[Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract

[Luke Shumaker]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 01:21:30 -0400,
fauno wrote:
> > I feel kinda silly saying this, but: I'm not familiar with a Free Art
> > Movement.  And even if I'm silly for that, we shouldn't assume that
> > the reader of the Social Contract is more informed than me.  And
> > searching for it yields results that I don't think are related.
> >
> > I am familiar with the Free Culture movement.  How is this different?
> >
> > With the Free Software Movement, we have a link to Wikipedia, in case
> > the reader is unfamiliar with it.  We have details on what that
> > means.
> >
> > The same isn't true for Free Art.  It just says "it does not provide
> > any type of support for non-free art." and tacks on "and art" after
> > "software."  With no real details.  It references the FSDG for
> > software, then just says "and art".  What does it mean to "not provide
> > … support for non-free art."?
> 
> i felt the same way... didn't we have wording stating that since we
> supported free software & culture we weren't going to provide non-free
> art and documents such as game art and non-free documentation?  i
> remember mtjm saying we should remove documentation under gnu fdl with
> invariant sections too (though i don't recall any specific package that
> contained such documentation).

Perhaps you are thinking about the Ceata agreement, which includes
bits about Free Culture?

In 2013 we discussed that adding Free Culture to the Social Contract
would be a good idea, but I don't believe any wording was proposed.

-- 
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker