Re: Question of Aiding and Abetting Proprietary (or non-free) Software in GNU projects

[Yasuaki Kudo]

Sorry I have point this out...  you see, your comments are adding examples of 
how proprietary systems can be harmful...  But this in no way changes the 
nature of contradiction (using Emacs and Guix as convenient subjects for 
comparison) I have been mentioning, the main part of my question.

-Yasu

PS
* I think the pros and cons of using proprietary systems are well understood, 
perhaps, especially amongst the subscribers of this mailing list.

* It is worthy of mentioning as well, that the security argument may not be so 
convincing.  If there is a nasty security bug in the hardware and the immediate 
fix comes from the manufacturer in a proprietary BLOB?

> On May 17, 2022, at 22:48, lkcl <luke.leighton@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 1:51 PM Yasuaki Kudo <yasu@yasuaki.com> wrote:
> 
>> - Guix runs on Linux, the unabridged with all the proprietary bits and 
>> pieces for the video card, wifi and all.  The same comment as above... does 
>> not apply?  Because if it runs on unmodified Linux and people choose to do 
>> so, it hurts the project of promoting Free Software!
> 
> the exclusion of proprietary WIFI drivers does not make any sense until you
> see these:
> 
> * 
> https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/84142/breaking-news/broadcom-wifi-driver-flaws.html
> * https://thehackernews.com/2017/04/broadcom-wifi-hack.html
> * 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2021/09/18/apple-iphone-warning-security-wifi-ssid-new-iphone-hack/
> 
> which exposed LITERALLY BILLIONS of people to drive-by exploits
> 
> in that context, how is placing the exact same proprietary drivers onto
> a system *in any way* helping to promote Ethical Software principles?
> 
> it's the total opposite, isn't it? it's directly exposing users to
> harm, isn't it?
> 
> not only that, but it also risks the actual developers from being hit with
> a Class Action Lawsuit precisely because they exposed users to harm,
> isn't it?
> 
> debian makes the compromise that they put all the "nonfree" parts
> into a special repository "nonfree".  you have to *actively* choose
> whether to use that.
> 
> ubuntu says "yeah f*** that, we're just gonna expose users to harm
> because it's convenient"
> 
> GNU says "ultimately, if the user really wants to use nonfree parts
> that's entirely their choice, but we're not going to help them in any
> way to do so".
> 
> you *can* take an entirely Libre system and make it non-Libre.
> it's software, after all.  you have that choice.
> 
> l.