Question about Free GNU/Linux distributions
Hello All,
I have a question about GNU/Linux distros, what's the advantage of using
GNU/Linux distro over a distro like fedora/redhat? I use centos for
servers I run, and fedora for my desktop machines. If I were to switch
my desktop/laptops to a GNU/Linux distro(like trisquel or gnewsense)
would I be able to use alternative drivers to nvidia drivers so that I
still can play games under linux via steam or wine?
"what's the advantage of using GNU/Linux distro over a distro like fedora/redhat?"
Fedora and Redhat are GNU/Linux distro's many people in the free software community chose to call what most people call "Linux" "GNU/Linux" the reason for this is explained here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy and here: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.en.html
The advantage of Trisquel over Fedora is it includes exclusively free software so you have full control over your operating system and can know everything that your OS is doing.
Some of the advantages of free software are explained here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
"would I be able to use alternative drivers to nvidia drivers so that I still can play games under Linux via steam or wine?"
You would be able to but as you would most likely be running non-free software it defeats the point of running Trisquel somewhat.
Ok that explains a lot. Thanks! I could have worded that last question
differently, I wouldn't expect games
to be free since they are a product. But would it be possible to use my
nvidia card with free drivers and
still being able to run the 3d graphics when running a game?
On 2017-03-24 14:24, name at domain wrote:
> "what's the advantage of using GNU/Linux distro over a distro like
> fedora/redhat?"
>
> Fedora and Redhat are GNU/Linux distro's many people in the free
> software community chose to call what most people call "Linux"
> "GNU/Linux" the reason for this is explained here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy and here:
> https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.en.html
>
> The advantage of Trisquel over Fedora is it includes exclusively free
> software so you have full control over your operating system and can
> know everything that your OS is doing.
>
> Some of the advantages of free software are explained here:
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html
>
> "would I be able to use alternative drivers to nvidia drivers so that
> I still can play games under Linux via steam or wine?"
>
> You would be able to but as you would most likely be running non-free
> software it defeats the point of running Trisquel somewhat.
"But would it be possible to use my nvidia card with free drivers and still being able to run the 3d graphics when running a game?"
It would depend what model of NVidia card you have you can check If it will work with free software here:
https://h-node.org/
If you have the right model of GPU and its powerful enough then you definitely can run amazing 3D games like:
https://play0ad.com/
The libre driver is included in Linux (and Linux-libre), so you wouldn't have to install it. That driver is Nouveau, and the Nouveau website has a page documenting support for the various features of the cards:
https://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/FeatureMatrix/
In general, the standard advice if something doesn't work is to try the latest version of Linux-libre (jxself supplies one here). If that doesn't work, you'll have to wait a few years for Nouveau to catch up, remove it and use integrated graphics instead (good choice if you have an Intel CPU, not any use if you have an AMD CPU), or replace the card with an older model that Nouveau supports.
By the way, regarding whether or not being a "product" exempts games from needing to be libre: if that were the case, that would exempt Windows, Microsoft Office, the various Adobe programs, etc. These are all considered to be "products", too. The simple fact is that just as they are proprietary software, proprietary games are proprietary software.
I won't particularly criticize you for playing proprietary games (without pressuring others to do the same); that's just your own liberty, after all. However, I suggest you should never financially support proprietary game developers, and instead support development of libre games. You can do this by supporting crowdfunding campaigns, donating to projects/developers you like, or by directly contributing to a game's development.
You can play any game if you have Nvidia's Kepler card, gtx770 and gt730 with gddr5 are fine. You just reclock a Kepler card manually and play. Those card are working with fully free operating system, blobless.
"I wouldn't expect games to be free since they are a product"
Oh, please clear your head from what you've probably heard from the proprietary game companies. Rather: Games are software too.
Stallman:
"Works that are designed for use doing practical jobs must be free; [...] As for works of opinion and art, I don't think they must be free. I advocate some reforms of copyright for these works but I see no reason to abolish it."
"Works that are doing practical jobs -- free." Games doing practical jobs?
https://features.slashdot.org/story/13/01/06/163248/richard-stallman-answers-your-questions
I'm not arguing with you. Just curious about this stance of Stallman's dividing software into "practical" and, I guess, "non-practical".
I think a fundamental difference also has to be drawn in terms of types of media. A book, even with the full force of reserved rights weighing down upon it, cannot hurt you- there might be lawsuit if you choose to publish it on your website, but the book itself cannot instigate that. By contrast, the game itself can perform unethical acts- spyware, backdoors, and generally unfixed-yet-known security issues are all very real problems (the first two, at least, have been documented in games).
Of course, I don't wish to excuse non-free artworks. I would depart from Stallman in claiming that copyright needn't be abolished, since it has its own share of problems (though these are probably tolerable with a reformed copyright system). However, non-free games are far bigger a threat than even non-redistributable cat videos.
The problem with these games is not that they are commercial. (We see nothing wrong with that.) It is not that the developers sell copies; that's not wrong either. The problem is that the games contain software that is not free (free in the sense of freedom, of course).
Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having or running nonfree programs on your computer. That much is clear.
(...)
Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. A free game need not be gratis. It is feasible to develop free games commercially, while respecting your freedom to change the software you use. Since the art in the game is not software, it is not ethically imperative to make the art free — though free art is an additional contribution. There is in fact free game software developed by companies, as well as free games developed noncommercially by volunteers. Crowdfunding development will only get easier.
But if we suppose that it is not feasible in the current situation to develop a certain kind of free game — what would follow then? There's no good in writing it as a nonfree game. To have freedom in your computing, requires rejecting nonfree software, pure and simple. You as a freedom-lover won't use the nonfree game if it exists, so you won't lose anything if it does not exist.
I know what Stallman says. Are you saying that there is no software in games? Of course there is software in there and I'm sure Stallman would say that the software aspect of games should be free too. Go ask him if you doubt this if you want.
I say this because Stallman's made clear for all these years that all software must be free. I very much doubt he's going to start saying "Well, except that software over there - That's OK to be proprietary."
Beyond the software aspect of games (like moving into audio and such), the argument that they don't need to be free by pointing to someone that doesn't believe in Free Culture, as Stallman does not, has no weight with me because I fundamentally disagree with Stallman. Even if one accepts that there should be a distinction between "practical" and "non-practical" works (I don't), one can never know what uses someone will find to be "practical" with something.
I'm only saying I don't care for games. They don't do "practical jobs". It's entertainment. Some games are art.
Yeah, but software shouldn't be categorized into whether someone considers it practical or not. All software should be free ("We defend the rights of all software users", says the FSF - not "We defend the rights of some software users.") Works of utilitarian value should be free, but this is not sufficient alone: I'm reminded of someone else that was also taking issue with the whole "practical" thing: http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/07/04/rantifesto/ where she says "The problem with this is that it is dead wrong. You do not know what purposes your works might serve others. You do not know how works might be found “practical” by others. To claim to understand the limits of "utility" of cultural works betrays an irrational bias toward software and against all other creative work. It is anti-Art, valuing software above the rest of culture. It says coders alone are entitled to Freedom, but everyone else can suck it."
And don't forget that, even with such a view of having different classes of people where one person decides what use cases other people are allowed to find as "practical", there can be utilitarian value in games too... so even the "it's not practical" thing falls flat too, even if one ignores that they're creating two classes of people.
Oh, and there's one more thing I thought of: Chris Webber makes some good arguments about why free games are important for free software: http://dustycloud.org/blog/why-faif-games-matter/
Real question (I am interested in your answer): in what way the freedoms of the readers/spectators/... of an artistic work are harmed if that work cannot be commercially used (unless the authors allow it, maybe making money in that way) during, say, five years after the publication? 70 years after the death of all authors clearly is absurd but I do not feel it is urgent to let people commercially use the artistic work (in advertisement, including the whole work in a movie, selling copies, etc.). Are those commercial uses among what you consider "practical uses" of Art?
I find Paley's citation pretty bad: "It is anti-Art, valuing software above the rest of culture. It says coders alone are entitled to Freedom, but everyone else can suck it". Free software is about the freedom of the *users*, not the *coders*. In fact, the movement (rightfully) criticizes coders who impose restrictions on the users' essential freedoms. On the contrary, not insisting on all four freedoms for Arts (freedom 2 remains essential though) is respecting for some time (five years in the proposal above) the desire of the artist to keep control over its work, if she wishes (if she does not, that is OK too!). For "artistic integrity" and to maybe to make money. So, to me, it looks like the quote would make more sense reversed: "It says artists alone are entitled to some control (limited in time though), coders can suck it".
"Until the enactment of the Statute of Anne publishers could pass on their royal grants of copyright to their heirs in perpetuity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_copyright#Battle_of_the_booksellers_.28UK.29
This is clearly wrong. Copyright should be short, only last a generation (14--25 years). Heirs excluded. Derivative works should be legal even earlier than expiration. It's funny we are more or less in the same situation that called for enactment of the Statute of Anne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
There's practicality in lots of art and even games can be practical. Architecture is very much practical. Chess is a game that is practical. GNU Chess was one of the first pieces of GNU, even predating the manifesto.
"Free software is about the freedom of the *users*, not the *coders*."
Yes, I know. In this aspect I hope that you were able to at least pick up on the sentiment being communicated, even if she didn't use the right words.
"in what way the freedoms of the readers/spectators/... of an artistic work are harmed if that work cannot be commercially used"
Apply those same questions to software. It's a multi-part answer.
Free software (and also free culture) is for everyone. Even people doing it commercially (i.e., for money) like companies or individuals. Otherwise it treats people differently, with different classes. (Because if if commercial usage was disallowed for everyone else the copyright holder isn't barred from doing it.) That means companies should have an equal right to free software (and free culture) as individuals do and use the free software (and free culture) stuff for their own purposes. Why can't they use that scheduling program to manage the appointment schedule of their haircutting business? Why can't they use that music for their hold music (i.e., a "commercial use.") So that's part 1.
Part 2 is: Do we want free software (and also free culture) to be limited to the sidelines where people do the free software (and free culture) stuff only at night and on weekends while during the day time they go back to their day job making proprietary things instead? I certainly don't. I want free software (and free culture) stuff to become culturally relevant, if not dominant. And to eventually stamp out the non-free entirely. That means said person needs to be able to quit their job and work on free software (and free culture) things full time if they want to and still be able to pay their rent. That would actually be a good thing: We need more free software (and free culture) stuff - not less.
That means being able to make money from them. Don't forget that creativity isn't just "I had this wonderful idea and now I am the only person that can use it." See http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative - Part of being creative also includes reusing stuff from others, since it's already derivative.
So let's look at it another way: Take Mimi and Eunice for example: http://mimiandeunice.com/ Nina is no longer working on them. But even if she were what's the harm if someone decided that they wanted to continue making new episodes while getting some money via, say, Patreon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patreon There's no harm at all.
If we want free software (and free culture) to be more than a side activity from hobbyists on nights and weekends doing bits here and there gratis then money needs to be allowed.
And hence we have "a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution", says the FSF. The same should apply to free culture too and for the same reasons.
(EDIT: I decided to publish this as a blog post on my website as well so it's hereby licensed under the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.)
Part 1: I could convert to your opinion if you can find one hairdresser who affirms that her business is harmed because she cannot modify the music she plays in her salon (or who modifies free music to specifically please her clients). If you cannot, here is the fundamental difference between the music and the scheduling program, which may have a bug the hair dresser wants fixed, maybe a missing feature to handle the specifics of her business, maybe malware, etc. Only artists wants to modify artistic works, not readers/listeners/spectators/hairdressers. It is not about defining "classes of people": the hairdresser may be a music artist too. But she is not acting as a music artist when she is running her haircutting business.
Part 2: I do not get your point. Artists who would take advantage of a five-year monopoly (on commercial exploitation and/or modification) do not withdraw any money from those who choose not to accept such an advantage... which is is not such an advantage today because the money paid for culture (e.g., the tax the hairdresser pays today to play music in her salon) do not go to artists unless they are superstars. But that is a separate issue.
I agree that high-quality artistic works can be, or even often are, derivatives. That is why copyright should never go in the way of creating original works (its objective!), including mash-ups or remixes, even if they reuse works published today. That is also why it is bad to have a never-ending copyright, basically the current situation in some countries (such as the USA and their Mickey Mouse Protection Act). But I do not see any emergency in letting anybody do small variations of existing works, or, more commonly, reuse the works unaltered in a commercial way. Is it that bad for society to have those possibilities delayed by five years? Again, I do not think such a monopoly harms the freedoms of the readers/listeners/spectators/hairdressers, contrary to the freedoms of the users of a functional work. In other words, I consider developers of proprietary software evil but I do not consider an artist is evil if she takes advantage of a five-year monopoly (on commercial exploitation and/or modification) on its work, after its publication.
Your "Mimi and Eunice" example has nothing to do with copyright. A third author drawing new episodes could raise a trademark issue (if Nina Paley would manage to get a trademark on her characters) or a patent issue (if patents on Arts would be allowed, what would be a terrible idea) but these are completely different topics.
"Only artists wants to modify artistic works, not readers/listeners/spectators/hairdressers."
This creates a distinction where none exists and I think feeds back into some of the other things you said. Every person in free software is a potential developer. Every person reading or listening is a potential artist. Everyone deserves the same rights as everyone else. Not having the same rights as everyone else is itself a harm. Whether the person would have actually exercised them or not is not relevant. They're deserved regardless. Creative works contribute to our shared history and culture and rightly belong to the people of the world once published. That includes the person in the salon.
"Part 2: I do not get your point."
That much seems clear. I suspect that you're thinking of this free culture stuff only from one perspective where one person goes and makes a thing (sort of like a star topology where stuff originates in the center and propagates only in one direction: Outward toward the edges like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StarNetwork.svg) but that isn't at all how it works. In the free culture world anyone can make anything and anyone else can re-use it so it's more like this mesh network: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_topology#/media/File:NetworkTopology-FullyConnected.png) So you must also factor in those that are re-using stuff made by others. And in this part I'm talking of why commercial use needs to be allowed in that particular scenario. Remember that I'm addressing the matter of why free culture things must allow commercial use when others are re-using them. Imagine a world where things were licensed only for non-commercial use but otherwise permitted the remaining freedoms. Someone else would be able to take things and re-use them in various ways on a non-commercial basis. But in doing this free culture remains on the sidelines. This is because the person re-using stuff (Mimi and Eunice in my example) has a rent to pay each month but can't afford to leave their job and work on free culture things where they're re-using other things because the permissions that they get are on a non-commercial basis, and so: No money comes in. With no money they cannot pay their rent, get evicted, and become homeless. Or the more likely scenario is that they don't ever leave their job in the first place and continue with working on this stuff on the nights and weekends. And, as a result, free culture remains sidelined because people (unless they're some how independently wealthy and can somehow continue to survive without a job) can't afford to leave their job and work on free culture stuff full time. The example of Mimi and Euince was only a concrete example of the previous, like if say I decided to take up making new episodes for money. My making of money from Mimi & Eunice would not harm Nina at all so there's no need for it to be under a non-commercial license.
"Your "Mimi and Eunice" example has nothing to do with copyright."
On the contrary. In the hypothetical example I mentioned Mimi and Eunice would be under CC BY-NC or maybe CC BY-NC-SA. These are copyright licenses.
Reducing copyright terms to 5 years might be nice conditionally (the condition being on finding a way for copyleft to continue functioning without copyright which is a difficult topic. Copyright is only bad in my view when it's used to prevent sharing. When it's used as with copyleft to mandate that freedoms come along with a given work then it's actually being helpful), but in truth we'll never be able to out-lobby the large corporations for such a change to actually happen so it remains at best a thought experiment. https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC has also some arguments against non-commercial licensing, including one of how using NC terms supports those ever-long copyright terms.
we'll never be able to out-lobby the large corporations for such a change to actually happen
I hope we will, at some point. But, sure, the current trend is, on the contrary, to always increase the copyright term. In a completely absurd way: it makes no sense whatsoever to argue that, tens of years after the death of the authors, forbidding the reuse of their works encourages the production of new works (copyright's supposed goal)!
But you must also recognized that we are even further from having a law that would force every artistic work to be under a free license.
"But, sure, the current trend is, on the contrary, to always increase the copyright term."
And everything that makes copyright stronger also makes copyleft stronger. It's the judo move of copyleft.
Not having the same rights as everyone else is itself a harm. Whether the person would have actually exercised them or not is not relevant. They're deserved regardless.
Our opinions diverge here. If the public does not need/want to modify the work --- only artists do (again, the hairdresser can be a music artist in her free time, she is not acting as one when running her haircutting business) --- then the freedoms of the public are not harmed when it is not authorized to modify the work. Here is the "distinction".
Letting artists reuse previous works allows to produce new works (mesh-like), what is good for society as a whole. But I see no emergency. Granting a five or ten-year monopoly (for the artists who want it) after the publication of a work may help the artists more: it gives other opportunities to live from one's art (selling copies, rights to reuse commercially, to include in a movie, ...). Beside live performances, most artistic works generate money in that way, and only during the few years following the publication. So, reducing the copyright would not make those current "business models" disappear, whereas a 0-year term would. And after the 5 or 10-year term, the work enter the mesh and help other artists in the way you describe it.
Again, I am talking about including a photograph's picture in a news article, a music in an advertisement, ... or simply, and more commonly, commercial redistribution of exact copies. I am not talking about original works (including mash-ups and remixes) that reuse previous works. Copyright should never go in their way. In particular, whoever wants to draw new episodes of "Mimi and Eunice" should always be able to do so: previous drawings are not even copied! Only used for inspiration. I even doubt such an activity would infringe the existing copyright law. But it may depend on the country.
"Our opinions diverge here. If the public does not need/want to modify the work --- only artists do (again, the hairdresser can be a music artist in her free time, she is not acting as one when running her haircutting business) --- then the freedoms of the public are not harmed when it is not authorized to modify the work. Here is the "distinction".
You could say the same thing about software. And you'd be just as wrong.
"I am not talking about original works (including mash-ups and remixes) that reuse previous works."
Then you're not talking about anything then, because everything is already derivative. I covered that earlier with that link to the Question Copyright website.
"Again, I am talking about including a photograph's picture in a news article, a music in an advertisement, ... or simply, and more commonly, commercial redistribution of exact copies."
Including a photograph in a picture may or may not require copyright permission. It all depends on the context. But ignoring that, selling copies doesn't work anymore. *Especially* for digital things. It did when making copies was hard but it isn't hard anymore. Copying is incredibly easy. *snaps fingers* There - I just made 100,000 copies. Copying will only ever get easier. It is better to adapt to the modern world and find other ways to fund things that don't rely on the making and selling of copies rather than trying to push to restrict the public's rights in today's world. Crowdfunding is one way but by no means is it the only way. Business models based on the selling of copies will fail and are already failing (look at Big Media resorting to lawsuits over copies to prop up their defunct business model that's built on the making and selling of copies.) Outmoded business models based on the making and selling of copies move people in this direction, to try to lock up every single copy and to keep pushing up the penalties for "unauthorized" copies.
I am reminded of something Stallman wrote in the GNU Manifesto: "Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a head tax and chuck the masks."
"it gives other opportunities to live from one's art"
When the public has already paid for it in advance, say via a modern system like crowdfunding just for an example, what's the argument to be made to continue keeping it under restriction after that? It can't be money because that part's already addressed via the successful crowdfunding. And if it's paid for with public money it should belong to the public.
You could say the same thing about software.
No. The scheduling program harms the haircutting business if it has bugs, missing features, malware, etc. With free software, the hairdresser can make changes (by herself or contracting a developer) that she deems useful to her business. But it is not only an hypothetical possibility: it happens for real! On the contrary, I still defy you to find one hairdresser who affirms that her business is harmed because she cannot modify the music she plays in her salon or who modifies free music to specifically please her clients.
Then you're not talking about anything, because everything is already derivative.
You must at least accept that an exact copy is not an original derivative work.
But ignoring that, selling copies doesn't work anymore. *Especially* for digital things.
What about Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, the Kindle store, etc.? Don't they "work"? Aren't they selling exact copies? The public pays despite (not because of) the DRMs preventing them from owning the copies. Physical copies are not dead either. People buy physical books for instance.
Hairdressing salons, bars, and other shops pay to play music/videos, which they do not modify (nor they need/want to). Radio/TV channels and movie theaters too.
With the current system, artists get revenues from all those exact copies (a far too little portion of the pie, but this is a separate issue). Since most artistic works have an audience for only a few years after their redistribution, a five or ten-year term would not decrease those revenues in any significant way. A 0-year term would.
restrict the public's rights in today's world.
The public should be allowed to *non-commercially* redistribute copies. I do not recognize companies (Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, the Kindle store, the hairdressing salons, the bars, the book stores, the radio/TV channels, the movie theaters, etc.) any right to redistribute recent artistic works without giving a cent back to artists.
And, as I explained on your hairdresser example, the public does not need/want the right to modify artistic works. Only artists do. You do not "restrict the public's rights" by preventing it from doing something it neither needs nor wants to do.
I am reminded of something Stallman wrote in the GNU Manifesto
I do not know what you read in the quote but Stallman would certainly disagree with your interpretation of his words: he considers functional works and artistic works belong to distinct categories and only insists on the freedom to non-commercially redistribute artistic works.
When the public has already paid for it in advance, say via a modern system like crowdfunding just for an example, what's the argument to be made to continue keeping it under restriction after that?
If it was paid in advance, there is indeed no argument. Regardless, I see no reason why artists should be forbidden to ask for revenues to companies making commercial uses of their recent works. Those companies are not "the public".
"You do not "restrict the public's rights" by preventing it from doing something it neither needs nor wants to do."
Other artists are not part of the public? Non-artists never have a desire to have something changed? Ever? They can't have someone else do it for them? Like me commissioning someone to make those new Mimi & Eunice episodes instead of doing it myself? (And now here I am using your terms of "artist", drawing a distinction between people.) Blech! I am sorry for that, people of the world. Banana is rubbing off on me.
"You must at least accept that an exact copy is not an original derivative work."
I'm not talking of it in that way. Not only do we not same to be on the same page here we don't even seem to be in the same room. Perhaps not even in the same building. Maybe not even the same planet? When I said that I was referring to things like art influencing art. I guess you didn't read that All Creative Work is Derivative link I provided earlier. If you won't even be reading the resources I point to so as to understand the nature of the things I say there is no point in any of this.
Magic Banana:
"I do not recognize companies (Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, the Kindle store, the hairdressing salons, the bars, the book stores, the radio/TV channels, the movie theaters, etc.) any right to redistribute recent artistic works without giving a cent back to artists."
Neither do I. Businesses using people artwork in the course of their business can afford to pay for that, and I do think it's an unreasonable use of copyright to ensure that they do. Does anyone really think it's fair for a giant corporate music company to use their legacy marketing and distribution networks to make money off albums released under free culture CC licenses, and give none of that money back to the artists? I suspect that musicians believe that's what they're being asked to allow, and why so many of them do not understand that a strategic use of CC licensing serves their interests better than ARR copyright. People being overly rigid about free culture is counterproductive at this point.
IANAL but I think if libre games with NC artwork were made available gratis to the public, by via an organisation providing a gratis GNU/Linux distribution (installers and repos), I do not believe that would be considered "commercial user" under any CC license. So exactly what unacceptable problem is caused by the NC clause, given its benefits as described above?
JXSelf:
"Other artists are not part of the public? Non-artists never have a desire to have something changed? Ever? They can't have someone else do it for them?"
The NC clause does not prevent this. Derivative works can be made, but they like the original, are limited to gratis distribution, not commercial use. If the creator of the derivative work wants to change this, they have the freedom to replace the NC-SA licensed components of their work with something they have created (or under a license with no NC clause). The NC-SA is almost tautological, because the creator of the derivative can always dual license their original contributions under a freer license, even if the distribution of the combined works are constrained by the license applying to their component parts.
The ND clause is one I have a lot more problems with. I've never really heard a good argument for preventing sampling, mash-ups, reinterpretation and so on. I see it used a lot in Jamendo music and I wonder if it's intended to stop video makers using them in monetized YT videos, or game makers using their music in commercial games, without sharing some revenue with them, but the NC clause would be a better tool to address this.
I've also seen the ND clause applied to texts, where the author claims they need it for the same reasons the GNU FDL has "invariant sections", to prevent someone from altering the text and misattributing those changes to the original author. There's a whole bunch of laws that address misattributing statements to a person (fraud, libel etc), you don't need to use copyright licensing. Also, I've never heard of a real world case of this happening with texts in the public domain, or under free culture licenses.
There must be a typo somewhere? Because one of the one hand you say "Businesses using people artwork in the course of their business can afford to pay for that, and I do think it's an unreasonable use of copyright to ensure that they do."
If you do think that it's unreasonable to use copyright to make sure that they do then this is an argument against NC licensing but the rest of what you right seems to be in support of it.
"Does anyone really think it's fair for a giant corporate music company to use their legacy marketing and distribution networks to make money off albums released under free culture CC licenses, and give none of that money back to the artists?"
Does anyone really think it's fair for a giant corporation (in this case Red Hat) to make money off software released under free licenses, and give none of that money back to the developers? Or you can pick any other example you like (Apple, etc.) You must object to both of these or neither of them in order to remain consistent because they are both creative works.
"...what unacceptable problem is caused by the NC clause, given its benefits as described above?"
Since one of the Freedom Defined requirements is that a free cultural work must not restrict any particular kind of use, even commercial use, the NC license is not considered a free culture license. http://freedomdefined.org/ So it's like asking "...what unacceptable problem is caused by non-commercial licensing of software?" It's non-free in both cases.
JXSelf:
"Other artists are not part of the public? Non-artists never have a desire to have something changed? Ever? They can't have someone else do it for them?"
strypey:
"The NC clause does not prevent this."
I never said it did. This statement is being made in support of the argument that modifications should be allowed. Because Banana was arguing against even being able to change it, claiming that "the freedoms of the public are not harmed when it is not authorized to modify the work" and how only "artists" might want to do that. I was trying to provide an example of how a "non-artist" might want to and how they might then go about doing such a thing.
Perhaps I should give up here then. Everyone that's responding is doing so in favor of the non-free licensing of things so I seem to be in the minority here for free culture. I'll make a mental note of that about the Trisquel forums for the future.
Non-artists never have a desire to have something changed? Ever?
Have you found that hairdresser who affirms that her business is harmed because she cannot modify the music she plays in her salon or who modifies free music to specifically please her clients?
You picked that example. I therefore assume it is a good one to make your case.
Other artists are not part of the public?
When the free software movement says "users must be free to modify the program", the reason is not "because they can be developers too". Here is the distinction between functional and artistic works.
Like me commissioning someone to make those new Mimi & Eunice episodes instead of doing it myself?
For the nth time: copyright should never go in the way of producing new works. I am talking about exact copies or integration or unoriginal modifications (e.g., adding a logo in the corner of a picture to use it for advertisement is not an original modification) of recent works.
Not only do we not same to be on the same page here we don't even seem to be in the same room. Perhaps not even in the same building. Maybe not even the same planet?
On my planet, Netflix and Spotify have many customers who pay subscriptions to a catalog of artistic works; iTunes and the Kindle store make money selling exact copies of artistic works; people still buy books and magazines; radios, shops, bars and night clubs play recent music; movie theaters sell more and more entrances, etc. How is it on your planet where "selling copies doesn't work anymore"?
I guess you didn't read that All Creative Work is Derivative link I provided earlier.
Not only I did but I agreed:
I agree that high-quality artistic works can be, or even often are, derivatives. That is why copyright should never go in the way of creating original works (its objective!), including mash-ups or remixes, even if they reuse works published today. (...) But I do not see any emergency in letting anybody do small variations of existing works, or, more commonly, reuse the works unaltered in a commercial way. Is it that bad for society to have those possibilities delayed by five years?
You never justified the emergency to let anybody commercially use the artistic work, unaltered, from the day it is released. On my planet (described above), that change means the end of current business models for artists (although the money raised with copies/subscriptions and taxes on the diffusion is mainly captured by intermediaries: a problem to fix).
If you did read it then why... when I'm talking about all creative works being derivative not in the legal sense but in the sense of stuff building on what came before... are you trying to change the meaning around to be in the legal sense when you say "You must at least accept that an exact copy is not an original derivative work"? The thing it's an exact copy of probably is a derivative already of something else that came before. So why are you trying to change the meaning of what I'm saying? We can't have a conversation like this.
"You never justified the emergency"
I've never mentioned the existence of any emergency. That word exists only in your posts.
I'm talking about all creative works being derivative not in the legal sense but in the sense of stuff building on what came before...
I agree (for the fourth time).
are you trying to change the meaning around to be in the legal sense when you say "You must at least accept that an exact copy is not an original derivative work"?
I am not trying to change any meaning. I have agreed that Art is derivative (now for the fifth time) since the beginning. I simply want to talk about a topic that is unrelated to whether Art is derivative or not (it is): exact copies and diffusions. Making an exact copy or diffusing such a copy is not Art, right? So rules applying to businesses doing so do not depend on whether Art is derivative, right?
The planet I described, with Netflix, Spotify, iTunes, the Kindle store, movie theaters, radio/TV channels, night clubs, etc., is the one we actually live on. Today. And, today, artists make money (although not enough) through exact copies or diffusions.
I've never mentioned the existence of any emergency. That word exists only in your posts.
I advocate for all artistic works to become freely modifiable and commercially usable 5-10 years after the original publication. You answer: no, it must be from day 1. Conclusion: for you, there exists an emergency.
In today's world, Netflix, Spotify & co. would be the main beneficiaries of your proposal. On the contrary, a five or ten-year delay would not make much difference: those actors mainly diffuse recent works and would give back to artists almost as much as today (more if the redistribution is improved).
@jxself: you disappointed me. Instead of acknowledging our divergence like I did at the beginning of https://trisquel.info/forum/question-about-free-gnulinux-distributions#comment-112565 you pretend (and repeat despite my clear denial) that I consider Art as non-derivative, that I want a copyright that go in the way of original works (e.g., new episodes of Mimi and Eunice), you accuse me of changing the meaning of what you say, you ignore my points (where is that mythical hairdresser?, or a better example to make your point?), you misuse Stallman's quotes, you rely on irony, etc. I did not expect that.
"Conclusion: for you, there exists an emergency."
No, I have not stated that it amounts to an emergency. Please don't attribute your conclusions of what I think to me.
"Instead of acknowledging our divergence"
Well I'm sorry for not doing that at the start. But really the divergence seemed so obvious it didn't need stating. (Although I did eventually comment on it, saying we seemed to be from other planets.)
Rather than going through a point-by-point rebuttal I think I'll end by saying that your proposed idea of the 5-10 years is clearly better than what exists now (assuming it could ever be obtained in the first place as I mentioned) but still doesn't go all the way to get freedom to everyone. I am saddened to learn through all of this that you don't believe in free culture. Perhaps I'll have another opportunity to convince you with better arguments in the future.
> I'm only saying I don't care for games. They don't do "practical"
> jobs. It's entertainment. Some games are art.
I think games actually *do* something practical. The practical thing
they do is *entertainment*. It helps you to spend time you would
otherwise do nothing, can be good for (depends on the kind of game)
eye-hand coordination. What would you do if you have otherwise nothing
to do?
For adults, this does not apply so well, but for children, it does.
That's a malformed question. Fedora is a GNU/Linux distro. What you mean to ask about is operating systems which are compliant with GNU FSDG. And the advantage is simple: none of the official channels of software distribution for these systems contain any proprietary software. That's the only advantage the FSF strives for.
By the way, Fedora actually has a very clear policy which only allows proprietary firmware in its repository. You can blacklist these firmware blobs and replace Linux with Linux-libre in Fedora using a package called "Freed-ora":
http://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/freed-ora.en.html
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, by the way, has roughly the same policy as Fedora. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the "one exception" the FSF speaks of is to do with Red Hat trademarks.
> would I be able to use alternative drivers to nvidia drivers so that I
> still can play games under linux via steam or wine?
Probably, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of using a completely libre OS.
The op thinks that GNU/Linux = Libre. GNU slash Linux is only a naming convention, designed to put stress on the component parts of the system so that the GNU project is given equal credit.
I understand the difference now, someone sent a link with the
explanation of the naming convention.
On 2017-03-24 15:02, name at domain wrote:
> The op thinks that GNU/Linux = Libre. GNU slash Linux is only a naming
> convention, designed to put stress on the component parts of the
> system so that the GNU project is given equal credit.
Linux=component for an operating system (not necessary must to be GNU)(Linux it is not a program of GNU project)
Linux it is not an operating system. This component needs an operating system
GNU=operating system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
HURD=GNU Project program (kernel)(this kernel supposed to be GNU's kernel)
Games can be free, freedom is not about price. The bigger concern would be Nvidia's GPU drivers, which are proprietary as sin.
Yes, there are two separate aspects to computer games; the software engine, and the artwork, including graphics, audio, cut scene video etc. I think it's essential for the software engines to be free code, for all the reasons others have mentioned here relating to user rights and protections. As a CreativeCommons advocate, I prefer games that at least allow free distribution, and I love the idea of games that license their art under a license that matches the spirit of their software license (GPL/ CC-BY-SA, or Apache 2.0/ CC-BY). I definitely support the development of libre games, and projects like the Liberated Pixel Cup:
https://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/libre-game-development
But I also think that *right now* convincing companies to free their code (or use free code developed by others or both, and maybe used a CC license with a Non-Commercial for the artwork, is more realistic than convincing game companies to release their games as free culture, for two reasons. One, because as others have mentioned in this thread, ARR (All Rights Reserved) artwork can't compromise the user's computer in the way proprietary software can, and two, because at least for now, it's an easier case to make from the point of view of the companies' interests.
The full explanation is long, but if you can be bothered bashing your eyes against a wall of text I've put it up as a blog post on Disintermedia:
https://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/blog/2017/03/31/convincing-serious-game-studios-to-free-their-code/