bug#38360: Retroarch might violate FSDG

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Nicolò Balzarotti <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.
>>
> This is, by (some) definition, non free.

Yes.

>> 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.
>>
>
>> In the case of snes9x no one is able to monetize the software, including
>> the creators, because many people have a stake in the non-commercial
>> clause, but the software is freely modifiable and you can share it
>> non-commercially.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> We’re not restricting software which displays non-free online comics
>> either.
>>
> Comics aren't software. Free as in Freedom can apply only to software, AFAIK

It can apply to non-software, see for example the Wikipedia and
Stackoverflow. I experience that regularly since I’m writing a
GPL-licensed roleplaying book: it uses graphics from Battle For Wesnoth,
under GPL, and getting cc by-sa GPL-compatible was a major pain point
for many years -> https://www.draketo.de/english/free-software/by-sa-gpl

>> Installing the fastest and most compatible free software cores by
>> default (pre-installed) would minimize the effect of cores bound to
>> non-commercial use being available online without restricting the users
>> in using RetroArch — and it would make retroarch more convenient to use.
>
> If I understand correctly (i.e. shipping free cores with our retroarch
> distribution, while still allowing non-free software download from the
> software), I half-way agree with you. However, IMO, we should not encourage
> the use of non free software, at all. Those non-free cores available in one
> click, and a user might not even know that 1. s/he is downloading some kind
> of software and 2. that this software is non-free (no license details).

Looking at the interface *if you have some cores installed* it first
presents those cores and only afterwards says "download core".

And for available cores there’s actually a license entry (but that
currently says N/A — which looks like a bug to me).

So while there is no license in the listing, you are presented with the
license before running a core.

> I was upset in discovering that I downloaded a non-free core, and I
> realized just because of the ".so.zip" name. If upstream they change
> the name to "core.zip", future users might not even understand what
> they are doing.

The .so file ending is already something that takes domain knowledge to
recognize. But not from the domain of the program: The domain of the
program are emulators and roms. For these "this uses a core for the
specified hardware" is pretty clear.

> Finally, in a purely reproducible interest, having random software
> downloaded is just bad.

I agree in principle but not in practice, because we also ship npm, pip,
gem, package.el, cargo, maven, …

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature