I'm currently not subscribed to: d...@lists.parabola.nu gnu-linux-li...@nongnu.org
... So if you want to reply to me, please include me as recipient, or reply to: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org . ... Back to the topic now: Mind if I offer my opinions? Well, unless I was really blind, I couldn't see the original sender (Luke Shumaker?) saying anything about "FOSS". The name of the project could be written as "Parabola" or "Parabola System Distribution" (or any variation of these). It's funny fact that there is a GNU package/software called Arch, so making a distinction as to which "Arch" the contract talks about is a good thing. Although I *personally* see no need to fight over which name to use (whether it should be "Arch", "Arch GNU+Linux", variants of this one, or "Arch Linux), as long as the reader is made aware of which project is being talked about. It's also important to note that, there is a definition of what "free culture" is, and it's guarded by the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Most people assume that every free software activist is a free culture activist, but that's not always true. The only thing that the free software demands in respect to non-functional data (this name is needed because some "arts" can also be functional, specially depending on which definition of "functional" one uses), is for the non-functional data to be allowed to have copies of the original shared unlimitedly (this is half of freedom 2). The only exception is when the non-functional data is to be included on a free system distribution, as per the GNU FSDG, the non-functional data must respect freedom 2 entirely. Now, "which definition of functional and non-functional one should use to evaluate this cases?", this is something that I don't see debates about. Documents on the GNU project website talk about objective definition (that points out what is or not), but I was told that most free software activists tend to follow a subjective definition (in which, in addition to the objective definition, the activist has to evaluate each data so as to see if it's really non-functional or not). I'm not a free culture activist, but it must be noted that, the current Definition of Free Cultural Works requires that complete and corresponding source of the cultural work to also be made available along with the license that respects the essential freedoms defined there. While this eases the complex debate as to whether things are functional or not, this actually makes most free software projects ineligible for inclusion on system distributions that follow the current Definition of Free Cultural Works, since following this definition results in questions of whether that file is the preferred form of modification or the complete corresponding source. For example: * .midi/.xm/.mod audio files are their own source. * .flac, .ogg and other audio files aren't their own source, unless it's proven to come from pure improvisation. Even so, if the improvisation is stored in one single file of these types, and has multiple participants or instruments, then it might as well not be the preferred form of modification. Besides, the current Definition of Free Cultural Works requires these to be in a format or codec/encoder used *mainly* by free software. Real examples would include: * SuperTux2 which only provides .ogg for it's music files, even if one downloads the "source". * Maze of Galious which provides only .ogg files for it's music, even if one downloads the "source". * Freedoom which provides .midi files (with files ending as .mus due to Deutex limitations). I was told in #fsf (or was that #trisquel?) that there's a draft of the Definition of Free Cultural Works that removes this requirement of complete corresponding source, but it wasn't approved since 2007. Perhaps it's time for free culture activists to discuss the draft with more focus.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part