<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
As an example further to discussion r.e. youtube-dl, the <font
color="#ff0000"><u><b>NSFW site</b></u> </font>Motherless
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://motherless.com/tou">https://motherless.com/tou</a> (link provided only to provide a
reference for the quote)) has terms of use which state the
following:<br>
<br>
<h3><i>3.3 License Grant </i></h3>
<i> </i>
<p><i> The Company hereby grants you a nonexclusive,
nonsublicensable, nontransferable license to access the Website
and its content for your personal and noncommercial use in
accordance with this agreement. “Access” means visit the
Website, use its services, and view or download its content.
“Content” means any material, including the text, software,
scripts, graphics, photos, sounds, music, videos, audiovisual
combinations, interactive features, communications, profiles,
streams, data, and other materials found on the Website.
“Personal and noncommercial use” means a presentation of the
content for which no fee or consideration is charged or
received, which takes place in your private residence or, if
outside your residence, is limited to a private viewing by you.
Personal and noncommercial use excludes any public or private
event presentation even if no fee is charged.</i></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This states that the videos are in fact licensed for <b>noncommericial
</b>and <b>personal </b>use and also includes additional
restrictions. This seems in contrast with the definitions provided
at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://freedomdefined.org/Definition">http://freedomdefined.org/Definition</a> yet this capability is in
Parabola found at
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/youtube_dl/extractor/motherless.py
when youtube-dl is installed. If OpenMW logic is applied here,
this should be patched for removal.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>To sum up so far we have:</p>
<ul>
<li>inconsistent viewpoints from the few developers who which to
speak on the subject leaving users to reference other things<br>
</li>
<li>a social contract inconsistently implemented in practice and
reference<br>
</li>
<li>a package that was permitted within Parabola which distributed
nonfree artwork directly</li>
<li>a package in the repository that enabled downloading of
nonfree artwork</li>
<li>a package in the repository that has specifically been
modified to remove the ability to make use of nonfree artwork</li>
<li>a package in the repository which could be considered
reccomending nonfree artwork</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I hope this clarifies the confusion on the subject. If it appears
that I am solely referencing the extreme of the FSDG emulation and
not providing access to non free artwork I would like it to be
known that this is because if we look at the extreme then the
maximum amount of considerations can be raised instead of limiting
ourselves by only thinking of a smaller perspective.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>