Firstly, my disability means I don't always have good control over the tone
of my writing. Despite several edits I can't get the stridency out of this.
This is the best I can do. Please understand it's intended in good faith.
> I does exactly as you described except that developing a page is not that
simple as you might think, there are additional work besides the page design,
text, etc. like additional pages for application compilation, installation,
and setup instructions, and it can take weeks to months to finish them. Also,
publishing them in WIP fashion encourages me to constantly work on them, and
there's practically no barrier where it can be considered as finished, and no
more work is needed because the page reached their goal.
I am fully aware of the activities involved in constructing a web site. I
have had a long involvement with hypertext systems and was one of the
[presumably many] small fry involved in hypertext research who corresponded
with CERN at the time Berners-Lee was doing his work on HTML. Obviously that
doesn't mean I'm fluent in every web technology, much less every wiki markup
dialect.
>Applications are constantly evolving, switching from one control system to
other, abandoning the work on maintaining one repository, while someone
volunteering to maintain other, new applications coming out, new ideas
popping up on what can be done better, etc.. As you can see, there is no
something like "when its finished", only "when it's in good shape for a
release".
This is entirely the normal case and was assumed in my point. Artwork and
books are famously said never to be finished, only abandonned. The
recommended course of action in the free software community is to establish
the equivalent of a 0.1 release plan, complete and publish the 0.1 release
then work in collaboration with whoever is attracted to contribute.
So in your case you might decide that just the software pages need to be
fleshed out with the software you know of literally today and the rest can
take the form of a stepped outline for others to contribute to if they want.
If you have sections or chapters, then publishing a fuller release plan at
the same time as 0.1 that says 0.2 - Section BBB complete with... would focus
contributions constructively and give you a todo list to work to and measure
your own progress by.
>There is one other reason I want to continue to work in this fashion, and
that's because I would like in case I abandon the work on this, not having to
discard all my work just like that. Having my work published is the best way
to avoid these situations.
Then publicly editable wiki pages are exactly the correct form for this work.
The Trisquel BDFL has already turned down individual website translation
volunteers because they have not yet demonstrated the commitment which would
assure the continued maintenance of the translation. Therefore the fact that
you are now asking Trisquel to host work when you are waivering in your
commitment guarantees that the admins will not provide special resources.
> I would not ask, if it were not important, and there will be a simple
solution for this.
You have to demonstrate its importance to the Trisquel project not merely
assert your own assessment. The pages you linked while an interesting
beginning to what could be a worthwhile guide to free software games IMO do
not yet demonstrate significant additional value to the Trisquel project.
However, there might be other things you have written or intend that would
have that property - that's the benefit of getting to 0.1 first, it should be
self evident from the work.
> This applies only for the distribution itself, and it doesn't have anything
to do with my documentation, which by the way, isn't a part of the Trisquel
documentation.
As I have said the whole of the trisquel.info website is part of the
distribution as far as the GFSD is concerned. I have quoted the relevant
part of the GFSD from which this logically follows. Trisquel is committed to
the GFSD. In the two years I have been a member not only have the
experienced forum members consistently applied the GFSD in this way in their
advice but the admins have deleted some material that doesn't comply. So if
you want to host these documents on trisquel.info you must apply it to them.
It is not optional. If you do not want to apply it to your document then you
will have to find another site to host it.
If you differ on how the GFSD applies then argue your case quoting
authoritative sources. People will listen.
> As previously stated, including non-free content is ok, even in Trisquel,
if it allows selling copies, that the distribution as a whole require.
Examples of such parts are some ScummVM games, like Beneath a Steel Sky
Flight of the Amazon Queen. I really am taking care not to publish anything
violating software freedom.
Read the GFSD, non-free content is only allowed if it is not functional, has
no practical use and can be copied for both commercial and non-commercial
purposes.
>Your references to third party repos on the page behind the S3TC link are
not allowed unless they have a published GFSD commitment as Trisquel does.
Nor is the listing of The Dark Mod because the data is CC BY-NC-SA and the NC
in a CC license makes it nonfree. Ortho Robot the same.
> All of them are perfectly fine free software applications, again, what you
state only matters if someone want to include them in the official
repositories, which is not the case.
Unless you have new information on the interpretation of the GFSD then it
also applies to website content. It is illogical not to apply the GFSD to
the website because it dilutes the purpose of the GFSD which is that the
distro guarantees the users four freedoms in all meaningful respects. Having
a distro website that tells you how to make its own free distro system
non-free is contrary.
>In case of JDownloader, I provide a way to use it without that non-free code
part (UnRAR) so it's ok. There might be some other parts that I'm not aware
about, so if you, or someone other have something to add, I would be happy to
talk about it.
Then delete your text where you say it requires non-free software. That was
where I got it from. :-)
> Doom 3 BFG Edition is free software, released under the GNU General Public
License, version 3.0 (GPLv3), which is a free software license, released by
the Free Software Foundation, and is a part of the GNU project. I doesn't
provide a download link for the contents, which are needed to be bought in
order to play the game, nor does encourage users to use non-free software,
but using non-free software to extract the data files, which can then be used
in a fully-free environment is acceptable.
Why is it acceptable? To me your argument is patently an 'I'm almost a
virgin' argument. It is quite plain that all executed software including
installation procedures must be free or you are using non-free software.
Which by definition is not acceptable.
> PCSX2 does really need a BIOS blob for operation, but this is a temporary
issue that may be one day resolved (as was in the previous generation PCSX
emulator). Also, using the application does require to have a PS2 console,
since the BIOS is copyrighted, and as stated, it's only legally obtainable if
the user own the device, and extract the required blob with some software
tools, like the ones readily available on the PCSX2 website. I also warned
users that emulators and compatibility layers are pretty much only useful to
execute non-free software on hardware that they was not designed for. It's a
reason for recommending these type of applications though, and that's to help
users to migrate from proprietary to free software, where the main complain
is the lack of advanced applications, and games. I does not encourage anyone
to use these programs, but they can be used as a temporary solution, until
the person finds adequate FLOSS replacement for them, whether it's just a
game, or an application.
It must be free now. Potentially free in the future applies to every piece
of software currently in existence and is therefore patent nonsense.
If an emulator is only usable with non-free software then it may not be
included (GFSD again). However, there are a number of emulators for which
there are free software ROM replacements and games or software. hatari for
instance can use EmuTOS (a free ROM) and boot FreeMiNT a complete free GNU
operating system.
Because I volunteer for The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park
(Station X, Enigma and home of Colossus the world's first electronic computer
of which there is a reconstruction) I have read much of the FSF/GNU canon on
the subject and thought about it. This is not an official take on the
matter. However, the position of the FSF in the RYF, on BIOSes, on CPU
microprograms etc. has the consistency that any softcopy material that is
executed by any sort of electronic device must be free software. Boot ROMs
are explicitly allowed, therefore, vintage computers and old consoles can be
used with their built in ROMs. However, softcopies of those same ROMs are
not acceptable. Thus I develop demonstration free software for the Atari ST
(using free software tools) in hatari. However, for a BBC B there is no free
ROM, so I cross develop free software using free software tools on my PC.
The first of which is underway and unsurprisingly is a serial port loader /
debugger bank ROM image for the BBC so it can be linked to PC during
development.
> I doesn't like the license pages (the main license page is nice though) on
gnu.org, that's why I does link them else (I'm not violating the terms of use
with this, do I?)
No it's not a violation - as I said, it was a suggestion.
> What do you mean by this? The licenses are still free whether I link to the
official license pages, or the ones at gnu.org. I don't think this will
affect users in any way unless they does not trust the information provided
on the page. If that's the case, they should not read the page at all.
The suggestion was made because the brief summary of a license's properties
on the page with all the licensing page provides the most important
information and it's presence on gnu.org means your reader will automatically
know it is FSF definition free (not OSI, which you linked for one license,
whose definition of an acceptable license is different). So the user quickly
knows it is their kind of free, if it is GPL compatible, if it is permissive
or lax etc. without having to read the license to know. Something which is
more convenient for them. YMMV.
> Being a part of my personal profile does not strictly prohibit
modification, it just indirectly says that I'm the author, and if stated,
modification by third-parties should be consulted first with me.
Sorry, what I was trying to communicate is you're saying things here which
contradict the implications of the text at the top of the wiki page.
However, from reading what you say elsewhere in this thread you hadn't
understood all the implications of a wiki page. Now you know more of those
the matter is irrelevant.
> I already done that, the selected pages clearly states (on the top), that
they're a work-in-progress. For the second part of your sentence, it's
irrelevant if someone added some information to the page, because it will be
automatically removed the next time I make an update to the page. It's just a
matter of how I work (see my previous comment for an explanation), and not
because I would like to be spiteful.
I urge you to accept and work with the normal collaborative nature of a wiki
page. It will make the pages better than you can achieve alone and perhaps
give them a life beyond your own interest it the project.
> Thank you leny2010 for taking the time to write a lengthy reply, trying to
help me. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for the thanks. Good manners are always appreciated.
