Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

I'm currently not subscribed to:

address@hidden
address@hidden

... So if you want to reply to me, please include me as recipient, or
reply to: address@hidden .

... Back to the topic now:

Mind if I offer my opinions?

Well, unless I was really blind, I couldn't see the original sender
(Luke Shumaker?) saying anything about "FOSS".

The name of the project could be written as "Parabola" or "Parabola
System Distribution" (or any variation of these).

It's funny fact that there is a GNU package/software called Arch, so
making a distinction as to which "Arch" the contract talks about is a
good thing. Although I *personally* see no need to fight over which name
to use (whether it should be "Arch", "Arch GNU+Linux", variants of this
one, or "Arch Linux), as long as the reader is made aware of which
project is being talked about.

It's also important to note that, there is a definition of what "free
culture" is, and it's guarded by the Definition of Free Cultural Works.
Most people assume that every free software activist is a free culture
activist, but that's not always true.

The only thing that the free software demands in respect to
non-functional data (this name is needed because some "arts" can also be
functional, specially depending on which definition of "functional" one
uses), is for the non-functional data to be allowed to have copies of
the original shared unlimitedly (this is half of freedom 2). The only
exception is when the non-functional data is to be included on a free
system distribution, as per the GNU FSDG, the non-functional data must
respect freedom 2 entirely.

Now, "which definition of functional and non-functional one should use
to evaluate this cases?", this is something that I don't see debates
about. Documents on the GNU project website talk about objective
definition (that points out what is or not), but I was told that most
free software activists tend to follow a subjective definition (in
which, in addition to the objective definition, the activist has to
evaluate each data so as to see if it's really non-functional or not).

I'm not a free culture activist, but it must be noted that, the current
Definition of Free Cultural Works requires that complete and
corresponding source of the cultural work to also be made available
along with the license that respects the essential freedoms defined
there. While this eases the complex debate as to whether things are
functional or not, this actually makes most free software projects
ineligible for inclusion on system distributions that follow the current
Definition of Free Cultural Works, since following this definition
results in questions of whether that file is the preferred form of
modification or the complete corresponding source.

For example:

* .midi/.xm/.mod audio files are their own source. 

* .flac, .ogg and other audio files aren't their own source, unless it's
proven to come from pure improvisation. Even so, if the improvisation is
stored in one single file of these types, and has multiple participants
or instruments, then it might as well not be the preferred form of
modification.

Besides, the current Definition of Free Cultural Works requires these to
be in a format or codec/encoder used *mainly* by free software.

Real examples would include:

* SuperTux2 which only provides .ogg for it's music files, even if one
downloads the "source".

* Maze of Galious which provides only .ogg files for it's music, even if
one downloads the "source".

* Freedoom which provides .midi files (with files ending as .mus due to
Deutex limitations).

I was told in #fsf (or was that #trisquel?) that there's a draft of the
Definition of Free Cultural Works that removes this requirement of
complete corresponding source, but it wasn't approved since 2007.
Perhaps it's time for free culture activists to discuss the draft with
more focus.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part