Fabio Pesari <[email protected]> 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... >> 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 >> 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. > > The most common answers I've received are: > > 1. If they did that, the mobile market would be flooded with poor > versions of their games and their brand would be tarnished if they'd use a copyleft license at least the artwork must be attributed to the game developers and re-distributed under the same license. freerider game developers would use any artwork available independently of the license i'd assume, while everyone else gets equally fucked by the nonfree terms. > 2. They would like to sell the game, and they don't like the idea that > somebody else could be their competitor same as before... here's a nice article on non-commercial terms and free culture. http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC > 3. Their game is a clone of a commercial game and they need to keep the > assets NC to avoid lawsuits (UQM falls under this category) i've heard of many lawsuits were there wasn't any commercial interest... maybe the gamer community is more forgiving, which i doubt :P > 4. They don't have the authority to do so ? > 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. -- :{
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
