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
