-free core Guix's Retroarch must, IMPO, run it. The difference is that at no point do Linux-Libre or IceCat ask me to ‘visit our cool firmware shoppe!’. Indeed, the FF ‘Get New Add-ons’ button that directly advertises non-free software is disabled for that reason. > 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. It's just as bad for the same reason. Like proprietary licences, this one restricts redistribution *and* use of the software: “Permission to use, copy, modify and/or distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee […] Snes9x is freeware for PERSONAL USE only.” That violates a fundamental software freedom (#0: the freedom to run the software as you wish, for any purpose). Contrast this with the GPL, which places zero restrictions on use — I don't even have to share the software or my improvements with anyone! > 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. I don't see any similarities. With any GPL3 software, I am always allowed to copy the software and do with it what I want, no matter the underlying storage at some point in time. Kind regards, T (not a lawyer but talks to them at parties when no one else will) G-R