Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Front page to wiki now modifiable again

[Aaron Bentley]

Tom Lord wrote:

>    > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>
>
>    > > Well, what is _your_ definition of "free", since you think it is
>    > > applicable as a touchstone which must be used to test any FSF
>    > > licensee?
>
>    > Here it is:
>    > 
>    > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
>    > Clear, precise, and decidedly acceptable. Minus the hippie stuff, it's
>    > the first test usually applied to any license under review to test
>    > whether it is free enough for Debian (the DFSG is essentially this
>    > written more explicitly, plus some pragmatic restrictions).
>
>    > RMS has acknowledged that the GFDL is not free under this definition.
>
> But that definition applies to _software_.  The freedoms enumerated
> directly pertain to software (for example, you can not "run"
> documentation).
>  
True, but it's not hard to generalize "run" to "use".  Especially things 
that have a digital representation.  It's easy to see that bound books 
are a compiled format (convenient, but hard to modify), whereas DocBook 
or Microsoft Word are source formats that permit easy modification.

> Would you apply the definition in that essay to a political essay?
Absolutely.  Like ESR does with those Halloween documents, a political 
essay can be presented as a composite of the original work, plus 
annotation and critique.  This has social good.

>  or
> to a musical recording
The native format of multi-track recordings is source code.  The session 
file contains high-level directives such as "turn the volume up 50% over 
3 seconds" or "apply effect foo to track bar with the following 
settings. . ."  During the creation of the recording, the directives in 
the session file are interpreted in real time.  When the work is ready 
to be distributed, it's compiled into PCM files.

The native formats are the preferred form for making modifications to 
the recordings.   Only by using native formats can you change the 
effects or replace tracks[1] Unfortunately, they aren't usually open 
formats, and dependence on third-party proprietary plug-ins is common.

The educational value of the source formats for musicians and recording 
engineers is very high.  It's a field where everyone's always 
reinventing the wheel because no one will give up their trade secrets.

> ?   If so, can you elaborate on the analogy you
> have in mind and why it is a good idea?   Oh, and, yes, manuals, too.
>  
The advantages of Free manuals should be obvious.  This argument has 
dragged on so long because Mikael Goikman wants to reuse the wiki 
contents for his own projects.  Given the dearth of good documentation, 
anything that encourages the spread of documentation can only be a good 
thing.  Freeness promotes collaboration and reuse.  It allows one person 
to continue work started by another.  It allows major portions of a work 
to be excepted and combined with other works. Restrictions hamper these 
things. 

In reality, authors need to eat, and copyright is a mechanism that 
introduces an artificial scarcity so that information can be sold, even 
though its cost of duplication is negligible.  If we ever figure out how 
to pay for the creation instead, it'll be a great day for society, 
because it can be available to everyone then.

Aaron

P.S. No, my songs aren't available in source form.  They take up much 
more space than the output wavs, oggs or mp3s do, and musicians don't 
even think of collaborating this way.   But I'm not opposed to the idea, 
if there's genuine interest.

1 Vocal removal is a hack that damages the remainder of the recording.  
It relies on the common practice of placing the lead vocal in the centre 
of the stereo field.