Re: FSDG issues of SCUMMVM-based games

[Maxime Devos]

On 24-08-2022 22:24, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> Is it Functional Data:
>
>    https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
>
>    "For example, some game engines released under the GNU GPL have
>    accompanying game information—a fictional world map, game graphics,
>    and so on—released under such a verbatim-distribution license. This
>    kind of data can be part of a free system distribution, even though
>    its license does not qualify as free, because it is non-functional."

SCUMMVM, among other things, interprets the bytecode of the games (see: VM).

A long time ago, I looked at the Debian package of one of the games, and 
there appeared to be only a single 'game' file IIRC, presumably this 
includes the bytecode.

Bytecode is code and hence functional, if 'functional' is interpreted in 
the narrow sense of 'it does a practical job'.

As such, I do not think this falls under 'non-functional data'

---

That paragraph also appears inconsistent to me. The world map, game 
graphics, sounds ... are one of the most important components of the 
game. If someone wants to modify the game, I consider it more likely 
they have to modify the world map and maybe add some graphics and sounds 
than that they have to change the engine. Seems pretty 'functional' to 
me. It also does a practical job: entertaining the user.

As such, it appears to me that if the ‘meh, it's non-functional data’ is 
non-free, then the game is effectively non-free ---- software does not 
just consist of code, the non-code parts are sometimes as important as 
the code or more important -- they belong together, as a whole.

Myself, being able to code but not good at art, I would rather have a 
non-free game engine with free non-functional data than the free game 
engine with non-free non-functional data that the FSDG refers to, at 
least I would with a sufficient amount of work (*) be able to replace 
the non-free engine, but don't ask me to replace the artwork ...

(*) and some assistance, depending on the size and complexity.

---

Another thing I would like to note is that, even if it were 
non-functional data, according to (guix)Software Freedom everything in 
Guix is free software:

> The GNU operating system has been developed so that users can have
> freedom in their computing.  GNU is “free software”, meaning that users
> have the four essential freedoms
> (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html): to run the program, to
> study and change the program in source code form, to redistribute exact
> copies, and to distribute modified versions.  Packages found in the GNU
> distribution provide only software that conveys these four freedoms.
(I'm interpreting 'GNU operating system' and 'GNU distribition' as 
'Guix' here.)

That paragraph, and the web page referred to there does not make an 
exception for non-functional data -- if it's software, the 4 freedoms 
should apply, this is usually code but the freedoms and the reasons for 
them apply to software in general, not for code in specific.

To me, it appears that the SCUMMVM games cannot be in Guix, because of 
that rule.

It is, however, contradicted by the following paragraph, which is also a 
bit misleading:

>    In addition, the GNU distribution follow the free software
> distribution guidelines
> (https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html).
> Among other things, these guidelines reject non-free firmware,
> recommendations of non-free software, and discuss ways to deal with
> trademarks and patents.
I consider it contradictory in the sense that it adds exceptions to the 
'software must be free' claimed by the the previous paragraph, without 
being explicit that there are exceptions (see: non-functional data). I 
consider it misleading in the sense that the phrasing implies it just 
adds a bit of rules (on top of the 4 freedoms thing) and advise on 
potential legal problems, even though it also carves out a few 
exceptions (see: non-functional data).

> You cannot sell the game itself, but you can charge "a reasonable
> copying fee" and distribute it commercially... while slightly confusing
> and seemingly contradictory at a passing glance, those two clauses alone
> do not appear to violate any of the four freedoms to me:
>
>    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
While initially I thought of it as 'a no-selling clause -> 
non-commercial only -> non-free', after your explanation I agree -- it 
does not appear to have the potential problems referred to in 'Free 
software can be commercial' and there is no explicit 'The freedom to 
sell software.'.

> I'm not really sure you have the right to "sell" most software in GNU
> Guix, but you're free to distribute it and even charge for the
> distribution of it, and use it in products that you sell to customers.
>
> Most licenses do not give you ownership of the software; they roughly
> give you permission to use, study, modify, and share it under the terms
> of that license. If you do not own it, I am not sure you can sell it...
Agreed, though myself I am considering this from another perspective -- 
everything in Guix is gratis ('free' in the commerce sense), usually it 
appears that upstream _wants_ it to be available at zero-cost though 
maybe I'm projecting here, so to me attempts to sell the software would 
appear to be a scam to me, with some exceptions (*).

Some scams being illegal, maybe this one would be too, and hence no 
right to 'sell' the software ...

(*) E.g., sometimes you can 'buy' a license to the software but what it 
really means is that you are paying the developers to keep working on 
that software -- in case of tome4, it's even explicitly named a donation 
instead of buying. I do not recall an example where it was phrased as 
buying though ...

Greetings,
Maxime.

OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature