squash! add free culture binary data essay

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
index 76f05c0..180875b 100644
--- a/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
+++ b/practical-modifiability-of-free-culture-binary-data.md
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
-Proponents of "Free Culture" tout the concept as the multimedia equivalent of GPL-licensed "Free Software" in a vacuous attempt to distinguish it from "Open Culture"; but the reality for end-users is far from the same level of freedom provided by the GPL. Practically speaking, the term: "Free Culture" is nearly synonymous with: "Creative Commons Share-Alike licensed multimedia". The vast majority of the multimedia labeled as "Free Culture" are individual images or sounds clips; binary blobs by definition, without any reference to the source "layers" that compose the work. This is natural, of course, if the work is very simple; but that is rarely the case for anything "finished".
+Proponents of "Free Culture" present the concept as the multimedia equivalent of GPL-licensed "Free Software" in a vacuous attempt to distinguish it from "Open Culture"; but the reality for end-users is far from the same level of freedom provided by the GPL. Practically speaking, the term: "Free Culture" is nearly synonymous with: "Creative Commons Share-Alike licensed multimedia". The vast majority of the multimedia labeled as "Free Culture" are individual images or sounds clips; binary blobs by definition, without any reference to the source "layers" that compose the work. This is natural, of course, if the work is very simple; but that is rarely the case for anything "finished".
 
-The licenses typically recommended by "Free Culture" proponents, such as the "Creative Commons Share-Alike" and the "Free Art License", merely permit the re-use and re-distribution of specific binary artifacts as long as attribution is preserved; but they do not require that the constituent source materials be made available as does the GPL. As such, they do not meet even the most basic standard of "Open-Source". Artifacts under such licenses are, in all practicality, more the equivalent of "free-ware" such as the Microsoft DotNet run-time re-distributables; excepting perhaps for the omission of any language discouraging mutations. To be clear though, any such mutations to blobs are crude at best; far from the precise modifications that the GPL affords for software.
+The licenses typically recommended by "Free Culture" proponents, such as the "Creative Commons Share-Alike" and the "Free Art License", merely permit the re-use and re-distribution of specific binary artifacts as long as attribution is preserved; but they do not require that the constituent source materials be made available as does the GPL. As such, they do not exhibit even the most basic premise of "Open-Source". Artifacts under such licenses are, in all practicality, more the equivalent of "free-ware" such as the Microsoft DotNet run-time re-distributables; excepting perhaps for the omission of any language discouraging mutations. To be clear though, any such mutations to blobs are crude at best; far from the precise modifications that the GPL affords for software.
 
-Although these licenses encourage sharing, they neglect ensuring of the freedom to study, experiment, and customize. Experimentation implies de-composition; and as any artist or software developer knows: non-trivial modifications require access to the original sources used by the author. Without these sources, even the project maintainers are prevented from customizing the assets beyond the most trivial operations such as trimming and scaling; which is very much mis-aligned with the spirit of "Free Software". Therfore, these multimedia licenses are not at all the natural companions to GPL-licensed software that they are often touted as. The GPLv3 grants this maximal freedom of expression to a project's artists, developers, and end-users alike; and is, itself, the natural companion license for the artistic binary assets of a GPL-licensed software program, provided that the forms of the relevant source materials are well-defined.
+Although these licenses encourage sharing, they neglect ensuring of the freedom to study, experiment with, and customize the artwork in any but the most superficial ways. Experimentation implies de-composition; and as any artist or software developer knows: non-trivial modifications require access to the original sources and tools used by the author. Without these, even the project maintainers are prevented from customizing the assets beyond the most trivial operations such as cropping and scaling; which is very much mis-aligned with the spirit of "Free Software". Therfore, these multimedia licenses are not at all the natural companions to GPL-licensed software that they are often touted to be. The GPLv3 grants this maximal freedom of expression to a project's artists, developers, and end-users alike; and is, itself, the natural companion license for the artistic binary assets of a GPL-licensed software program, provided that the forms of the relevant source materials are well-defined.
 
-In order to be generally applicable, the GPL itself makes no attempt to specify which specific forms qualify as the "preferred forms" for any type of work; but the "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware) makes it clear that the GPL is intended to be useful for anything that is copyrightable.
+In order to be generally applicable, the GPL itself makes no attempt to specify which specific forms qualify as the "preferred forms" for any type of work; but the "Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses" (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware) makes it clear that the GPL is intended to be useful for anything that is copyright-able.
 
     "You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it."
 
@@ -12,10 +12,9 @@ Although the GPL does not require that the "preferred forms" be specified, much
 
 == GPLv3 Assets Addendum ==
 
-The original audio, video, image and font files in the <THE-PROGRAM> assets/ directory are licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3). The terminology in section 1 of the GPLv3 (namely: "source code", "preferred form", and "object code") as it relates to the binary assets of this project is explicitly defined below.
+The original multimedia files in the <THE-PROGRAM> assets/ directory are licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPLv3). The terminology in section 1 of the GPLv3 (namely: "source code", "preferred form", and "object code") as it relates to the binary assets of this project is explicitly defined below.
 
-The "object code" is explicitly defined here to be the binary audio, video, image and font files
-accessed directly by the <THE-PROGRAM> program.
+The "object code" is explicitly defined here to be the binary files (audio, video, images, 3D models, fonts, etc.) that are loaded by or embedded into the <THE-PROGRAM> program.
 
 The "source code" or "preferred form of the work" is explicitly defined here to be any and all resources (such as binary data, editor project files, meta-data, declarative texts, scripts, and source code of helper programs) that are necessary to accomplish all of the following tasks using only widely-available free software:
 
@@ -41,7 +40,7 @@ RE: games and their assets
 the GPL, as written,
 (either implicitly or explicitly)?
 considers binary assets such as artwork and music as program input data as distinct from the program itself and not subject to the corresponding source requirement so long as they are packaged separately
-much as C source code files and binary compiler outputs are not inherently subject to the license of the compiler that processes them
+???much as C source code files and binary compiler outputs are not inherently subject to the license of the compiler that processes them???
 - this serves primarily to intice the hourdes of game creators with stars in their eyes and the (usually stated, if not boasted) intention to become rich and famous from their creations
 - following this to it's logical conclusion : a game that is 100% functional but silent and with
 every character and all scenery completely black
@@ -51,7 +50,7 @@ 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 only non-free 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)
+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)
 
 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
 
@@ -81,8 +80,6 @@ arguments for consistency
 
 
 * counter agrument - the above could be taken as strong arguments for applying the same lack of concern for the freedom of game source code as is recommended by the FSF in regards to game assets; but to be un-biased and for the sake on consistency, i present a counter agrument for applying the same urgency to the freedom of game assets -
-
-
 while the others were presented from the perspective of downstream consumers; there is an equally valid argument from the perspective of an upstream maintainer - what they both have in common though is that they suggest that the same consideration for freedom should apply to both game source code as well as to game assets
 whereas it is not desireable to modify the artistic expression inherent in someone else's work;
 in regards to your own work in progress, it is not only desireable but imperative that you be able to modify contributed assets to fit the program - a demonstration is hardly necessary - this should be abundantly obvious - an external asset that fits into the program 99% is 100% useless unless it is only a mockup (or sloppiness is acceptable) - it is almost certain that images and sounds will need some conditioning at the very least to suit the environment adequately; and without the full coverage of the GPL copyleft applied to the binary assets, the only option is to implore the original artist to make the otherwise trivial adjustments (perhaps on several occasions)