Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Adding some scummvm game(s) to the "List of software that does not respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines"

[Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli]

On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 22:06:55 -0400
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>   > Here it would not be seen as infringing on individual freedom but
>   > rather on the collective freedom to organize through FSDG
>   > distributions to make these use cases work with 100% free
>   > software.
> 
> There are two big misunderstandings there.
> 
> 1. The FSDG rules have NO effect on anyone's freedom to make a distro.
> They only determine what the FSF will _say_ about that distro.
> 
> Whatever our policies may be for that, they do not affect anyone's
> freedom.
> 
> 2. We're not talking about making a _rule_ against including ScummVM.
> 
> Remember, a few weeks ago I concluded that it is better simply to
> _urge_ free distros not to include ScummVM -- and not make it a
> _rule_.
> 
> That _urging statement_ will not even affect whether a distro can get
> our endorsement.
> 
> So this concern is simply not real.
> 
>   > So here we are only discussing this topic because it has
>   > (potentially indirect) consequences on the FSDG distributions.
> 
> With all due respect, I think that concern is based on the two
> misunderstandings I stated above -- it does not really exist.
I know the rule doesn't exist. Here I was talking about how this text
would/could likely be perceived by some users and contributors and
indirectly affect distributions.

If we say something and that people don't get what we mean and act on
it, then it has some impact, so discussing that impact as well is not
out of topic, especially when most people will not have this thread.

You gave some example of text before (without the context in which they
would be put in) so it's not done in a way that is crystal clear (to
make sure people understand that it's an advise and that's all), it
could have a big potential for misunderstanding.

And while it expresses your opinion, it's the distributions that would
have to deal with the consequences of that text.

But if the text or its context is made crystal clear, in order to make
sure that people that didn't follow this discussion understand what it
means exactly, then it would minimize even more its collateral damage,
so the concern I'm talking about would be minimal. Though it would still
show in practice that there are some disagreements about how to do
things.

Also note that with (1), while I don't know any concerns with the
FSDG itself that cannot be accommodated by distributions by adding
rules on top of the FSDG, but the FSDG do affect distributions that
follow it in a big way, and if distributions are not happy with the
FSDG and can't fix their concern though some other way, they can either
stop following the FSDG completely or comply nevertheless.

And because knowledge is sticky (it tends to stay where it is, not
everybody is up to date on everything, do understand all aspects of the
FSDG), if the concern is valid (I don't know any valid concerns so far
but the future isn't set), the distribution quitting would probably have
a hard time exiting the FSDG when its user base, occasional
contributors, etc, expect to be FSDG compliant.

A realistic example would be if the advise you propose would be made a
rule for instance. In this case it would probably create crisis in one
or more distributions. Other option would be to either comply
nevertheless or try to not follow it and try to get away with it. So
it would be better for the distributions not to be in this situation
(being in disagreement with the FSDG) at all.

So this is also why I care a lot about the FSDG: it has real impact on
distributions, users, and strategies within the free software movement
at large.

But here, all these concerns are gone if the distributions actually
agree with the FSDG.

But distributions can also be wrong, especially if people involved that
don't agree with the FSDG don't dedicate time to think about the FSDG,
and don't foresee enough of the consequences of the change they would
like to get in.

I can observe that in practice in another certification for French
hosters (CHATONS) where people discuss the modification of the criteria
(for instance to remove the requirement for free software) but some of
the proponents of that don't foresee some important negative
consequences about that. So people involved in doing things can
also be wrong. Though note that I've not been deeply involved in these
CHATONS discussions due to the lack of time.

So in this mail or the previous one, I'm not advocating for anything
with regard to the FSDG, I'm just stating that it's important and has
real impact on the distributions and that just stopping to follow the
FSDG is not necessarily that easy. But that is also not necessarily a
bad thing, it all depends on the details. 

And that needs to be taken into account as I think distributions and
users rightly perceive it in this way.

Denis.

pgpAmebBTFjzL.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature