Re: [GNU-linux-libre] emulators and other hosts of foreign applications

[Ivan Zaigralin]

On 7/8/23 19:53, Richard Stallman wrote:
>    > this part just went full-circle back to a few weeks ago
>    > "emulators and other hosts of foreign applications"
>    > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2023-06/msg00088.html
>
> You're focusing on abstract classifications of programs, but that's
> not what this issue is about.
>
> This issue is not about distinguishing emulators from interpreters, or
> any such classification of programs.  Because it is not about making
> rules to apply to those classifications.  It is not about rigid rules
> at all.
>
> The issue here is: given a specific free program that can
> (occssionally, or theoretically) be used to run some free software,
> but in practice is nearly always used to run nonfree software, which
> of these approaches should we choose about that program?  Which
>
> All of these approaches are legitimate and ethical according to our
> philosophy.  But each can be more or less beneficial to the cause.
>
> 1. treat it like any other free program -- pay it no special
> attention.
>
> 2. Urge free distros to reject it, becsuse in practice distributing
> it to users only legitimizes the nonfree programs that depend on it.
>
> 3. Tell free distros to reject it, for that same reason.
>
> 4. Tell free distros they can redistribute it provided they remove all
> information about finding the nonfree programs it can run.
>
> Right now we are thinking about the ScummVM case.  I do NOT expect we
> will want to treat all such cases alike.  I expect that in thinking
> about various cases, we will find reasons for treating various cases
> in various ways.

I completely agree that the solution to this question will depend on a 
specific case, and I would like to express my opinion on ScummVM, and 
other similar cases.

I will state some of my assumptions first, and then try to argue from 
them, just for structure.

It is not intrinsically unethical to use nonfree software. It is, to 
contrast, unethical to develop nonfree software with the intent to 
distribute it and then to exploit the user. There are yet other 
unethical things one can do with nonfree software, but merely using it 
is not one of them. In a case of something like playing a single-player 
video game for fun, the user is not harming anyone (not even 
themselves), so I fail to see how this can be unethical. In general, in 
the absence of harmed parties, whose harm results from the use of 
nonfree software, the harm which is possible or likely precisely because 
the software is nonfree, I do not see an ethical argument against using 
the software, but may be I am missing something.

Moreover, I would suggest that FSF should not be in the business of 
advising people at large not to use nonfree software, and to my very 
limited understanding, it does not have such a mission. I just want to 
make it clear that even if it does, it should not. FSF encourages the 
use of free software, as well as advocating for its use, goals both very 
important and ethically valid in my opinion, but that is not at all the 
same as encouraging not using nonfree software. Merely using nonfree 
software is not unethical, and campaigning against that would be nothing 
but condescending, to speak politely. In specific cases where the use is 
linked to harm, FSF can and should raise its voice, of course.

Now I want to address the case of ScummVM, but pretty much everything I 
say here will be true of other emulators which are primarily or 
significantly used for emulating old games. What harm (to users) is 
there from playing old games via ScummVM, dosbox, pcsx2, or even recent 
games via yuzu and the like? Even multiplayer games? There is a very 
slight chance that malicious software will break out of the emulator and 
cause actual harm. Given the specifics of the case, no one should expect 
anything more serious than game crashes. How can an old game 
purposefully exploit an emulator that was created much later, I will 
leave for all of you to imagine. Aside from this, I struggle to identify 
any harm done to anyone, and this is where someone can perhaps meet my 
argument and show me something I missed.

On the other hand, consider all the good things these emulators do for 
their users. Perhaps most obviously, they effectively grant the user 
freedom 0 for the software they emulate, which is a gateway to obtaining 
other freedoms, even if via reverse-engineering. As a consequence, they 
also help the scientific community to study the history of software, by 
serving as an essential archival tool. I would even argue, they serve 
this purpose pretty much upon release, because the pace of software 
evolution is so great, and many commercial video game developers have 
plans to make game/console/platform obsolete by the next upgrade, even 
as they develop the current one. But even without the goodies, I think, 
no harm should imply no foul.

Therefore, in my opinion, the most appropriate course of action in the 
case of something like ScummVM is

> 1. treat it like any other free program -- pay it no special
> attention.

It shouldn't even matter if the emulator software comes with a list of 
all the (nonfree) titles it can emulate. One can argue that this is 
enticing distro users to use some specific nonfree software, but using 
these titles is not unethical, and suggesting such use is not unethical 
either. FSF should not be in the business of telling people not to use 
nonfree software in cases when it is practically harmless, where 
freedoms are taken away nominally, but they are not the freedoms that 
99% of users would care to exercise, or even notice if someone was 
exercising them. People playing Monkey Island or Mario would not see any 
improvement to their quality of life if these titles became free 
software tomorrow, even if the titles themselves got improved: there is 
only so much fun one can have while playing video games.

To conclude, I want to stress once more that this type of analysis is 
highly sensitive to the purpose of the software and the actual use 
cases. Software enticing distro users to run a nonfree point-of-sale 
software, for example, would have to be at least noticed and 
discouraged, and perhaps even officially proscribed by FSF, at least for 
the purpose of being included into a free OS distribution.

--
Ivan G. Zaigralin
Mathematics Professor
Cosumnes River College