[Dev] Parabola stance on game assets

bill-auger bill-auger at peers.community
Fri Sep 28 13:27:12 GMT 2018

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:02:47 +0100 pribib wrote:
> you yourself do not have a clear understanding of Parabola's free
> cultural rule.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:02:47 +0100 pribib wrote:
> there are still no clearly 
> definitions anywhere.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:02:47 +0100 pribib wrote:
> I would think that if it were already clearly defined

you re-iterated that several times - there is such a rule - it is
defined clearly - and you read it - it is the "social contract" - its
single function is to make it clear what the parabola devs promise to do
their best at trying to do what they do

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:02:47 +0100 pribib wrote:
> Referring to the social contract might seem to be enough, but as is 
> evident by the specific removal of the ability to import assets into 
> OpenMW, there are certain developers within Parabola who are/have
> been drawing the line differently to the definition on that site and
> instead using FSDG.

Referring to the social contract is enough to show where the line is
drawn as far as what is promised - some devs may go beyond that if they
choose to; and nothing should prevent them - this is not debian - other
than the FSDG, there are no strict policies that say one must do
exactly *this* but must never do *that* - if some package gets removed
that meets the both the "free software" and "free culture" definitions;
then someone else could add it back the next day - just as if some
package gets added; then someone else could remove it the next day

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:02:47 +0100 pribib wrote:
> The social contract links to
> https://freedomdefined.org/Definition and from what I can gather
> there does not appear to be anything on this page referencing
> endorsing the ability to import non-free artwork, this seems to be
> something certain developers Parabola have decided on its own based
> upon emulation of the FSDG.

your definition of "non-free artwork" (and mine) is much more strict
than theirs - that website considers "freeware" to be "free culture" -
so if that parabola promise says that parabola will not "include"
anything that does not meet the "free culture" definition; then
parabola *can* distribute "freeware" assets with no contradiction to
that promise; but as for as i know, there is none of that actually in
parabola - so parabola devs already go beyond what is required by the
"free culture" definition and it's own social contract - not because
they promised to, but because they felt like it - probably that one
game whatever did not need to be removed - maybe it could be put back
in tomorrow - does anyone care about that one game? - no one complained
about it's absence until now

im not saying that the mission statement could not be modified to be
more strict - i would be on board with that; but if you are looking for
absolute consistency in every decision you wont find it here -
adhocracy is enough to ensure that can never happen and should never

More information about the Dev mailing list