[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

On Wed, 2 May 2007 19:19:12 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:

> Am 2007-04-28 01:02:01, schrieb Francesco Poli:
> > That is to say, IIUC, among project members only compressed videos
> > are distributed.
> Yes, since how do you want to transfer several 100 Mbytes or some
> GBytes? per day and $MEMBER?  To work on it the Uncompressed Videos
> are not neccesary for testing the Game and such.  We include it at
> the end of a partial production.

Hence, IIUC, the full modification of videos is the monopoly of a single
person, even among the project members.

This, IMHO, is an issue, independently of the free or proprietary nature
of the project.  In other words, it would be an issue even if the intent
were writing a proprietary game.  The desire to make the game DFSG-free
(which is praiseworthy!) only makes the issue more visible, since many
more people are legally entitled to make modifications to the work, and
thus would like to get the source.

> > > Should I contact the FSF about this special problem?
> > 
> > I don't think the FSF feels strongly about the freeness of anything
> > that is not a program.  Quite the opposite, unfortunately (grinnn).
> :-/
> ...but the Videos are parts of the program/game.

Obviously enough, I agree that videos should *not* be held to different
freeness standards than code, just because they are videos.

But, unfortunately, the FSF leaders feel differently: I'm afraid that,
if you contact the FSF, they will start an "artistic works are not
functional works" line of reasoning, making contorted distinctions I
disagree with (and hence I am not really qualified to describe in

 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpfWQVEDJPLx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: