[Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract
Luke Shumaker
lukeshu at sbcglobal.net
Sun Jun 12 02:53:58 GMT 2016
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 21:05:23 -0400,
Luke Shumaker wrote:
> I've compiled list of past discussions we've had about Free Culture
> and Parabola. Not all of them are primarily about Free Culture. I
> hope it is useful.
And now I've put together a reader of the relevant bits of all of
those conversations. As much for my use as yours.
A quick highlight: This is one of our current policies:
https://wiki.parabola.nu/Package_freedom_verification_problems
> | Subject | First Message |
> |------------------------------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------|
> | [RFC] Package freedom requirements clarification | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2012-November/000974.html |
mtjm wrote:
> We have many free packages, many new ones added and some being found
> nonfree and replaced. We also get questions why some packages are
> included or not, some examples are nonfree game data (ND or NC) and
> documentation being a nonfree cultural work (e.g. GNU manuals or POSIX
> man pages; I'm probably the only user asking about these).
>
> I haven't found any specific policy clearly explaining what software (or
> non-software work) is allowed and what isn't. The Social Contract [0]
> is sometimes used to explain this, although it provides no answer other
> than referring to the FSDG, while we have stricter unwritten
> requirements on ND non-functional data.
>
> [0] https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract
He went on to propose a policy:
> 2. Accept only free cultural works and GNU FDL-licensed documentation
>
> I.e. require all nontrivial non-license works to comply with [1]
> or [2] unless they are correctly FDL-licensed documentation (so
> e.g. a manual that consists only of invariant sections isn't
> accepted).
>
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> [2] http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
And asked the question:
> Is there a better way to express our support for free culture
> without including too many nonfree works?
fauno responded to this:
> discussing freedom related issues with upstream (without trolling) is
> better. we had discussed this with encyclomundi when the syslog-ng guys
> got angry because we blacklisted them iirc, and also guestone reported a
> mislicensed art for a game that would go unnoticed if we had just
> blacklisted it.
fauno also commented on mtjm's entire policy proposal:
> i think it's ok but the social contract should add the clarification in
> favor of free cultural works too.
Only 3.5 years later, and we're finally getting around to it :P
The conversation then died down, leading us to another round of the
same topic, a month later:
> | [Votation] Package freedom guidelines, what to do next | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2012-December/001037.html |
mtjm's new version of his policy proposal said:
> == All nontrivial works in binary packages are free software, free
> cultural works or GNU FDL-licensed documentation ==
>
> All nontrivial non-license works should be
> [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or
> [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works] unless they
> are correctly GNU FDL-licensed documentation ("correctly" implies that
> e.g. a manual that consists only of invariant sections isn't accepted).
mtjm also included as an issue to decide:
> - the FDL exception
>
> Is there a better way to express our support for free culture without
> including too many nonfree works?
>
> Are there non-FDL-licensed nonfree works that we want to include?
>
> Or maybe instead we should have an exception for GNU packages? GNU
> Emacs includes many separate nonfree works of opinion. Most nonfree
> FDL manuals that I know about are of GNU packages with GNU cover texts
> making them nonfree.
fauno respondend to this:
> i can hear some troll calling us hyppocrites here :P
>
> i think fdl-licensed manuals and such can be problematic but it's not
> the same as, for instance, cc-licensed works that are all or nothing.
GuestOne responded:
> I think that Parabola should be an authentic example of freedom so,
> please, no exceptions.
>
> Always Free Software and Free Culture.
mtjm posted this in response:
> Details from #parabola:
>
> 21:54 < GuestOne> Are there non-FDL-licensed nonfree works that we want to include?
> 21:54 < GuestOne> Or maybe instead we should have an exception for GNU packages?
> 21:54 < GuestOne> NO!
> 21:56 < GuestOne> please refuse all sort of non-free stuff in parabola, there are no reasons to include it, no exceptions!
> 22:02 < GuestOne> parabola should be a true example of freedom
> [...]
> 22:12 < mtjm> it might be easy, Debian already has GNU packages with nonfree parts stripped
> 22:12 < mtjm> (and many removed them upstream to be included in Debian)
> 22:13 < mtjm> what about freely licensed nonfunctional data without sources?
> 22:15 < fauno> like a cc-by-sa pdf book?
> 22:16 < mtjm> or bitmaps of game art rendered using Blender
> 22:16 < mtjm> it had no source in one game, so it isn't included in Debian
> 22:16 < GuestOne> FSF is permissive if you talk about this, but i like the Debian way (always sources)
> 22:17 < mtjm> if A is a binary made from unpublished source B, users can edit both, B is easier to edit, should we not include A?
> 22:18 < mtjm> it's not clear in case of fonts, hyphenation patterns and other non-program useful data
> 22:22 < GuestOne> if Free Culture is a base of Parabola we should respect it including just free stuff also for non functional data
> 22:24 < mtjm> these examples are for functional data
> 22:25 < mtjm> it might be harder to decide what is the source for nonfunctional data
> 22:25 < GuestOne> this is my point of view: data should be free in any case
> 22:26 < GuestOne> functional or non functional
> 22:26 < GuestOne> i think the same thing if we talk about games
>
> My comments:
>
> - we should keep the "free software or free culture" rule to accept the
> four clause BSD license
>
> - we should check for what packages Debian changes sources, we would do
> it for many of them (e.g. GNU packages with invariant sections)
>
> - are FDL cover texts trivial enough to be accepted? I don't see there
> as much culture as in the invariant essays included in some manuals,
> while they are/were a more common issue.
>
> - we should keep an exception for license texts
>
> - the meaning of source is unclear for non-program works (like fonts or
> drawings), many editable works in e.g. TeXLive were made from slightly
> more editable forms that are not published
Then the conversation died, again...
> | [Voting] Package freedom guidelines draft two | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2013-January/001086.html |
This version of the draft had 5 options (A, B.H, B.I, C.H, or C.I) for
the relevant policy:
> == License rules for source and binary packages ==
Option A:
> All nontrivial non-license works should be
> [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or
> [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works] unless they
> are correctly GNU FDL-licensed documentation ("correctly" implies that
> e.g. a manual that consists only of invariant sections isn't accepted)
> or GNU packages (with e.g. nonmodifiable works of opinion).
Option B: (choose B.H or B.I)
> All nontrivial non-license works should be
> [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or
> [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works].
>
> Source packages might contain correctly GNU FDL-licensed documentation
> ("correctly" implies that e.g. a manual that consists only of
> invariant sections isn't accepted) or, if they are GNU packages,
> nonmodifiable works of opinion which are not included in the binary
> packages.
Option B.H:
> GNU FDL manuals with cover texts are not accepted in binary
> packages.
Option B.I:
> GNU FDL manuals with cover texts but no invariant sections are
> accepted in binary packages.
Option C: (choose C.H or C.I)
> All nontrivial non-license works should be
> [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or
> [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works].
Option C.H:
> GNU FDL manuals with cover texts are not accepted.
Option C.I:
> GNU FDL manuals with cover texts but no invariant sections are
> accepted.
He also offered the commentary:
> If we choose B or C, many relevant changes should be ported from Debian.
>
> My choice
> =========
>
> - A: It's more similar to what we already do. I think we were aware
> of the GNU nonmodifiable works of opinion and cover texts issues and
> had no plans to change this.
> …
> - I: I think it's similar to accepting works requiring inclusion of a
> license with an opinion text inside, this is accepted.
I (lukeshu) weighed in:
> It is ridiculous to have an exception for GNU packages. Given that
> GNU is normally freely-license, we need to match whatever exceptions
> they have. Therefore, we need exceptions for:
>
> * license works
> * works of opinion
>
> And probably others. If ever we decide that we need to blacklist a
> GNU package, that means that the policy that decided that is broken;
> not that we need to give GNU an exception.
>
> That applies to any time we want to make an exception for a package.
> Instead of making an exception, we need to fix the policy.
>
> …
>
> Parabola has always *supported* and *preferred* free culture, but
> has always allowed in nonfree cultural works. And quite frankly,
> enforcing this is unfeasible.
>
> That said, I do believe that we should formalize our support of free
> culture.
>
> > H. GNU FDL manuals with cover texts are not accepted in binary
> > packages.
> >
> > I. GNU FDL manuals with cover texts but no invariant sections are
> > accepted in binary packages.
>
> It is also ridiculous to include exceptions for a specific license.
> What makes cover texts acceptable? Allow sections that do that,
> without relying on a specific license.
>
> > H. GNU FDL manuals with cover texts are not accepted.
> >
> > I. GNU FDL manuals with cover texts but no invariant sections are
> > accepted.
>
> This would require us to modify GNU packages, which is neither
> feasable, nor something that I think policy should ask of us.
mtjm responded:
> > It is ridiculous to have an exception for GNU packages. Given that
> > GNU is normally freely-license, we need to match whatever exceptions
> > they have. Therefore, we need exceptions for:
> >
> > * license works
> > * works of opinion
>
> We have an exception for licenses. These ND-like works remain:
>
> 0. separate works of opinion, e.g. RMS interviews, essays, sex jokes in
> the Emacs distribution
> 1. FDL cover texts
> 2. FDL invariant sections
> 3. copyright, license or attribution notices
>
> 0 and 3 are obvious to handle, I think 1 could be considered acceptable
> attribution; 2 could have a separate exception based on how the FDL
> defines these sections.
>
> > And probably others. If ever we decide that we need to blacklist a
> > GNU package, that means that the policy that decided that is broken;
> > not that we need to give GNU an exception.
>
> There were real licensing problems in GNU packages, e.g. Emacs sources
> not including sources of generated parsers, the Sun RPC issue of glibc,
> or Enscript not including the license of Adobe font metrics, these are
> fixed quickly.
>
> > That applies to any time we want to make an exception for a package.
> > Instead of making an exception, we need to fix the policy.
>
> It might result in much more complex policies allowing some worse
> decisions. I don't know if it will be so in this case.
>
> > Parabola has always *supported* and *preferred* free culture, but
> > has always allowed in nonfree cultural works. And quite frankly,
> > enforcing this is unfeasible.
> >
> > That said, I do believe that we should formalize our support of free
> > culture.
>
> How would we formalize it? The DFSG discourages forbidding distribution
> of modified sources (i.e. only unmodified sources + patches), maybe this
> should be stated similarly?
>
> >> H. GNU FDL manuals with cover texts are not accepted.
> >>
> >> I. GNU FDL manuals with cover texts but no invariant sections are
> >> accepted.
> >
> > This would require us to modify GNU packages, which is neither
> > feasable, nor something that I think policy should ask of us.
>
> Debian does this, maybe we could use their sources, it still won't be
> easy.
To which I followed up:
> I'd also say that the FDL exceptions are only OK in some situations
> (the situations RMS thinks are OK). I believe that this is "invariate
> sections are OK only for secondary sections"; whatever that means.
>
> But we can simplify this: we only require editability for "technical
> writing". ND Opinion? Fine. ND License? Fine. ND section of manual
> explaining the GFDL? Fine. ND section of manual about the software?
> Not fine.
>
> > > That said, I do believe that we should formalize our support of free
> > > culture.
> >
> > How would we formalize it? The DFSG discourages forbidding distribution
> > of modified sources (i.e. only unmodified sources + patches), maybe this
> > should be stated similarly?
>
> I'm not sure; it's something we definately need to discuss. But my
> contribution is that blacklisting non-free-culture goes too far.
> Perhaps just writing down that we prefer it, and to use free-cultrue
> when there is an option.
>
> > > This would require us to modify GNU packages, which is neither
> > > feasable, nor something that I think policy should ask of us.
> >
> > Debian does this, maybe we could use their sources, it still won't be
> > easy.
>
> Debian also has compile farms, and FAR more manpower than we do.
To which mtjm responded:
> > I'd also say that the FDL exceptions are only OK in some situations
> > (the situations RMS thinks are OK). I believe that this is "invariate
> > sections are OK only for secondary sections"; whatever that means.
>
> This is explicitly stated in the FDL, documents with invariant primary
> sections aren't properly licensed.
>
> > These are/were bugs with the GNU packages, not places where our
> > policies conflicted.
>
> Many other cases are bugs in the packages that are fixed in future
> versions (e.g. chromium-bsu, supertuxkart, syslog-ng). I don't know if
> we blacklisted a GNU package; gNewSense had enscript blacklisted for a
> new contributor to fix it since it's easy.
I don't believe anything ever came of these package freedom guideline
policy discussions, though.
> | [RFC] rewording the Social Contract | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2013-July/001554.html |
Hey! The predecesor to this discussion!
In my original post, I wrote:
> Other changes I think we should consider:
>
> …
> * We should add a bit about the Free Culture movement, which we sort-of also
> support, to formalize our stance on that.
No one really followed up with that possibility, though.
> | Confusion about game data | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2015-March/002834.html |
Skipping a bunch of details, the game UQM was blacklisted because its
assets were CC-BY-NC-SA.
The discussion of Free Culture being enforced began with Fabio
Pesari's message:
> On 03/07/2015 10:30 AM, Michał Masłowski wrote:
> >> - https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/uqm-content
> >> - https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/uqm-music
> >> - https://packages.debian.org/wheezy/uqm-voice
> > Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA which is nonfree.
> > [...]
> >
> > Both should be blacklisted in Parabola
>
> I agree that the nonfree data should not be included in Parabola but I
> personally disagree about the blacklisting.
>
> There is a huge difference between Free Software and Free Culture: Free
> Software is a social movement while Free Culture is a cultural movement.
> But most importantly, art is free from many of the implications of
> software: you will never be relying on art to monitor your heart rate,
> for example (and if so, it means it's powered by either hardware or
> software).
>
> Parabola is a free distro and as such, I agree that it should commit to
> Freedom, 100%. But at the same time, I see no reason the *code*
> shouldn't be distributed, if it's fully free.
>
> I'm saying this because someone committed to Free Software isn't
> necessarily committed to Free Culture. From GNU.org itself:
>
> > We don't take the position that artistic or entertainment works must
> > be free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art
> > License
>
> and again
>
> > Works of art, and works that state a point of view, are different
> > issues; the GNU Project has no general stand about how they should be
> > released, except that they should all be usable without nonfree
> > software (in particular, without DRM)
>
> Games with fully free code fit that requirement, regardless of the
> license under which their assets are released.
>
> For the record, I support Free Culture, but at the same time I think it
> should be considered a completely separate issue from Free Software.
mtjm responded:
> > I agree that the nonfree data should not be included in Parabola but I
> > personally disagree about the blacklisting.
>
> It's easier here:
> https://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data
> (which we follow) forbids NC. The idea is that a business could sell
> CDs with Parabola packages.
>
> > There is a huge difference between Free Software and Free Culture: Free
> > Software is a social movement while Free Culture is a cultural movement.
>
> Why isn't it also a social movement, and why it's a separate movement?
> (I don't believe it's possible to obsolete DRM without obsoleting
> nonfree cultural works. Laws made to prevent users from modifying or
> sharing cultural works restrict software: see DMCA.)
>
> > But most importantly, art is free from many of the implications of
> > software: you will never be relying on art to monitor your heart rate,
> > for example (and if so, it means it's powered by either hardware or
> > software).
>
> And software will never use art, and it's obvious for us if a work will
> have a practical purpose while copyright exists? (I don't believe I
> could correctly predict what happens during next 130 years, and this is
> assuming no copyright extensions.)
>
> > Parabola is a free distro and as such, I agree that it should commit to
> > Freedom, 100%. But at the same time, I see no reason the *code*
> > shouldn't be distributed, if it's fully free.
>
> It shouldn't be distributed if it cannot be used with only data that we
> distribute.
To which Fabio responded:
> > It's easier here:
> > https://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data
> > (which we follow) forbids NC. The idea is that a business could sell
> > CDs with Parabola packages.
>
> It talks about data and never mentions code, so releasing just the code
> would not go against guidelines, right?
>
> > Why isn't it also a social movement, and why it's a separate movement?
> > (I don't believe it's possible to obsolete DRM without obsoleting
> > nonfree cultural works. Laws made to prevent users from modifying or
> > sharing cultural works restrict software: see DMCA.)
>
> The two are obviously related but fundamentally, the purpose of art is
> different from that of software.
>
> In short, I can decide to live without art but I cannot do the same with
> software (directly or indirectly), and this is a fact that will never
> change.
>
> But fundamentally, I was just referring to the difference between
> society and culture.
>
> In any case, there are more important, related issues of which the Free
> Software community should take care. Hardware is a big problem, for
> example, and so is freedom on the Internet.
>
> > And software will never use art, and it's obvious for us if a work will
> > have a practical purpose while copyright exists?
>
> If we separate the art from the implementation, things are a bit easier.
> Art cannot really be used (only consumed), but data can. With games,
> it's hard to tell when one ends and the other starts, and this is part
> of an old debate ("are games art?").
>
> But one thing that is easy to discern is how the game is executed, and
> that is its code.
>
> > It shouldn't be distributed if it cannot be used with only data that we
> > distribute.
>
> If we extend this to other programs, it's a dangerous slippery slope.
>
> Those games can be used with any data that fits their specifications.
> For example, the authors of Open Arena have used the Quake 3 source
> along with their own free assets to make their version of Quake 3. Would
> that have been possible without the Quake 3 source code? No, theirs
> would have been just a clone (like FreeCiv).
>
> If we free software supporters start looking down on free software
> because it does not fit some criteria external to the software itself,
> we'll waste a lot of precious time fighting among ourselves.
fauno then responded:
> Fabio Pesari <fabio at pesari.eu> writes:
> >> It's easier here:
> >> https://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data
> >> (which we follow) forbids NC. The idea is that a business could sell
> >> CDs with Parabola packages.
> >
> > It talks about data and never mentions code, so releasing just the code
> > would not go against guidelines, right?
>
> i thought the wiki said it (or we lost it on one of the many
> migrations...) but parabola is also commited to free culture, and that's
> why we don't include artwork with non-commercial (also disallowed by the
> fsdg) or non-derivative (allowed by the fsdg) terms.
>
> in cases like these, and it's always about game data, the solution is to
> approach the developers and ask them for relicensing. we've barely done
> that in five years.
>
> blacklisting is the only method we have so far... it sounds awful but
> i'd better not make it a newspeak term.
>
> blacklisting is freedom! :P
then Fabio again:
> On 03/07/2015 03:41 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> > i thought the wiki said it (or we lost it on one of the many
> > migrations...) but parabola is also commited to free culture,
>
> That's good to know, as I too support it.
>
> But I looked around and I could not find it in the Wiki, I only found
> the rule in
> https://wiki.parabola.nu/Package_freedom_verification_problems but if
> Parabola is explicitly committed to Free Culture, I think it should be
> in the homepage or in the social contract.
>
> > and that's
> > why we don't include artwork with non-commercial (also disallowed by the
> > fsdg) or non-derivative (allowed by the fsdg) terms.
>
> That's fine, but I never proposed that...I was talking about binaries
> only, not data. Most distros already do it, to some extent - for
> example, all those games which require proprietary assets (such as
> Chocolate Doom and CorsixTH) are always distributed without any data.
>
> > in cases like these, and it's always about game data, the solution is to
> > approach the developers and ask them for relicensing. we've barely done
> > that in five years.
> >
> > blacklisting is the only method we have so far... it sounds awful but
> > i'd better not make it a newspeak term.
> >
> > blacklisting is freedom! :P
>
> Over the years, I asked the developers of many such projects to liberate
> their assets.
>
> …
>
> Now, we can contact the developers, but it's very unlikely they will
> change their minds.
>
> My hope is that some people will make free assets from scratch for those
> games, but for games like UQM I'm afraid it will just not happen. People
> are still selling Zork, a game written in 1977, in 2015; people get very
> upset when you try to profit off their IP but can be kinder toward
> non-commercial efforts.
fauno again:
> Fabio Pesari <fabio at pesari.eu> writes:
> > On 03/07/2015 03:41 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> >> i thought the wiki said it (or we lost it on one of the many
> >> migrations...) but parabola is also commited to free culture,
> >
> > That's good to know, as I too support it.
> >
> > But I looked around and I could not find it in the Wiki, I only found
> > the rule in
> > https://wiki.parabola.nu/Package_freedom_verification_problems but if
> > Parabola is explicitly committed to Free Culture, I think it should be
> > in the homepage or in the social contract.
>
> i thought it was on the social contract...
I think this is a good sign that it *should* be in the Social
Contract.
fauno continues:
> >> and that's why we don't include artwork with non-commercial (also
> >> disallowed by the fsdg) or non-derivative (allowed by the fsdg)
> >> terms.
> >
> > That's fine, but I never proposed that...I was talking about binaries
> > only, not data. Most distros already do it, to some extent - for
> > example, all those games which require proprietary assets (such as
> > Chocolate Doom and CorsixTH) are always distributed without any data.
>
> so you would distribute a binary package that's only useful with artwork
> not available on repos? that's like a *nudge nudge* to go use unfree
> stuff outside them :P
Fabio responded:
> On 03/07/2015 06:58 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> > so you would distribute a binary package that's only useful with artwork
> > not available on repos? that's like a *nudge nudge* to go use unfree
> > stuff outside them :P
>
> Well, we distribute emulators and they are only useful with nonfree ROMs
> not available on repos, aren't they? What about PDF readers? Web browsers?
>
> I personally would see it as a way to support free software and to
> recognize it as such. Those programs are fully functional and free,
> nothing stops users from providing their own assets (as long as the
> required asset pipeline is also free, otherwise the game should be
> blacklisted as a whole).
>
> > http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
>
> I just finished reading it. One interesting thing is that even they
> could not find any conclusions for content users, aside from "ask the
> authors to change the terms of the license".
>
> If I run a free game, I can read its code and be 100% sure it's not
> backdoored. If its assets are nonfree, I can still be 100% sure that
> it's not backdoored. Let's say my main reason to use free software is
> security or privacy, how would free assets affect me?
>
> >From a content author perspective, I disagree with their conclusions. I
> think the NC still offers a clear advantage: the end users are not
> affected by it, only potential competitors. I think this article is
> being overly optimistic regarding how people value their philosophical
> integrity, especially when profit is concerned. I bet the developers of
> games like UQM don't feel bad about themselves, and why should they?
> They've done more for libre gaming than many other people. By releasing
> a high-quality game, they made a lot of people realize that free gaming
> does not necessarily mean Pac Man clones and text games and attracted
> them to free software.
>
> And that's why I say that while similar in spirit, Free Software and
> Free Culture are separate movements. Free culture is for the most part
> content author culture while Free software is for the most part user
> culture.
>
> Of course, a person which champions freedom in general will support
> both, but in my opinion they do not hold the same importance.
fauno again:
> Fabio Pesari <fabio at pesari.eu> writes:
> > On 03/07/2015 06:58 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> >> so you would distribute a binary package that's only useful with artwork
> >> not available on repos? that's like a *nudge nudge* to go use unfree
> >> stuff outside them :P
> >
> > Well, we distribute emulators and they are only useful with nonfree ROMs
> > not available on repos, aren't they?
>
> sure, but do they need to be distributed alongside them?
>
> > What about PDF readers? Web browsers?
>
> i think we should always have freedom #0 in mind. these are free
> software, we shouldn't mess with how people want to use them, while we
> don't need to distribute unfree things for them to be useful.
>
> > And that's why I say that while similar in spirit, Free Software and
> > Free Culture are separate movements. Free culture is for the most part
> > content author culture while Free software is for the most part user
> > culture.
>
> in that case i prefer dmytri kleiner's distinction between free software
> and free culture :P
>
> http://telekommunisten.net/the-telekommunist-manifesto/
Fabio responded:
> On 03/07/2015 08:22 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> > sure, but do they need to be distributed alongside them?
>
> Neither do game assets, technically. But I get what you're saying: a
> binary game package without data would be useless, and I agree.
>
> It would also be useless to keep arguing about this, since we are
> clearly both Free Culture supporters and we both agree that Parabola
> should not distribute the assets. I was just proposing a way to keep
> distributing free software while leaving the nonfree data out, but
> since you said that Parabola aligns itself with free culture, I think
> the users will understand if some free software will be excluded in
> order to comply with it.
>
> Still, I'd really like to see as many libre games in Parabola's repos as
> possible.
Kuba Kukielka then joined the conversation:
> So what are we going to do now? Are we going to have a script that
> downloads the data and installs it (like in Debian) or are we going to
> continue distributing this?
>
> I would say that the best way of doing this is to distribute the game
> itself and then have an option to download the data. (The user would
> have to be warned that the images are non-free/under a non-commercial
> license)
>
> To individuals it will not be a problem, the only thing they want to
> do is play a game but for commercial purposes, or if you want to
> modify and distribute it, then problems might happen. This should be
> very clearly addressed to the user that is installing the package.
>
> Give them a choice, if someone is a really determined supporter of
> Free Culture, they will know that the package has images/music that
> does not have a free license and not install it.
>
> Unless Parabola will have rules on including non-free images/music
> then I think this method should be applied. (I don't know how to write
> the script though.)
fauno responded:
> > I would say that the best way of doing this is to distribute the game
> > itself and then have an option to download the data. (The user would
> > have to be warned that the images are non-free/under a non-commercial
> > license)
>
> i think this is a non-option for us...
And that wraps up the non-detailsy-technical part of that thread.
> | [donations] [due 2015-04-20] draft of agreement with ceata | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2015-April/002919.html |
Ceata sent fauno a draft of an agreement. It included:
> 2. Parabola's Activities and Communication of All Donation-related Decisions
> …
> b) Parabola Stays Free Software and Free Culture.
>
> Ceata and Parabola's Delegate agree that any and all software
> and/or documentation/cultural works distributed by Parabola
> will be distributed solely as Free Software and Free Culture,
> respectively. Ceata retains the sole right to determine
> whether Parabola's software and/or documentation/cultural
> works constitute Free Software and Free Culture, respectively
> (as defined herein).
mtjm commented:
> +1 with the following two comments:
>
> - 2(b) requires an exception for nonmodifiable license texts
>
> - do we have to remove the FDL-licensed manuals with invariant sections
> (or get them relicensed)?
Tiberiu (of Ceata) responded:
> Thank you, Michał; good observations!
>
> On 14.04.2015 09:31, Michał Masłowski wrote:
> > - 2(b) requires an exception for nonmodifiable license texts
>
> I can add to 2(b) the note that the freedom condition don't apply to
> license texts.
>
> > - do we have to remove the FDL-licensed manuals with invariant sections
> > (or get them relicensed)?
>
> While Ceata acknowledges the issue with GNU FDL with invariant sections,
> we consider it a minor issue to freedom of reusing documentation, so
> rest assure that no matter if you blacklist them or not or convince the
> authors to relicense them (the latter is preferable but takes time),
> Ceata considers you are a free culture distro too.
>
> I can add a note about this too, if you consider it necessary.
mtjm responded:
> > While Ceata acknowledges the issue with GNU FDL with invariant sections,
> > we consider it a minor issue to freedom of reusing documentation, so
> > rest assure that no matter if you blacklist them or not or convince the
> > authors to relicense them (the latter is preferable but takes time),
> > Ceata considers you are a free culture distro too.
>
> Same here. Being a free culture distro is not as (seemingly) clear as
> free software.
I commented:
> You guys have already addressed my concern about GFDL invariant
> sections. I would appreciate a note being made about it in the text.
> | Softwares and Libraries List ARM router | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-March/003861.html |
Emulatorman (André Silva) wrote:
> On 03/21/2016 06:12 PM, André Silva wrote:
> > We suppose that adapt/accept _any_ application since it follows our
> > Social Contract [0] through our first amendment where means that
> > Parabola follows the GNU free system distribution guidelines [1] and
> > doesn't include or recommend nonfree software or documentation and it
> > does not provide any type of support for their installation or execution
> > because we are fully free as in freedom distribution endorsed by FSF [2]
>
> Another point is that we does not include or recommend nonfree art
> either, since our distro advocates the free culture too. I suggest
> update our Social Contract adding this amendment.
I guess that leads us to now.
> | Fwd: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME | https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-March/003893.html |
This thread is mostly about packaging free emulators whose primary
purpose is to run non-free software in them.
Here is one of Gaming4JC's messages. I'm not editing it down to just
the Free Culture bits, because I think it would become a little
incoherent:
> I'd like to weigh in by mentioning there are still many uses for
> emulators which people think should be removed.
>
> For example, there are still GPL Windows programs that ONLY work on
> Windows. There is no reason WINE would need to be removed if the purpose
> is to learn how to make fully free Windows programs. These programs can
> one day run on a free OS, such as ReactOS.
> http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
>
> The same goes for DosBox and FreeDOS where there is still a small
> community learning and improving DOS using fully free software.
>
> When it comes to console emulators, there is 95% of the time a homebrew
> scene with GPL source code where users can learn to code and play fully
> free games. ** There is no reason to remove these if the user is
> learning and using free software. **
>
> In the case of MAME, I agree that these do not exist YET. However, if
> someone were to make a PoC it too should be included. There is no reason
> someone could not develop fully free software for an arcade machine. In
> addition to this, if users begin developing free software that runs on
> MAME, it may be possible to one day flash a real Arcade Machine with
> fully free software. Such unforeseen creative possibilities exist due to
> the nature of free software.
>
> I also personally feel that archival backup of games should be allowed,
> especially if the user owns the game on a console. It is actually more
> ethical and generally more quality to play older games you own on a
> fully free emulator than it is your own console which does not contain a
> fully free distro. In the case of PSP and PSX, it is now possible to
> play the games fully free without a non-free bios.
>
> Regarding Gnash, yes, there are fully free Flash authoring tools and
> projects too:
> http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/open_source_and_free_development_tools_for_flash/
>
> Before we start removing access to free software, we should consider the
> unintended consequences.
>
> Sad scenarios that come to mind for users running fully free distros
> with these new guidelines being suggested:
>
> - The free software developer who was in the process of freeing an
> arcade machine was unable to do so because he was unaware of MAME.
>
> - The GNU/Linux kernel hacker never tried to running GNU/Linux on the
> PS2, because he didn't have access to a fully free emulator to do his work.
>
> - Creativity and the free culture does not thrive because users did not
> have access to the tools needed to do the job.
>
> In each scenario, it is the user that uses a tool for good or evil. We
> should not be thought police on how they intend or do not intend to use
> their software by removing access to the tools. I do agree that there
> should be a warning that these programs may offer access to non-free
> software, but it is up to the user on how they intend to act on that
> statement.
And that brings us to now!
> --
> Happy hacking,
> ~ Luke Shumaker
More information about the Dev
mailing list