I've Never Heard Stallman's Opinion about Nintendo
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
A few months ago I posted in the troll hole part of the forum a Super Mario Bros-like game focusing on gratitude in the form of a bash script, apparently in which had freedom issues. So this got me thinking...
I've heard Stallman complain about Apple, Microsoft, Canonical, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc...but the one company I've not heard him complain about is Nintendo, which is surprising by a long shot because Nintendo itself is a patent troll who goes after "pirates" of their software and hits them with $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 fines per ROM (exaggeration, by the way, but you get the idea). So I was wondering...what does RMS have to say? I'm just plainly curious.
"I've Never Heard Stallman's Opinion about Nintendo"
Do you think it's going to be different about any other company that makes proprietary software? I don't know that he needs to call out every single one that makes proprietary software. There are so many. But Nintendo does get mentioned on stallman.org. One example: https://stallman.org/notes/2011-nov-feb.html
There's also Nintendo stuff on fsf.org and defectivebydesign.org.
We know what Nintendo think about Stallman.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/game-consoles-are-evil/
Richard Stallman, Jr: Dad, why can't I have a Nintendo Wii for Christmas?
Richard Stallman: Well, son, because Nintendo won't let me customize the software which runs on the game console, which is an unethical restriction on my freedom. I could no more buy that console than sell myself into slavery.
Richard Stallman, Jr: Huh? I just want to play Nintendo Sports.
Richard Stallman: But you can't modify the game to add new events, and you can't change the runtime environment to enable new features in your Wii controller. So, it's wrong to want to do that.
Richard Stallman, Jr: But I don't want to add new events to Nintendo Sports. I just want to play the game.
Richard Stallman: Tough noogies. I am your father. Go play outside.
> what does RMS have to say?
Maybe you should listen to what rms and others say and then form
your own opinion on what is acceptable? I do not see it possible
to decide if it is acceptable to use a computer or piece of
software based on a few principles.
I think I read rms saying if a computer is running non
free software, but is not connected to the internet and cannot
get updates then he has no objection using it. Likely
he assumes such a computer will not be able to mistreat you.
Then he would have no objection about an air gapped windows
computer. I would not want to use an air gapped windows
computer.
It is more about what you can accept? Can you accept the potential
implications of an internet connected nitendo running non
free software? rms cannot.
I am a translator!
>I think I read rms saying if a computer is running non
free software, but is not connected to the internet and cannot
get updates then he has no objection using it. Likely
he assumes such a computer will not be able to mistreat you.
Citation needed. I am pretty sure RMS never said that.
Maybe you are mistaking it with another thing he once said and that was give or take: "I have no problem using a non free OS [Internet included] on a computer I am not the owner of."
https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
As for microwave ovens...
He manages to conclude it is not a computer. I disagree. An air
gapped windows computer does not get updates.
It is unfactual single handed to define what is a computer like that. Some devices may do something against you which you resent and if the device is running non free software it can get
more difficult to get to know.
"An air gapped Windows computer does not get updates."
For example: "The BIOS was impossible to replace because it was stored in ROM: the only way to to put in a different BIOS was by replacing part of the hardware. In effect, the BIOS was itself hardware--and therefore didn't really count as software. It was like the program that (we can suppose) exists in the computer that (we can suppose) runs your watch or your microwave oven: since you can't install software on it, it may as well be circuits, not a computer at all. The ethical issues of free software arise because users obtain programs and install them in computers; they don't really apply to hidden embedded computers, or the BIOS burned in a ROM, or the microcode inside a processor chip, or the firmware that is wired into a processor in an I/O device. In aspects that relate to their design, those things are software; but as regards copying and modification, they may as well be hardware. The BIOS in ROM was, indeed, not a problem." From https://www.fsf.org/news/freebios.html
A copy of Windows doesn't meet this same "burned in, impossible to replace" definition like with a microwave. That air-gapped computer is still capable of having software installed on it (and so doesn't meet the "since you can't install software on it" part) and that software is still capable of being later updated, even if one chooses not to do so. If you think his argument over burned-in things which can physically never be changed (at least not without replacing bits of the hardware) also apply to air-gapped copies of Windows please write to him rms at gnu dot org and ask if he really means that. I think he will tell you he did not intend for it to be taken that far.
This is demonstrated by the fact that, once the BIOS came out of the "physically impossible to replace" realm of ROM and into the world of being installable and updatable (just like that copy of Windows where it *could* be installed and updated), there was a call for free software to do that job: https://www.fsf.org/news/freebios.html
> In effect, the BIOS was itself hardware--and therefore didn't really count as software.
I do not accept this argument. To me it is irrelevant what it is
and how it does what it does. My only interest is does it run
non free software which cannot get audited?
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/choosing-between-d16-workstation-and-talos-ii-lite
All libreboot computers have an ec which runs non free software? I do
not care how the non free software is located on
the computer. If it cannot get determined if the device can take
control of the computer then it is unacceptable no matter what
self made definitions rms or any other person comes up with.
That is why I agreed with supertramps about the ec.
This is an example how rigidly applying the use, share, modify
and redistribute principles on a piece of hardware is
counterproductive if you want to control your computer.
> then he has no objection using it.
I should have written, regarding free software rms cannot object
such a computer.
> write to him rms at gnu dot org and ask if he really means that.
I think he and you believe in how rms applies the free software principles
on the mentioned hardware. I do not. If applying the free software
principles on hardware means it is acceptable to have a piece of
non free software on the computer then you should alter how you apply
the free software principles on such hardware. Instead rms should
call them what they are, non free software devices. Then people
can decide for themselves if they want them anyway.
That is what I suggested cochranizer to do. Get informed on
the matter and then make your own decision on what you
can answer for.
Is a hdd a computer?
https://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/
I have several examples rms not getting it right. Few compared to when
rms gets it right.
"I have several examples rms not getting it right. Few compared to when rms gets it right."
Perhaps, but your earlier summary of RMS's position was also an example of not getting *his* position right. I don't necessarily agree with Stallman on the topic of when software's in ROM. My only purpose for replying was pointing out that what you were saying RMS was saying (that using non-free software not connected to the internet would be okay; that "he would have no objection about an air gapped Windows computer", etc.) was not what he was saying because those don't fit into the criteria he's mentioned about being burned into a ROM. A HDD would also qualify as being a computer by his proposed standard, since it's also running installable (and updateable) software. As long as you understand that you were not accurately communicating his position and that he *would* have problems with an air-gapped copy of Windows, then my part is done. (Note I am not saying I agree with it nor am I asking for anyone else to agree with it; only to understand where *he* draws the line and that it was not being communicated correctly.) Have a good day.
> not accurately communicating his position
Yes, his criterion is not whether a device is on the internet. Instead
it is his formalistic probe of the free software principles on
a device's software which determines if it is not required to
get the source code of the device's software. A dangerous point
of view which may jeopardize the device owner's privacy and security.
You must control the device and that doctrine must supersede
a formalistic fallacy.
If for some reason it is not possible to access a device's source
code then reject the device.
You'll have to reject everything, then. I'm currently using at least five peripherals that probably have proprietary software embedded into them. Almost all electronic devices today have embedded software and almost none of them make source code available.
> reject the device.
What I should have written. A device which makes it impossible to
audit the software on it must get no ryf approval.
There's embedded proprietary software on all computers. And what of the embedded software no one ever knows about? Does it get certification and then lose it when someone discovers that it's some kind of software instead of a circuit?
Or should circuits be rejected, too? After all, you can't really audit a circuit, either.
> embedded proprietary software on all computers.
Is it better with no ryf than a bogus one? Yes, it is.
I maintain, it is irrelevant if a piece of electronics is a circuit
or something else. If there is something, hardware or software, which
cannot get audited and therefore you cannot tell if it can control
the computer it is better to not give it a misleading ryf
approval. It is not important whether there are ryf devices. It
is important if a device is a ryf device then people can rely on
it. It is also a mistake a ryf computer can ship with a
hdd because the hdd is a computer having a software system which
cannot get audited.
When I read about the ec on libreboot's website I could not understand
the matter. I thought it was strange that libreboot considered the
ec to be a problem and still such a computer can get ryf
approval? I reasoned fsf knows what it is doing and therefore the
ec cannot be a problem regarding the control your computer doctrine.
Super tramp told me differently.
The ryf approval is a best option criteria. And you can
argue for such a criteria. I do not reject it. Then you have to
ship a ryf with a description telling about the limitations of
a ryf approval. If the device has a ec then tell why this is a
problem. If the computer is shipped with a hdd then tell why it
is a problem. If the seller of the ryf device has loyally
disclosed all relevant problems he knows about and fsf has done
what it can to verify the pieces of information then the
device can get a best option ryf approval.
Likely there is no better criteria then the best option ryf
criteria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXwy65d_tu8
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios