2018-05-16T01:08:07-0400 bill-auger wrote: > i think adonay is mostly echo-ing my point that it is a shame that the > complete corresponding source requirement is not encouraged or even > mentioned as a option for artworks by those who have taken it upon > themselves to define "free culture" for everyone else - without that, > there is nothing to distinguish "free culture" from those who would > rather say "open culture"
I must also complement what was said here by noting that the Definition of Free Cultural Works does require complete corresponding source files[1]. Although I'm not discarding the possibility that some activists of "free culture" might not know of such requirement. And by complete corresponding source I don't mean the .ogg/.opus file, but the audio project file together with the raw recording --- exceptions being made for improvisations (in which there is no music sheet, and no stablished music to play) and also when the resulting file itself is the source (such as live recordings, which don't have cuts nor special effects). I also agree that it's unfortunate that the Definition of Free Cultural Works doesn't enforce only licenses which demand the complete corresponding source to be provided somehow. However, I must aknowledge that this saying comes against us as a double-sided knife, since even the free/libre software movement accepts works as free/libre under licenses that don't require providing the source files (/e.g./: Expat). I say this in the sense that while they allow you to study, adapt, and share and sell the adaptations, there's no provision in the license text that requires the source files to be provided, so the free culture actvists can find the same possible kinds of people as we do: a) those who publish works under free culture licenses and provide ways to get complete corresponding source files; b) people that behave like (a) but don't make the end-user aware of the possibility to get the source files; c) others which don't even provide free/libre cultural works. > but beyond that, it is a mistake to equate images, video, or audio with > source code; which is what the "free culture" definition essentially > does - it quite assumes that mere distribution provides freedom with the > mostly useless caveat that crude modifications are possible - the free > software definition includes permissive licenses for source code only > because it *is* the source code; which is implicitly assumed to be > modifiable as it is itself the preferred form for modification - but > simply applying that model to artwork blobs does not do the same job; > because these are rarely accompanied by their sources I also would like to complement this by saying that I also don't quite agree with the free culture, I try to contribute to it when publishing my works, but I don't agree on using their definition to my day-to-day preferences. I agree that all digital materials/files must allow for unlimited sharing of the entire work because these are public goods by nature --- in the econmics sense, not in public administration --- since they come from knowledge, information, are born non-rival, non-excludable and with zero transaction costs to the end-user. However --- taking the same hook I used in a 20min talk I gave about free/libre software movement in May 12th on a city nearby --- functional data has some features that distinguish it from other digital goods: a) sequence of orders executed blindly by the computer (applies only to scripted elements); b) written by someone else (also applies to non-functional data, but read on); c) one can use it without the corresponding source (id.); d) for practical use (in the sense that given data can by itself misbehave); e) modifies local culture (the absense of the data might impact how people perceive my work because they are already expecting me to use and depend on that data). This is particularly seen with text fonts and color profiles. These characteristics *aggravate* the need for these goods to be free/libre first, in contrast to non-functional ones. In my presentation, after talking about (e), I also reminded people about (b) again, precisely because --- taking the example of software ---, while in the case of cement you (or someone hired by you) can easily break, redo, append to and provide services based on it, software isn't that way, once you lose the source files and the rights to do such things, you lose control of your own material environment, your capability. [1] https://freedomdefined.org/Definition#Defining_Free_Cultural_Works
