next?

1 files changed, 62 insertions, 10 deletions

diff --git a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
index 59e1d79..d2de298 100644
--- a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
+++ b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-Proponents of "Free Culture" present 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 terms: "Free Culture" and "Open Culture" are quite indistinguishable; with both of which being nearly synonymous with: "Creative Commons licensed multimedia". The vast majority of the multimedia labeled as either are individual images or sounds clips; binary blobs by definition, without any reference to the source "layers" that composed the work. This is natural, of course, if the work is very simple (or "flat") such as 2D gaming tiles, textures, and logos; but that is rarely the case for anything elaborate. "Free Culture" present the concept as the superset of which "Free Software" is one subset; but there is a cruicial disconnect in that the licenses mainly recommended for artistic works by "Free Culture" and "Open Culture" proponents alike are non-copyleft licenses. This article is an attempt to truly unify the philosophy of "Free Culture" with that of "Free Software" and to distinguish "Free Culture" from "Open Culture" by embracing copyleft as a core principle of "Free Culture".
+Proponents of "Free Culture" present 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 terms: "Free Culture" and "Open Culture" are quite indistinguishable; with both of which being nearly synonymous with: "Creative Commons licensed multimedia". The vast majority of the multimedia labeled as either are individual images or sounds clips; binary blobs by definition, without any reference to the source "layers" that composed the work. This is natural, of course, if the work is very simple (or "flat") such as 2D gaming tiles, textures, and logos; but that is rarely the case for anything elaborate. The "Free Culture" concept is generally presented as the superset of which "Free Software" is one subset; but there is a crucial disjunct, in that the licenses mainly recommended for artistic works by "Free Culture" and "Open Culture" proponents alike are non-copyleft licenses. To be clear: those who walk beneath the banner of "Free Software" would prefer to advocate copyleft licenses; whereas those who would recommend non-copyleft licenses license are more appropriately said to be in the broader "OpenSource" camp. Practically speaking, these are much the same; with the main distinction being philisphical in nature. This article is an attempt to truly unify the philosophy of "Free Culture" with that of "Free Software" and thereby, to distinguish "Free Culture" from "Open Culture" by embracing copyleft as a core principle of "Free Culture".
 
 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 exhibit even the most basic premise 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.
 
@@ -34,8 +34,7 @@ For example:
 
 
 ---
-TODO:
-RE: games and their assets
+TODO: games and their assets
 
 the GPL, as written,
 (either implicitly or explicitly)?
@@ -59,11 +58,8 @@ The conventinal meaning of "data" is that of some conformant input flowing throu
 To label programs as "functional" but the art and music that constitutes the interfaces as "non-functional" (with the right to modify them being therefore unimportant) is to say that these binary assets are arbitrary or optional (and any modifications are orthagonal to the functionality of the main program itself). If they are not optional then they serve some purpose; if they are not arbitrary then they serve some specific purpose; and if they serve some specific purpose then modifcations are meaningful and the end user should be able to handle them in the same "preferred" ways as the author would. All of those are true for game/GUI art and sounds. They may not be executable machine instructions but they each play a necessary and specific role for the proper operation of the program as a whole. A game's assets and the game state that triggers them to be displayed are tightly coupled components that serve a single unified "function", namely: that of being an entertaining toy. The same could be said of any other GUI or the error messages of GCC for that matter. Afterall, error messages are just raw, non-executable byte strings; so should they be exempt from the licensing terms of the host program? I think most people would agree that it would be difficult to make a convcincing argument for that, especially not on the grounds that they are arbitrary data. Each and every one of them must align semanticallty with the context in which they are to be triggered and presented. Sure, any properly encoded text string could fit the slot, just as any properly encoded image file could replace any other; but surely, trees the color of the sky and rivers made of leopard skin would be as confusing and disturbing to a game player as it would be to a programmer if GCC error messages were replaced with Chinese cookie fortunes. In both cases, treating binary assets as arbitrary or optional jeopardizes the utility and appeal of their host program greatly; and so they should be considered to be necessary and specific, and as such, deserving of the same freedom as the host software.
 
 
-
 ---
-
-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
+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 ..."
   => i agree there is no ethical imperative to make the art free but i also contend there likewise is no ethical imperative to make any games free becuase they are purely recreational as are art or music - to label games as "functional" but their art and music as "non-functional" is ludacris - they are tightly coupled components that serve a single unified "function", namely that of a toy
@@ -73,9 +69,7 @@ quotes from the often quoted "Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad?" ar
 
 
 ---
-
-TODO:
-arguments for consistency
+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"???
@@ -86,3 +80,61 @@ arguments for consistency
 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)
+
+
+---
+TODO: functional vs non-functional (works for practical use)
+personally, i dont see any difference technically or philosophically between a font and an image - especially if it is a bitmap font - by this definition, a bitmap font would be considered "functional" while an image of the alphabet would be "non-functional" but neither affects the program behavior in any way - what justifies this distinction? is it how or where the bits are displayed or by nature of its encoding of container file format? - for example, is the licensing of the AOL "you got mail" sound only relevant in cases when you actually have mail? but if you just enjoy playing that sound then the license is not as important because that use case is unpractical?
+
+the only important distinction for any copyright-able work is whether or not it is freely licensed - the "functional" or "non-functional" distinction does not seems to add anything useful and is quite frankly it (projects/expresses) an inconsistent philosophy
+
+FWIW personally, i would not draw the line between functional vs non-functional in any context - its all the same "kind" of bits and bytes to the computer - it could be intuitively compared to the food you eat - would it be sensible to say that food that is consumed for nutritional (functional) reasons should be organic and non-toxic but junk foods containing any sort of un-pronounceable chemicals are inherently acceptable because they are not intended to be nutritious?
+
+
+---
+TODO: bits from the "free culture definition"
+
+On 05/16/2018 10:29 AM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
+> I must also complement what was said here by noting that the Definition
+> of Free Cultural Works does require complete corresponding source
+
+the fundamental flaw there, is that it is worded as to say that the
+sources must be available in order for the work to be called a "free
+culture work" - the GPL is the only licenses that actually provides that
+stipulation - yet, the section preceding that statement which defines
+the "free culture licenses" does not include that stipulation - so
+practically speaking, taken as a whole, what that document is actually
+saying (and it is expressed literally) is that a "free culture license"
+does not qualify the work to be a "free culture work" and it fails to
+mention that only the GPL would satisfy the latter - which brings
+squarely into question: which they consider to be the primary definition
+of "free culture" - if it is the former, then any work using a "free
+culture license" can call itself "free culture"; but most such works are
+definitively not "free culture works" - which is of course
+double-talking nonsense
+
+
+On 05/16/2018 10:29 AM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
+> Although I'm not discarding the possibility that some
+> activists of "free culture" might not know of such requirement.
+
+indeed from my experience, for the most part they do not - and as i
+noted above it is only a requirement for a "free culture work" - but it
+is not a requirement for a work of "free culture" - it quite seems that
+it was worded is such a wishy-washy way as to satisfy both the "open"
+and "libre" camps; so that anyone is free to choose either interpretation
+
+the list of "free culture licenses" has a categorization of "practical
+modifiability" which is describes as so:
+
+  "The licenses which require practical modifiability usually define a
+notion of source code, source data or similar."
+
+yet, it denotes the "MIT" license as having this characteristic - it
+does not - and as i mentioned before, the license text itself explicitly
+excludes it's applicability to artworks - the MIT-style licenses
+explicitly cover "software and associated documentation files"; neither
+of which are consider to be artworks, literature, or any other sort
+"cultural works"
+
+is it any wonder why people may get the wrong impression