[Savannah-hackers] Re: submission of Waves, Clouds, and Sand - savannah.nongnu.org

[Mathieu Roy]

address@hidden said:

> > > Of course I understand the ethical concern, but usually it's more
> > > effective to have a 2-part plan: avoid proprietary component while
> > > lobbying for/creating free replacement.
> >
> > In your case, you do not avoid proprietary components. You simply
> > propose to create a free software that will require anyone that way to
> > use it to install proprietary driver.
> 
> Of course I'm aware that such a game would today depend on a non-free
> driver for maximum speed (you can do anything in software, and much
> better, like ray tracing).
> 
> I was talking about the Savannah course of action, not my own: you are
> avoiding the non-free component, but I don't see the next step of
> obtaining a free replacement.

The project Savannah is not in itself a project that create a free
replacement but a project that can help in the creation of a free
replacement. 

The next step is not up to us as Savannah maintainers.

 
> Also, let's just hypothesize that my approach works, and results in
> free drivers being made available: Would Savannah then no longer be
> opposed to hosting my project and the driver itself?
> 
> 
> It's kind of like letting someone else do the dirty work, then
> reaping the rewards.

It's a point of view. If you think that being hosted by Savannah is
for Savannah a way to reap rewards, whatever the GNU position on
non-free drivers, Savannah should not appears as a good to choice in
your eyes.

 
> On the other hand, "The Free Software Foundation follows the rule
> that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers
> except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free
> replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is
> no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program."
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
> 
> So that acknowledges a situation where proprietary software is depended
> upon.
> 
> (Doesn't that also mean there's no excuse for your installing Windows or
> proprietary games either, according to your own organization?)

This rules apply to the FSF machines, as savannah.gnu.org. 
Not to GNU project's contributors own machines.

As FSF machines are paid by money invested in Free Software, this rule
is perfectly normal.

Contributing to a GNU project means following GNU rules in a
specific context - mainly because we share philosophical views. It does
not mean, for me at least, being member of a ultra-dogmatic church.

 
> > Can you explain why ATI or Nvidia would release a free driver if
> > using their proprietary drivers become a norm?
> 
> Right now, those drivers ARE the norm.  Almost everyone who has those
> cards uses those drivers, and under Windows.
> 
> Since we're already in that position, there's no reason to fear it.  Let's
> figure out how to convince them to release free drivers.

You are assuming that I use usually games and windows. Technically, as
you previously notice, it's not up to 2 % on my computer uptime. 

It means that technically, I almost never use proprietary drivers but
VESA driver from XFree.

It means that if ATI or Nvidia release free drivers, I would install
them, encourage people to buy their cards with free drivers and
disencourage people to buy cards without free drivers.

I do not fear a situation that already exists. I do not fear
proprietary software. 
I fear to see people making free software dependant on proprietary
software. 


If this choice become usual, and if as you said 3d become essential,
it means that less and less software will be usable to users without
free drivers.
And you cannot at all predict if it will help to get free drivers.

> 
> > Obviously, if your program "actually does something" only if you
> > install a proprietary software, it's easy to disable your
> > software.
> 
> Heck, kill -9 can do that.

Who type kill -9?
The issue is not being able to disable it but who will be able to
disable it.


> > > No, an improvement in BOTH areas.  Right now we have proprietary games
> > > with proprietary drivers; in the future we will have free games with
> > > proprietary drivers, then free games with free drivers.  It's the middle
> > > step.
> >
> > Your point of view could be qualified as evolutionist. But this theory
> > is far too simple to be realistic.
> 
> It's not a theory.  It's a very general overview.  Check this one out:
> UNIX is not free, nor are the applications that run on it.  People start
> making free applications (the GNU project) that run on a proprietary
> system.  Then people make a kernel (Linux), and the whole system is free.

Can you name the "free applications" you speak about?

You'll see that it was absolutely not creating bricks dependent on
non-free but free brick to be able to build free software.

But anyway, you only assume that an particular historic process is a
"general overview". 
Describing history is not as simple.


> > Apparently we failed.
> >
> > The rules of Savannah will not change today. You didn't prove that
> > making a political stand is useless (It would be hard).
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about.  I argued that making a free game
> is better than having only non-free games, from a technical and ethical
> view.  You acknowledged that this stands a chance of being correct.
> 
> Since the game code itself would be free software, I would like to host it
> on Savannah.  Unfortunately the hardware that we both have in our machines
> is only partially usable with free software drivers.
> 
> My question was whether the "do nothing" approach was effective in
> advancing the GNU cause.  I was saying that rather than merely telling
> developers to "avoid these features", a more effective approach would be
> for the FSF to talk to the manufacturers directly.  Then you can say,
> "we're working with NVidia and ATI to make free drivers available for the
> hardware that almost all of us paid for and have in our systems."

"do not build against proprietary code" is not synomym of "do nothing"

I cannot lie to you by saying that we (savannah-hackers, here) are
working with Nvidia and ATI because it's wrong.

If you want to FSF to do this, you knocked the wrong door. It's an
idea, you can write to address@hidden


> So instead of JUST turning me down, turn me down AND start talking
> to the 3D companies.
> 
> The sooner that process is started, the better.

It's not us who'll start the process and the person the more entitled
to do such request is the person that feel the most strongly that this
point is essential.

> 
> > I was thinking at the contrary that what worked with Qt and MySQL
> > was the fact that many people refuses to install non-free stuff on
> > their computer... and so there was more advantages for Qt and
> > MySQL to be really free.
> 
> MySQL was pretty popular back then, before it was GNU GPLed.  PostgreSQL
> wasn't up to par at the time.  IIRC, MySQL was free for non-commercial
> use, which helped it get popular.  I think users convinced them to free it
> by talking to them, rather than by avoiding it.

That's a point of view. I knew many people, companies and software
that avoided MySQL because of this status.
Now MySQL is largely more popular than before the GPLization: it's
maybe partially because people waited for mysql to be free to install
it.

What was the most important point for MySQL authors : satisfying users
that accepted the MySQL old license or getting the heavy number of
users refusing MySQL because of the license?

> > Same problem: how can you incitate someone to free a software
> > after accepting it as non-free. You accept as non-free, you build
> > on it: you depend. You are not in position for any lobbying. You
> > can only ask for pity.
> 
> Actually, you become a customer, talk to your vendor, and make requests.
> If you simply avoid it, then NVidia only hears from people who use
> proprietary software and operating systems.

I can individually make a request.

I think that a collective request, along with free software that claim
that they'll use nvdia drivers if they are free, would be a lot more
interesting.



-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
 << Profile  << http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou <<
 >> Homepage >> http://yeupou.coleumes.org           >>
 << GPG Key  << http://stock.coleumes.org/gpg        <<