The GameBoy used proprietary software. Was that unethical?
Stallman's position is not extreme. It is consistent and firm, but he tries to reach a reasonable compromise. In political parlance you could say that he's a reformist, not a radical. Notice that he argues that it is OK to use proprietary softare, for example for developing free software if it is the only option, or for communicating with other people that cannot use free software at the moment (e.g., zoom meetings). If that is the case, he urges you to at least tell your colleagues from time to time that there are other options and that you would prefer to use free software:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.html
The linked text is very clear and cannot be construed at all as "extreme". At the same time, he holds that while we can reach temporary compromises, proprietary software is always unethical and that we should strive towards freer options.
Right, and that's exactly what I'm referring to. It's pretty extreme how categorically the FSF applies the term 'unethical'. I'm not saying Stallman is incapable of ever making compromises.
If Vim were proprietary, I probably wouldn't use it, but freeware isn't unethical.
On the point of Zoom meetings, the FSF have just begun offering a Jitsi service to all Associate Members of the FSF.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/fsf-gives-freedom-respec...
However, with respect to the GamBoy itself, the issue is that when I buy a GameBoy, I am not able to inspect it, nor am I able to correct it if it is not not working properly. The GameBoy is not unethical in itself. It is forcing your customers to accept a "No user serviceable parts" license in terms of the software that is deemed unethical. Not being able to inspect the code to see what it is doing may have ramifications for the user -- perhaps not so obvious on a device that has no network, but it is where it starts.
One of the big problems with the Free Software movement, IMHO, is that it has been confused as being a software creation issue. It is not. It is 100% a consumer rights issue. One of the most important parts of free software is that if I did not give my software to you, then I have no responsibilities towards you at all. If I don't give you a binary, then I never have to give you source code. If you get the binary from somewhere else, I still don't have to give you source code -- the person who gave you the binary does.
This is about choosing a license that treats your customer well and about nothing else at all. For decades people have wittingly and unwittingly attempted to spin this as some frothing at the mouth religious issue. It is not. It is purely a consumer rights issue.
Good point.
> Not being able to inspect the code to see what it is doing may have ramifications for the user -- perhaps not so obvious on a device that has no network, but it is where it starts.
Sure. This connects to data and privacy concerns.
> If I don't give you a binary, then I never have to give you source code.
True of the GPL, but not of the Affero GPL. Also, permissive Free Software licences like Apache impose no such requirements, but are still Free Software licences. Free Software isn't the same thing as copyleft. (Of course, if you distribute binaries but refuse to share the source, then what you are doing is no longer Free Software.)
> It is purely a consumer rights issue.
This makes for easy contrast with the Open Source movement, which is good, but I think it's a little misleading. As an analogy, the right-to-repair movement doesn't expect hardware companies to hand over their design documents, they're just seeking to end open hostility toward third-party repairs.
I fully appreciate Stallman's 4 Freedoms, including Freedom 1, the right to study software, but I'm not sure I'd quite call it a consumer rights matter. Payware proprietary software licenses prevent you from freely copying/distributing the software. Patents and design patents can do a similar thing with hardware. That's not really a consumer rights problem.
To put that another way, I can see the sense in treating Freedom 0 (freedom to run the program as you wish) and Freedom 1 (freedom to study how the program works) as consumer rights issues. I'm not convinced though that Freedom 2 (freedom to redistribute copies) and Freedom 3 (freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions) are consumer rights issues.
They are clearly consumer rights issues, to me. Whether you think they are important consumer rights issues is quite another matter ;-). Freedom 3, IMHO is definitely more important that Freedom 2. If you've managed to fix an issue, but are prevented from helping other people to fix the issue, I think it's problematic. As a consumer, I definitely value Freedom 2. Personally, I'm not sure I would consider it an ethical issue.
However, whether or not Freedom 2 is really an ethical issue, I think it's fairly straightforward to understand how people find Free software, as a whole, an ethical consumer rights issue. I'm not saying that everybody in the world is going to agree with the stance (and clearly many don't), but it's not much of a stretch to at least understand the position.
More edits for clarity. I should probably just go to sleep :-)
The confusion is on your end. Section 3 of GPLv2 requires you make the source available to any third party, not just your customer (and GPLv3's provisions are similar).
There is exactly one set of circumstances that permit you to say "no" to any and all non-customers, and it involves not limiting the initial distribution to just binaries. That is, iff you provide binaries together with the source to the customer who's giving out copies of the binaries themselves, then it is their responsibility and not yours, and only in that instance are you allowed to turn down third-party requests for source. This would also hinge on having a customer who would be fine giving out copies of the binaries they received from you in step 1 but for some reason wants not to give out copies of the source code that they received with it.
See also https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm...
> the Affero GPL only differs in that I would have to give you source code (edit: previously typed "software") if I supply a binary for you to use over a network
That doesn't sound right. You don't have to distribute a binary for the Affero GPL to require you to release your source. From the FSF:
> The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there.
Edit (programmer needs sleep badly): Clearly it doesn't have to be a binary. It's any executable over a network. But you don't have to give the source cod to everyone, that's really my only point :-)
Games that are only meant to be played once are a good example and can be compared to a ticket to the cinema. It does not make sense to allow to resell those games.
Modern consoles are able to offer a multiplayer experience free of the cheating that plagues many PC games. That's because they're bolted-down and deny users the freedom the modify the software. To the customer, that has real value.
And it doesn't offer me any value if I do wish to cheat
The fact that people can cheat, does not force you to cheat when playing. This is exactly the same thing in sports.
In online PC gaming, cheating is a real problem, as people are able to modify the game to their advantage. This is next to impossible on modern consoles, and cheating is much less of a problem there.
I don't begrudge anyone who wants to opt-in to a designated cheat-based multiplayer session, of course, but it can be a real problem for 'ordinary' gamers.