GNU bug report logs - #52109
[PATCH] gnu: Add unrar-free.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Giovanni Biscuolo <g <at> xelera.eu>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: kiasoc5 <kiasoc5 <at> disroot.org>, 52109 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Foo Chuan Wei <chuanwei.foo <at> hotmail.com>
Subject: [bug#52109] [PATCH] gnu: Add unrar-free.
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 08:36:05 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello everybody,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, dem 11.01.2023 um 23:31 +0100 schrieb zimoun:

[...]

>> I agree with Maxim’s arguments.  From my point of view, unrar-free
>> respects FSDG – and since it is present in Trisquel, I assume this
>> understanding of FSDG is shared – to some extent.

I also agree with _both_ Maxim arguments:

1. unrar-free is FSDG compliant, and I cannot see how this can be
defined "point of view" :-)

2. 'unrar-free' potentially steering users toward 'unrar' (non-free)
cannot be used as an argument to refuse 'unrar-free' inclusion in Guix

Liliana please reply to this two specific points, in particular please
tell us if you judge 'unrar-free' not to be FSDG compliant

>> Even, I would say the Liliana’s opposite argument: it liberates user
>> from the non-free unrar by offering a free alternative.  And it is
>> the case for all the free re-implementations, no?
> From my point of view, it really doesn't.

[...]

> But as it stands right now, I see it as little more than a piece of
> software that makes people go "but how do I get the _real_ unrar?",

(I don't understand "cue people": is it a misprint?)

OK I think you explained this argument very well and this goes under
point 2. above: 'unrar-free' potentially steering users toward 'unrar'
non-free

I'd say that all liberated versions of non-free software could make
people go "how do I get the _real_ one", no?  For example Guix
distributed browsers are lacking EME implementation (no DRM loading) and
some other non-free "extensions" giving problems to users trying to use
certain web services; we have ungoogled-chromium and I know people
asking "how do I get the real Chrome"?

> cue people sending each other advice on a certain channel dedicated to
> non-free software.

So, if I understand your last point, the problem you see is that
"unrar-free" (alone?) steers people to send each other advice on
channels including non-free software: could this be a reason not to
include a FSDG compliant software in Guix?

...or it's just it's name containing 'unrar'?

Cheers

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.