squash! add free culture binary data essay

1 files changed, 29 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
index d2de298..1aa900c 100644
--- a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
+++ b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
@@ -61,34 +61,50 @@ To label programs as "functional" but the art and music that constitutes the int
 ---
 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
+1* "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, not unlike art or music - to label games as "functional" but their art and music as "non-functional" is ludacris - a game its arworks, and sounds, are all essential, strongly coupled, inter-dependent components, which serve a single unified "function", namely: that of a toy
+  => regardless of any ethical imperative, RMS himself has made contrary statements, insisting that sources are required for "_everything_ we distribute" (the underline is his)
 
- * "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
+from: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2011-07/msg01184.html
+
+  "Yes, they must [always provide the sources of documentation].
+   That requirement applies to _everything_ we distribute.
+
+  "We can distribute non-source files too, ...
+   but the _source_ package must include source for _everything in it_!"
+
+RMS is not known for using inprecise language - that is everything, save only the floppies, the shrink-wrap, and the postage stamps - to be pedandic, that is "_everything_ which is not already in its preferred form for modification", such as plain text READMEs and configuration files - as for artworks, SVG images and MIDI files are rare exceptions, in that they are inherently created and distributed as plain text - the vast majority of digital artwork is both created and distributed as binary - in any case of a composition, sources are required in order to isolate the layers, which were created individually, for the purpose of all but the most shallow modifications - this is nothing different than binary executables, with the exception of being not "for practical use"; but again, games themselves do not meet that criteria either
+
+2* "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 freely licensed games, and as well 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 had ever existed - afterall, it's only function is entertainment, an object in the same class as a checker-board, a baseball glove, and a kazoo
 
 
 ---
 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 -
+1* => personally, i consider games AS works of art in their own right, with computation as the medium, as a painting is to it's paint and canvas, or a sculpture to it's clay - works that i would not want to modify any more than i would of an artist's stage performance - one does not attend an art gallery with the expectation or desire of customizing the exhibits - art is best experienced precicely in it's pristine form, as the author intended - its "value" is otherwise diminished
+  => 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"???
- ^ (this is actually in line wth the FSF view on art but i simply apply the same terms to games as well as art and music)
-
+ ^ (this is actually in line wth the FSF view on art but i simply apply the same terms to games as well as art and music - "for practical use" needs to be interpreted very loosely to describe any video game)
 
-* 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 -
+---
+TODO: counter agrument to the above
+2* => 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)
+
+  => whereas it is not desireable to modify the artistic expression inherent in someone else's work; with 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
+???the (where is this written?) states that fonts are functional works for practical use which require all input sources; but images are not???
+
+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 either could replace the other in a software program, without changing the program's 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 freedom to modify the AOL "you got mail" sound clip important, only when it is being used to announce incoming email? - what if one merely enjoys triggering that sound for pleasure? - then is the freedom to modify it not as important, because that use case is not "practical"?
+
+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 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?
+FWIW personally, i would not draw the line between functional vs non-functional in any context - its all the same "kind of stuff" to the computer : bits and bytes - 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 that junk foods containing no nutrients (non-functional), but instead, a cornocopia of un-pronounceable chemicals, are inherently acceptable because they are not intended to be nutritious?
 
 
 ---