Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Hyperbola: Other "Information for practical use" under a free license

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

2018-05-16T01:08:07-0400 bill-auger wrote:
> i think adonay is mostly echo-ing my point that it is a shame that the
> complete corresponding source requirement is not encouraged or even
> mentioned as a option for artworks by those who have taken it upon
> themselves to define "free culture" for everyone else - without that,
> there is nothing to distinguish "free culture" from those who would
> rather say "open culture"

I must also complement what was said here by noting that the Definition
of Free Cultural Works does require complete corresponding source
files[1]. Although I'm not discarding the possibility that some
activists of "free culture" might not know of such requirement. And by
complete corresponding source I don't mean the .ogg/.opus file, but the
audio project file together with the raw recording --- exceptions being
made for improvisations (in which there is no music sheet, and no
stablished music to play) and also when the resulting file itself is the
source (such as live recordings, which don't have cuts nor special
effects).

I also agree that it's unfortunate that the Definition of Free Cultural
Works doesn't enforce only licenses which demand the complete
corresponding source to be provided somehow. However, I must aknowledge
that this saying comes against us as a double-sided knife, since even
the free/libre software movement accepts works as free/libre under
licenses that don't require providing the source files (/e.g./:
Expat). I say this in the sense that while they allow you to study,
adapt, and share and sell the adaptations, there's no provision in the
license text that requires the source files to be provided, so the free
culture actvists can find the same possible kinds of people as we do:

a) those who publish works under free culture licenses and provide ways
   to get complete corresponding source files;

b) people that behave like (a) but don't make the end-user aware of the
   possibility to get the source files;

c) others which don't even provide free/libre cultural works.

> but beyond that, it is a mistake to equate images, video, or audio with
> source code; which is what the "free culture" definition essentially
> does - it quite assumes that mere distribution provides freedom with the
> mostly useless caveat that crude modifications are possible - the free
> software definition includes permissive licenses for source code only
> because it *is* the source code; which is implicitly assumed to be
> modifiable as it is itself the preferred form for modification - but
> simply applying that model to artwork blobs does not do the same job;
> because these are rarely accompanied by their sources

I also would like to complement this by saying that I also don't quite
agree with the free culture, I try to contribute to it when publishing
my works, but I don't agree on using their definition to my day-to-day
preferences. I agree that all digital materials/files must allow for
unlimited sharing of the entire work because these are public goods by
nature --- in the econmics sense, not in public administration --- since
they come from knowledge, information, are born non-rival,
non-excludable and with zero transaction costs to the end-user.

However --- taking the same hook I used in a 20min talk I gave about
free/libre software movement in May 12th on a city nearby --- functional
data has some features that distinguish it from other digital goods:

a) sequence of orders executed blindly by the computer (applies only to
   scripted elements);

b) written by someone else (also applies to non-functional data, but
   read on);

c) one can use it without the corresponding source (id.);

d) for practical use (in the sense that given data can by itself
   misbehave);

e) modifies local culture (the absense of the data might impact how
   people perceive my work because they are already expecting me to use
   and depend on that data). This is particularly seen with text fonts
   and color profiles.

These characteristics *aggravate* the need for these goods to be
free/libre first, in contrast to non-functional ones.

In my presentation, after talking about (e), I also reminded people
about (b) again, precisely because --- taking the example of software
---, while in the case of cement you (or someone hired by you) can
easily break, redo, append to and provide services based on it, software
isn't that way, once you lose the source files and the rights to do such
things, you lose control of your own material environment, your
capability.

[1] https://freedomdefined.org/Definition#Defining_Free_Cultural_Works