squash! add free culture binary data essay

1 files changed, 32 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
index 6dbc55b..76f05c0 100644
--- a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
+++ b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
@@ -1,25 +1,44 @@
 Proponents of "Free Culture" tout the concept as the multimedia equivalent of GPL-licensed "Free Software" in a vacuous attempt to distinguish it from "Open Culture"; but the reality for end-users is far from the same level of freedom provided by the GPL. Practically speaking, the term: "Free Culture" is nearly synonymous with: "Creative Commons Share-Alike licensed multimedia". The vast majority of the multimedia labeled as "Free Culture" are individual images or sounds clips; binary blobs by definition, without any reference to the source "layers" that compose the work. This is natural, of course, if the work is very simple; but that is rarely the case for anything "finished".
 
-The licenses typically recommended by "Free Culture" Proponents, such as the "Creative Commons Share-Alike" and the "Free Art License", merely permit the re-use and re-distribution of specific binary artifacts as long as attribution is preserved; but they do not require that the constituent source materials be made available as does the GPL. As such, they do not even meet the definition of "Open-Source", much less that of "Free Software". Artifacts under such licenses are, in all practicality, more the equivalent of "Free-ware" such as the Microsoft DotNet run-time re-distributables; excepting perhaps for the omission of any language discouraging mutations. To be clear though, any such mutations to blobs are crude at best; far from the precise modifications that the GPL affords for software.
+The licenses typically recommended by "Free Culture" proponents, such as the "Creative Commons Share-Alike" and the "Free Art License", merely permit the re-use and re-distribution of specific binary artifacts as long as attribution is preserved; but they do not require that the constituent source materials be made available as does the GPL. As such, they do not meet even the most basic standard of "Open-Source". Artifacts under such licenses are, in all practicality, more the equivalent of "free-ware" such as the Microsoft DotNet run-time re-distributables; excepting perhaps for the omission of any language discouraging mutations. To be clear though, any such mutations to blobs are crude at best; far from the precise modifications that the GPL affords for software.
 
-Although these licenses encourage sharing, they neglect ensuring of the freedom to study, experiment, and customize. Experimentation implies de-composition; and as any artist or software developer knows: non-trivial modifications require access to the original sources used by the author. Without these sources, even the project maintainers are prevented from customizing the assets beyond the most trivial operations such as trimming and scaling; which is very much mis-aligned with the spirit of "Free Software". Therfore, these multimedia licenses are not at all the natural companions to GPL-licensed software that they are often touted as. The GPLv3 grants this maximal freedom of expression to a project's artists, developers, and end-users alike; and is, itself, the natural companion license for the artistic binary assets of a GPL-licensed software program provided that the forms of the relevant source materials are well-defined.
+Although these licenses encourage sharing, they neglect ensuring of the freedom to study, experiment, and customize. Experimentation implies de-composition; and as any artist or software developer knows: non-trivial modifications require access to the original sources used by the author. Without these sources, even the project maintainers are prevented from customizing the assets beyond the most trivial operations such as trimming and scaling; which is very much mis-aligned with the spirit of "Free Software". Therfore, these multimedia licenses are not at all the natural companions to GPL-licensed software that they are often touted as. The GPLv3 grants this maximal freedom of expression to a project's artists, developers, and end-users alike; and is, itself, the natural companion license for the artistic binary assets of a GPL-licensed software program, provided that the forms of the relevant source materials are well-defined.
 
-TODO:
-* quotes about defining the forms
-* define the forms
+In order to be generally applicable, the GPL itself makes no attempt to specify which specific forms qualify as the "preferred forms" for any type of work; but the "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware) makes it clear that the GPL is intended to be useful for anything that is copyrightable.
 
+    "You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it."
 
+Although the GPL does not require that the "preferred forms" be specified, much less itemized, and any competent digital artist knows fully well what these would be in their area of expertise; the following addendum (or something similar) can be added to the assets license declaration in order to avoid being vague about this. Feel free to modify this to suit the particular needs of your project.
 
+== GPLv3 Assets Addendum ==
 
+The original audio, video, image and font files in the <THE-PROGRAM> assets/ directory are licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3). The terminology in section 1 of the GPLv3 (namely: "source code", "preferred form", and "object code") as it relates to the binary assets of this project is explicitly defined below.
 
+The "object code" is explicitly defined here to be the binary audio, video, image and font files
+accessed directly by the <THE-PROGRAM> program.
 
+The "source code" or "preferred form of the work" is explicitly defined here to be any and all resources (such as binary data, editor project files, meta-data, declarative texts, scripts, and source code of helper programs) that are necessary to accomplish all of the following tasks using only widely-available free software:
 
+* reconstruct the associated "object code" artifacts completely and accurately
+* modify the fully decomposed "preferred form" sources directly and independently
+* compose the original sources along with modified and replacement sources interchangeably
+* generate equivalent modified versions of the associated artifacts
 
-RE: games and their assets
+For example:
 
+* "artifacts" such as a composed (mixed-down) .webm, .png, .ogg, .wav, etc
+* "binary data" such are the individual elements that compose the "artifacts" (image layers, sound tracks, etc.)
+* "meta-data" and "declarative texts" such as 3D models, animations, edit decision lists/cue sheets, CSS, etc.
+* "scripts", and "source code of helpers" such as ImageMagick scripts, GIMP plugins, openGL shaders, etc.
+* "editor project files" such as .blend, .xcf, .psd, .aup, .ardour, etc.
+* "widely-available free software" such as Blender, GIMP, Inkscape, Audacity, Ardour, etc.
 
 
-the GPL in it's current form
+---
+TODO:
+RE: games and their assets
+
+the GPL, as written,
 (either implicitly or explicitly)?
 considers binary assets such as artwork and music as program input data as distinct from the program itself and not subject to the corresponding source requirement so long as they are packaged separately
 much as C source code files and binary compiler outputs are not inherently subject to the license of the compiler that processes them
@@ -28,7 +47,6 @@ much as C source code files and binary compiler outputs are not inherently subje
 every character and all scenery completely black
 
 
-
 ???the implication is that mere data is non-essential, dispensible, and interchangeable - it could as well be absent as present or processed by some other tool instead - much as C code is input to GCC so the license of GCC need not apply to the program outputs or inputs???
 
 this could be argued for a game engine which can process very arbitrary inputs as long as some basic syntax or protocol is followed (much as the compiler)
@@ -37,13 +55,12 @@ but game data is not arbitrary - a free game with only non-free assets is like a
 
 a game is not at all comperable to a compiler - it is not a general purpose tool - it's sole use-case depends intrinsically on it's data existing and existing in a very precisely prescribed way - not just in terms of valid syntax but in every facet of it's form and purpose, the analogy to a dumb data processor does not fit
 
-clearly this is not merely input data flowing through a pipeline for the purpose of producing an output unrelated to the main program - these binary assets are fully imported into the main program memory only for it's intrinsic usage and in a way that can not reasonably be considered as transient but much more akin to library linking
+clearly this is not merely input data flowing through a pipeline for the purpose of producing an output unrelated to the main program - these binary assets are fully imported into the main program memory only for it's intrinsic usage and in a way that can not reasonably be considered as transient data but much more akin to library linking
 
 
-TODO:
-
 ---
 
+TODO:
 quotes from the often quoted "Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad?" article by Richard Stallman https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.en.html
 
 * "Since the art in the game is not software, it is not ethically imperative to make the art free ..."
@@ -52,8 +69,11 @@ quotes from the often quoted "Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad?" ar
  * "You as a freedom-lover won't use the nonfree game if it exists, so you won't lose anything if it does not exist."
   => of course, the very same could be said of a freedom-hater or anyone else for that matter - there would be nothing lost that is of any practical use if no video games ever existed - afterall it's just a game - right? - no different than tic-tac-toe
 
+
 ---
 
+TODO:
+arguments for consistency
 
 * personally, i consider game AS an artwork itself - that i would not want to modify any more than my favorite roger waters album - in both cases, i truly want to experience them as the author intended one could argue about the freedom to copy but that is not the most beneficial feature of copyleft - that particular freedom lends itself more to "free as in beer" than freedom - what makes the GPL shine is that is requires access to source materials providing the freedom to modify; but with respect to an artistic expression of another person, modifications are not anything that i would actually want - in fact, any modifications to an artist's work could be considered to be an act of vandalism and an insult to the artist - like drawing a mustache on the mona lisa - i do not intend to suggest that another person should not be allowed to create a similar work from raw material but this "moaning lucy" would be an expression of that artist if it did not draw directly from ("sample") the original -
 ???but that hits on the broader issue of so called "intellectual property"???
@@ -62,6 +82,7 @@ quotes from the often quoted "Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad?" ar
 
 * counter agrument - the above could be taken as strong arguments for applying the same lack of concern for the freedom of game source code as is recommended by the FSF in regards to game assets; but to be un-biased and for the sake on consistency, i present a counter agrument for applying the same urgency to the freedom of game assets -
 
+
 while the others were presented from the perspective of downstream consumers; there is an equally valid argument from the perspective of an upstream maintainer - what they both have in common though is that they suggest that the same consideration for freedom should apply to both game source code as well as to game assets
 whereas it is not desireable to modify the artistic expression inherent in someone else's work;
 in regards to your own work in progress, it is not only desireable but imperative that you be able to modify contributed assets to fit the program - a demonstration is hardly necessary - this should be abundantly obvious - an external asset that fits into the program 99% is 100% useless unless it is only a mockup (or sloppiness is acceptable) - it is almost certain that images and sounds will need some conditioning at the very least to suit the environment adequately; and without the full coverage of the GPL copyleft applied to the binary assets, the only option is to implore the original artist to make the otherwise trivial adjustments (perhaps on several occasions)