Slashdot Mirror

Yes, which is the reason why it has to be reflected upon before it reaches the commercial level.
BEcause of the Internet, we don't need a comemrcial circuit, we need communication aver what is being made.
That's why I created GNUArt: To give creators a possibility to get their stuff circulating with no restrictions other than ensuring their contribution would remain known as theirs.
Now, if the gallery gained popularity it would help benevolents distributing their creations.

go to GNUArt.org :)

Not Found

The requested URL /robots.txt was not found on this server.

...GNUArt, which charter have been proof-read by RMS has gotten 3 year old last Thursday !

If music should have a compulsory license, why shouldn't movies, software, ebooks and other media also be covered by compulsory licenses?"

Whatever : GNUArt covers all.

But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money.

RMS has never, ever, objected to any activity on the grounds that it is "tainted" by monetary objectives. (Though others nearby have - the Gnuart people, for example)

What RMS objects to about BitKeeper (and about acrobat reader, and latex column modes, and Netscape 4) is, as he says so many times it almost makes you want to beat your head into the wall, that BitKeeper is not "free as in freedom".

RMS has no problems with BitKeeper being sold - his problem is that the market for BitKeeper (and most other non-free software) is propped up by the restrictions placed on the buyer. In fact, RMS agrees with debian that software which contains a "don't sell this for more than the cost of the media" clause is not free. Part of the problem with BitKeeper is not that McVoy is selling it, but that I (or anyone else) can't.

If every person who received a copy of BitKeeper from McVoy were able to use it however they wanted, examine all the source, modify it as desired, and then copy and sell the result, then BitKeeper would be free software. (I'm sure someone could weasel in a non-free restriction somewhere into that statement, but basically that's it) Contrary to popular opinion, RMS does not insist that every piece of free software be licensed under the GPL.

Painting RMS as hostile to the pursuit of money, as though he were these guys is inaccurate. RMS is not actively hostile to the software market; he just doesn't view its continued existence as a sufficient reason for non-free software. If the commercial software market cannot survive without the restrictions on redistribution currently placed on buyers, then it cannot survive.

People who paint RMS as hostile to making money fail to see the difference between "I hate that" and "I care about something else more than I care about that". (Those who would paint free speech activists as being against national security often commit a very similar structural confusion.)

GNUArt opened a GPL'ed Art Gallery in January 2001.

I am however pleased to see that other people begin in the same direction which will make this way of thinking more and more popular until the merchants begin to think differently about what copyright protection should mean for the artists.

The problems with open music, however, haven't put people off trying open source methods elsewhere.

They actually forgot to mention GNUArt which is my attempt to apply the GNU General Public License to Art.

We also opened a Gallery which we slowly fill with whatever quality stuff (mostly music and photographs but, hey, the one who criticize are supposed to help too ;-) we get from unselfish artists.

That's it, hope it'll raise some interest.

We need the corporation to, on a one-to-one basis, support a proprietary format for an open format.
asf *and* ogg (I know the latter is audio-specific... are there Free video formats ?), for example.

This way it will still be possible to give the public to choose between Free Art or blockbusters.

Until then then we could call this a kind of monopoly as we are only given the choice to upgrade hardware that'll at the end not belong to us anymore (this is IMHO the final consequence of such digital dictatorship as this is the only way to forbid hackers to even look at these devices' internals).

• Artists, put some of your works under the protection of the GNU General Public License (or any other, as you which)
• Consumers, open yourselves to Free Art, as in the industrial world, there are things you'll like, and things you won't. Just share your favorites around, speak of these, make Free Art another obvious choice.

• Artists, put some of your works under the protection of the GNU General Public License (or any other, as you which)
• Consumers, open yourselves to Free Art, as in the industrial world, there are things you'll like, and things you won't. Just share your favorites around, speak of these, make Free Art another obvious choice.

You can also fight majors'monopoles by endorsing Free Art distribution policies.

There is, for example GNUArt (soon to be translated in English, I swear) which promotes the application of the GNU General Public License to Art.

BTW...

Wasn't a Weezer video clip on the Windows 95 CD ? (an excellent Video Clip made after the "Happy Days" series)

I'd accept to subscribe to some sites (which is actually what this idea consists of) if in return they'd guarantee me the quality and relevance of the info I could fetch from them.

But such info should be concurrential, IE not taken from existing books... if it is Free, then I should not been billed, etc. etc.

Well, actually what I mean is what I originally meant 10 years ago: the Internet is the Great Library, it belongs to the mankind patrimony and as such one can't force people to pay to benefit from it.

The only decent retribution to such a service which spreads culture among the world would just be to require people to spontaneously accept to contribute to make it a place where we can getr even more knowledge.

So, well.... no, thanks. You may open paying sites (wasn't Slashdot supposed to become a fee-based service, anyway ?) but you won't see me there, then... And if you look for me, I am webmastering the GNUArt websites...

• I write all of my MP3 on CDRs so that I can listen too it on my Expanium while biking, guess it'll take them a long time to just realise my laptop is not the right place to search
• broomstick, is temporarily under Linux (I am developping somethin else)...Hope they can just "see" it if they want to hack it
• the MP3 I collect are the digital versions of songs I buy as second-hand LP's so they might find it even harder to prove that I infringed their shit
• Last but not least: when I don't listen too these good'ole times songs, I listen to GNUArt GPL'ed music which makes it definitely a bad day for their "hackers".

• being the prisoner of a contract signed with a major company
• just giving away stuff that may be "patented by somebody else"

• The art to be protected is considered in a virtual, infinitely copiable form
• The source code of art is clearly defined as "whichever information needed by another artist to modify the original"

One of the major obstacles from more of this sort of thing going on is a lack of readily accessible free media sure there are a few oasis of public domain media and even fewer still examples of GPLed media. The fact remains though that there is no central repository for free media that artists can use to build on one another's works.

My interest is mostly in media that can be used for free games but any media that can be shared amongst the artistic community is great in my eyes. At any rate here are some free media resources that I've found and their associated licenses. I hope this list helps other artists and people looking for free media to use for one purpose or another:

Pixel Place - Lots of public domain images mainly intended for web site use (but you could find other uses if you're a creative thinker)

Ender Design - Public domain images mostly for web sites once again. High quality and very usable for UI graphics. The 'design sets' aren't public domain so be sure and read the license. I highly recommend this site.

The Texture Library - Public domain mostly photorealistic textures intended to be used for games (OpenGL). Very nice!

The Golgotha Project - High quality public domain music, textures and meshes! Perhaps the largest cache of freely available media in one place.

Free Game Arts - High quality media (mostly 3d meshes [MDLs] and textures) with various free licenses. The license which each model/texture is covered by is clearly stated before the d/l so be sure to read!

GNUArt - A site in french with GPLed media (mostly music).

GNUsic - A site that features a CD written by artists who have GPLed their work.

Linkware Graphics - License is called 'Linkware' which translates to free for non commercial use and no modifications allowed. Mostly music related images here. Again mainly for web sites but could be used for other purposes.

Public Domain Images - Small amount of public domain images

I am currently gathering sites with free media and sucking down their contents in preparation for WorldForge's free media repository.

Perhaps all the /.ers know of free media resources which I failed to mention here? The free media repository will have media with all sorts of licenses so don't think we're after just one type of 'free' media. Perhaps others who know of good caches with free media could share them with us here? Thanks!

-Jason

FYI, the GNUArt Project which consists of GPL'ing Art has become reality on http://gnuart.org (charter) and http://gnuart.net (gallery) on January 1st, 2001.
The advantage of GNUArt is obvious as, instead of having yet another license, we just exploit a valid existing one.
It is still being translated to english at the moment but you have the fish until then.
The charter was co-written with Richard Stallman.
--

> The lesson that "No, you don't have to give
> up all your rights to your work in exchange
> for publication anymore" is one that
> musicians could stand to learn as well.
FYI, the GNUArt Project which consists of GPL'ing Art has become reality on http://gnuart.org (charter) and http://gnuart.net (gallery) on January 1st, 2001.
It is still being translated to english at the moment but you have the fish until then.
The charter was co-written with Richard Stallman.
--

This is an ethical problem and RMS does an outstanding job defending our rights.
Though inhabitual, his position concerning Open Source is right and coherent: You *can't* fight for Freedom if you accept concessions with what you describe as *bad*.
Now, if RMS'positions often regard computer science, it is because he is working in this area now, the real question is "can we have our innovation and creativity biaised by financial interests ?"
How can we doubtlessly agree when we see a company patenting something not because it is revolutionary but because it is common sense?
In such case, we all know "they" patent it because of the money they get out of it, they patent it as marketers, not as scientists nor artists.
So, when will they patent laws?
They actually started, it is called the ISO standard and we all know how much royalties we have to pay to grant this "honour" to an organization. ISO9xxx standards are hinderences to evolution.
The GPL can actually be applied to many domains such as Art (try this too). If we want to progress, we have to share, if we want to share, we need to renounce to any mark of property. Or to share the discovery's rights with any person who directly or not contributed to it, which is equivalent to sharing it with the whole universe and is reflected by the GPL.
I say "Go on, Richard, I am standing with you".
--

Check GNUArt : GNUArt.org and GNUArt.net

GNUArt is an organization which approach consists of GPL'ing Art under virtual forms.
The difference with what's happening here is that if these books were GPL'ed, they'd not only be free of charge but they could also be reworked by anybody prior to being distributed once again for free. Well, you know the GPL, don't you ?
Anyway, even if they only made these books free as in free beer, it is a good thing that these authors accepted to take whatever some might call a "risk".
--

I understand what this implies for a tv-addict such as most users around.
I personally don't own a TV set and I don't intend to ever acquire one as this is so mind-occupying that it would definitely prevent me from being productive.
My personal problem is that they intend to merge the Internet with their TV-network so that you'd actually have to pay for each of these even if you don't want one.
There's also this copy protection thing which could have disastrous effects if it can't be enabled on demand by the TV broadcasting company:
According to the GNUArt philosophy, you can broadcast free Art which anybody could copy and modify for his own needs.
What I'd dislike would be the impossibility for this Free Art License to be honoured because of such practices.
So, my point is : OK. If it's your stuff and you don't want people to copy it, then you can copy-protect it. But if it is intended to remain Free, then you don't have the right to block its diffusion as it is not yours.
--

Yesterday evening and this morning (MET/GMT+1) I filled Napster form in order to get my GPL'd music available for free to the whole Napster Community.
I also use it as a test in order to know whether I can trust them for a more ambitious project.
After clicking the submit button, I got a form to print, to fill and sign and to fax them in order to activate my account.
I tried many times to fax it but their device never answered.
How surprising, my entry was added.
I believe I could have filled the HTML form with Metallica's name and Lars Ulrich as contact.
Of course, I could have easily been caught "la main dans le sac" but there's still a problem, here.
--