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 happen _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
