squash! add free culture binary data essay

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
index b9bd6a8..59e1d79 100644
--- a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
+++ b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
@@ -50,11 +50,14 @@ every character and all scenery completely black
 
 this could be argued for a game engine which can process very arbitrary inputs as long as some basic syntax or protocol is followed (much as the compiler)
 
-but game data is not arbitrary - a free game with binary-only assets is like a free operating system for which only non-free programs are available - in fact they are identical from the user's perspective - a black screen with no sounds - utterly useless to a freedom-minded user until someone writes some free programs for that platform (or creates some free art to fit that game)
+Game assets however, are not arbitrary configuartion data. A free game with non-free assets is like a free operating system for which only non-free programs are available. In fact, taken into account that the majority of computer users expect a graphical, mouse-centric desktop system, then they are identical from the user's perspective: a blank screen with no controls or sounds. Both are utterly useless to a freedom-minded user until someone writes a free interface and some free programs for that platform or creates some free art to fit that game meaningfully. If question at hand is: "Is it possible to use this program without any proprtietary adronments?", the naiive answer will be: "Yes, it is capable of being used with free assets (if they exist)."; but if no such free assets actually do exist, then that answer does not satisfy the main intention of the question, namely: "Is this actually possible in practice or only in theory". In theory, it is the case that many proprietary games are capable of using free replacement assets; which is indeed the popular practice of so-called: "mods". For this reason, the point of the program being merely capable of using free assets is not an interesting one to make. One can easily make the counter-argument that if the only existing assets that could make the program in any way useful are non-free, then the mere distrubution of that program, at least in compiled form, even without being accompanied by any non-free assets, is either pointless, or constitutes a recommendation to seek out and use those non-free assets. In case that this viewpoint is unfamiliar to the reader, it should be noted that this is the very standard to which Debian has held it's binary packages for many years.
 
-a game is not at all comperable to a compiler - it is not a general purpose tool - it's sole use-case depends intrinsically on it's data existing and existing in a very precisely prescribed way - not just in terms of valid syntax but in every facet of it's form and purpose, the analogy to a dumb data processor does not fit
+a game is not at all comperable to a compiler - it is not a general purpose tool - it's sole use-case depends intrinsically on it's data existing and existing in a very precisely prescribed way - not just in terms of valid syntax and encoding but in every facet of it's form and purpose, any analogy to an agnostic data processor is inappropriate
+
+The conventinal meaning of "data" is that of some conformant input flowing through a pipeline for processing or computation in order to produce some output that is otherwise non-essential and unrelated to the intrinsic functionality of the processing program. A clear example would be  source code input to GCC. Clearly, game and GUI assets are not merely that kind of data, isolated from the main program. Most generally, these binary assets are necessarily not candidates for streaming as could be the case for the conventional input data previously described. In most cases, these assets carry very specific semantics related to the program itself where spatial and temporal precision are critical; as such the assets that represent these precise events are fully pre-loaded into the program memory space. This is done in order to make the program itself useful to the user and only for that intrinsic purpose. As such, it can not reasonably be considered as arbitrary transient data but much more akin to specific library loading.
+
+To label programs as "functional" but the art and music that constitutes the interfaces as "non-functional" (with the right to modify them being therefore unimportant) is to say that these binary assets are arbitrary or optional (and any modifications are orthagonal to the functionality of the main program itself). If they are not optional then they serve some purpose; if they are not arbitrary then they serve some specific purpose; and if they serve some specific purpose then modifcations are meaningful and the end user should be able to handle them in the same "preferred" ways as the author would. All of those are true for game/GUI art and sounds. They may not be executable machine instructions but they each play a necessary and specific role for the proper operation of the program as a whole. A game's assets and the game state that triggers them to be displayed are tightly coupled components that serve a single unified "function", namely: that of being an entertaining toy. The same could be said of any other GUI or the error messages of GCC for that matter. Afterall, error messages are just raw, non-executable byte strings; so should they be exempt from the licensing terms of the host program? I think most people would agree that it would be difficult to make a convcincing argument for that, especially not on the grounds that they are arbitrary data. Each and every one of them must align semanticallty with the context in which they are to be triggered and presented. Sure, any properly encoded text string could fit the slot, just as any properly encoded image file could replace any other; but surely, trees the color of the sky and rivers made of leopard skin would be as confusing and disturbing to a game player as it would be to a programmer if GCC error messages were replaced with Chinese cookie fortunes. In both cases, treating binary assets as arbitrary or optional jeopardizes the utility and appeal of their host program greatly; and so they should be considered to be necessary and specific, and as such, deserving of the same freedom as the host software.
 
-clearly this is not merely input data flowing through a pipeline for the purpose of producing an output unrelated to the main program - these binary assets are fully imported into the main program memory only for it's intrinsic usage and in a way that can not reasonably be considered as transient data but much more akin to library linking
 
 
 ---
@@ -72,14 +75,6 @@ quotes from the often quoted "Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad?" ar
 ---
 
 TODO:
-
-if question at hand is: "is it possible to use this program without any proprtietary adronments?" the naiive answer will be "yes, it is capable of being used with free assets." - but if no such free assets actually exist then that answer does not satisfy the main intention: "is it possible in practice or only *in theory*"
-
-if the only existing assets that could make the software in any way useful are non-free then doesn't the mere distrubution of that program constitute a recommendedation to use non-free assets?
-
----
-
-TODO:
 arguments for consistency
 
 * personally, i consider game AS an artwork itself - that i would not want to modify any more than my favorite roger waters album - in both cases, i truly want to experience them as the author intended one could argue about the freedom to copy but that is not the most beneficial feature of copyleft - that particular freedom lends itself more to "free as in beer" than freedom - what makes the GPL shine is that is requires access to source materials providing the freedom to modify; but with respect to an artistic expression of another person, modifications are not anything that i would actually want - in fact, any modifications to an artist's work could be considered to be an act of vandalism and an insult to the artist - like drawing a mustache on the mona lisa - i do not intend to suggest that another person should not be allowed to create a similar work from raw material but this "moaning lucy" would be an expression of that artist if it did not draw directly from ("sample") the original -