5 ms·

From GNU.org: > Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source

by Jach 14y ago

From GNU.org: > Specifically, free software means users have the four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program, (1) to study and change the program in source code form, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to distribute modified versions. Not all these freedoms make sense for "non-functional work" like art. RMS outlines some of his views here: http://www.libervis.com/article/rms_on_the_ethics_of_non_free_art http://www.libervis.com/article/rms_on_the_ethics_of_non_fre... Paraphrasing, art (as opposed to software) is something contributed to society for enjoyment, software is for work. The minimal freedom of art should be shareable for non-commercial uses, with a max copyright of 10 years before people can create derivative works for commercial use. I imagine there might be (or could be) a license that asks for the "source" of art assets; that is, a .PSD file, or a blender project, or a script that generates the image. That's a lot more useful to me than the final image itself, and a lot easier to modify if I wanted.

178 14y ago
Food for thought: If there would be such a license, one could still argue it offers not the most freedom possible. To take it to the extreme, the license could ask that all assets have to be in a format editable/compatible with FOSS :)
- lmm 14y ago
  Read RMS on "the java trap" for an analogous situation in software. I think there's a consensus that it's worth making it possible to release GPL works even when they're written on a platform for which no Free tools exist.
- betterth 14y ago
  I don't understand how someone can advocate freedom and also advocate any license at all. The act of licensing at all seems absolutely contrary to the idea of freedom. As soon as someone stands up and tells me how I can or cannot use something, freedom is gone, no?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    That's a bit like saying "America isn't a free country because I can't just murder whoever I want". The GPL license does indeed restrict some things that could be regarded as freedoms, for example the freedom to distribute a closed source version (distribution only, you are allowed to create a closed source derivative as long you keep it to yourself). It's a bit like "you have the freedom to do anything you want apart from restrict another person's freedom"
    - betterth 14y ago
      That's a bad analogy: America never promises freedom in her founding documents and constitution. She promises us Liberty, which is a very different concept than freedom. In software, however, they are not arguing for liberty and the rule of law, they're arguing for true freedom. I guess they have drawn a line in the sand and said that any less free is unacceptable, however, more free is also unacceptable.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        I believe the FSF are interested in liberty rather than "true freedom" (at least in my understanding of the terms). I believe Stallman originally wanted to call it "libre software" but there wasn't an equivalent word in english so instead he went with "free software" and thus the confusion was born. The line in the sand the GPL draws is specifically for the purpose of preventing closed versions of open source software (which would be against the original authors wishes). There are of course more liberal licenses such as the MIT license which do allow you to do this.
  - alayne 14y ago
    Society would fall apart if things weren't regulated. Imagine having no building codes.
    - betterth 14y ago
      Oh I agree, I'm just amused by people utilizing restrictive licenses to promote "freedom". Can I do whatever I want? Then it ain't freedom.
emillon 14y ago
> I imagine there might be (or could be) a license that asks for the "source" of art assets; that is, a .PSD file, or a blender project, or a script that generates the image. That's a lot more useful to me than the final image itself, and a lot easier to modify if I wanted. This is used in the GPL : "The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." And also in the "open source definition" that can be used to judge whether something is free software or not : "The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." [1] [1]: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
- Jach 14y ago
  Ah yes, I've seen some art works released under the GPL before. Do many professionals do this? Have any lawyers looked over the GPL enough to see if there's really no hurdles with using it for non-software?
  - emillon 14y ago
    I think that the GPL uses the term "derivative work" which is quite vague when it is not applied to code. Many software distributions encourage their upstream to use specific licenses such as one of the Creative Common licenses to cover art. That's true for text too ; for example most pages on gnu.org are licensed under CC-BY-ND. Unfortunately, as the -NC and -ND licenses add restrictions, some distributions such as Debian don't consider it free software (cf. [DFSG]). [DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract
- icebraining 14y ago
  And also in the "open source definition" that can be used to judge whether something is free software or not It can not. The definition are very similar, but they're still distinct. If you want to judge whether something is Free Software, you need to read the source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  - 14y ago
bmj 14y ago
Paraphrasing, art (as opposed to software) is something contributed to society for enjoyment, software is for work. How is a game for work? To qualify this, I don't necessarily disagree completely with RMS' aims for free and open software, but I don't see the functional distinction between the functionality of a game and the art used in the game.
- Jach 14y ago
  Here's the non-paraphrased portion (which I should have just copied verbatim beforehand, I suppose): "If you use something to do jobs in your life, you must be free to change it today, and then distribute your changed version today in case others need what you need. "Art contributes something different to society. You appreciate it. Modifying art can be a further contribution to art, but it is not crucial to be able to do that today. If you had to wait 10 years for the copyright to expire, that would be ok." So it's more that a program is a tool for work, such as simulating physics, running an AI state machine, animating skeletons, or rendering polygons, while art is just there to look at. You could argue that the game isn't complete without both, and you'd be right, but the art can be swapped out for random pixels and the game will still work whereas the code cannot be swapped with random other code. The functional distinction comes from software being breakable, it's a machine. Art isn't really breakable, it's just ugly (to some people). If the physics engine of a Free game has a bug, users could fix it themselves and announce their changes in case someone else hits that bug--or even report it to the game maker's public bug tracker with a patch. There's also a factor of urgency involved that I didn't mention in my paraphrasing. If a game is broken, it needs a patch ASAP. If it's just ugly (to some people), that doesn't really need to be fixed right away. Plus if non-commercial modification is allowed, people who find it ugly can release "better" versions (which may be new assets or may be a hack to the game engine that adds new shader programs). It does seem to get more complicated in the video game world where sometimes the distinction between program and art is blurred. In a hypothetical game with a completely free engine, I'd expect the non-free "art" to consist of base graphics that are manipulated by the engine. The manipulating code is free (and will work for any piece of art fitting the requirements it has, which may be quite restrictive), the input to the engine is not.
  - 14y ago

by Jach 14y ago

178 14y ago

Food for thought: If there would be such a license, one could still argue it offers not the most freedom possible. To take it to the extreme, the license could ask that all assets have to be in a format editable/compatible with FOSS :)

lmm 14y ago
Read RMS on "the java trap" for an analogous situation in software. I think there's a consensus that it's worth making it possible to release GPL works even when they're written on a platform for which no Free tools exist.
betterth 14y ago
I don't understand how someone can advocate freedom and also advocate any license at all. The act of licensing at all seems absolutely contrary to the idea of freedom. As soon as someone stands up and tells me how I can or cannot use something, freedom is gone, no?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  That's a bit like saying "America isn't a free country because I can't just murder whoever I want". The GPL license does indeed restrict some things that could be regarded as freedoms, for example the freedom to distribute a closed source version (distribution only, you are allowed to create a closed source derivative as long you keep it to yourself). It's a bit like "you have the freedom to do anything you want apart from restrict another person's freedom"
  - betterth 14y ago
    That's a bad analogy: America never promises freedom in her founding documents and constitution. She promises us Liberty, which is a very different concept than freedom. In software, however, they are not arguing for liberty and the rule of law, they're arguing for true freedom. I guess they have drawn a line in the sand and said that any less free is unacceptable, however, more free is also unacceptable.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I believe the FSF are interested in liberty rather than "true freedom" (at least in my understanding of the terms). I believe Stallman originally wanted to call it "libre software" but there wasn't an equivalent word in english so instead he went with "free software" and thus the confusion was born. The line in the sand the GPL draws is specifically for the purpose of preventing closed versions of open source software (which would be against the original authors wishes). There are of course more liberal licenses such as the MIT license which do allow you to do this.
- alayne 14y ago
  Society would fall apart if things weren't regulated. Imagine having no building codes.
  - betterth 14y ago
    Oh I agree, I'm just amused by people utilizing restrictive licenses to promote "freedom". Can I do whatever I want? Then it ain't freedom.

emillon 14y ago

> I imagine there might be (or could be) a license that asks for the "source" of art assets; that is, a .PSD file, or a blender project, or a script that generates the image. That's a lot more useful to me than the final image itself, and a lot easier to modify if I wanted. This is used in the GPL : "The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." And also in the "open source definition" that can be used to judge whether something is free software or not : "The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." [1] [1]: http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Jach 14y ago
Ah yes, I've seen some art works released under the GPL before. Do many professionals do this? Have any lawyers looked over the GPL enough to see if there's really no hurdles with using it for non-software?
- emillon 14y ago
  I think that the GPL uses the term "derivative work" which is quite vague when it is not applied to code. Many software distributions encourage their upstream to use specific licenses such as one of the Creative Common licenses to cover art. That's true for text too ; for example most pages on gnu.org are licensed under CC-BY-ND. Unfortunately, as the -NC and -ND licenses add restrictions, some distributions such as Debian don't consider it free software (cf. [DFSG]). [DFSG]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract http://www.debian.org/social_contract
icebraining 14y ago
And also in the "open source definition" that can be used to judge whether something is free software or not It can not. The definition are very similar, but they're still distinct. If you want to judge whether something is Free Software, you need to read the source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- 14y ago

bmj 14y ago

Paraphrasing, art (as opposed to software) is something contributed to society for enjoyment, software is for work. How is a game for work? To qualify this, I don't necessarily disagree completely with RMS' aims for free and open software, but I don't see the functional distinction between the functionality of a game and the art used in the game.

Jach 14y ago
Here's the non-paraphrased portion (which I should have just copied verbatim beforehand, I suppose): "If you use something to do jobs in your life, you must be free to change it today, and then distribute your changed version today in case others need what you need. "Art contributes something different to society. You appreciate it. Modifying art can be a further contribution to art, but it is not crucial to be able to do that today. If you had to wait 10 years for the copyright to expire, that would be ok." So it's more that a program is a tool for work, such as simulating physics, running an AI state machine, animating skeletons, or rendering polygons, while art is just there to look at. You could argue that the game isn't complete without both, and you'd be right, but the art can be swapped out for random pixels and the game will still work whereas the code cannot be swapped with random other code. The functional distinction comes from software being breakable, it's a machine. Art isn't really breakable, it's just ugly (to some people). If the physics engine of a Free game has a bug, users could fix it themselves and announce their changes in case someone else hits that bug--or even report it to the game maker's public bug tracker with a patch. There's also a factor of urgency involved that I didn't mention in my paraphrasing. If a game is broken, it needs a patch ASAP. If it's just ugly (to some people), that doesn't really need to be fixed right away. Plus if non-commercial modification is allowed, people who find it ugly can release "better" versions (which may be new assets or may be a hack to the game engine that adds new shader programs). It does seem to get more complicated in the video game world where sometimes the distinction between program and art is blurred. In a hypothetical game with a completely free engine, I'd expect the non-free "art" to consist of base graphics that are manipulated by the engine. The manipulating code is free (and will work for any piece of art fitting the requirements it has, which may be quite restrictive), the input to the engine is not.
- 14y ago