Since I wasn't yet as clear as I'd like to be on what can we consider to be free (as in freedom) among works which are not software and not functional and wasn't yet sure what exactly was Richard Stallman's view on this issue I decided to ask him directly. Here is the resulting email conversation.

My original message:

Danijel Orsolic wrote: Greetings Richard, I must admit I tend to be in a state of confusion about what are minimal freedoms that we should expect for works of art and other non-practical non-software works. In an interview I once watched you stated something that the absolute minimum should be to allow for non-commercial use and distribution of the work, yet people on the FreedomDefined.org seem to have come up with a definition which would exclude works licensed for use only in a non-commercial way as "free". Their definition seems to mostly be a conversion of four freedoms for software for cultural works. I'm not at this point sure whether this is really the best way to go about it, since, as you even stated, software and works of art are different in that software is practical, a set of instructions, a recipe, a reference work, whereas culture like music, images, videos, textures etc. are not practical. They also can't lock you in. I'm really looking for a pointer towards the final conclusion of some sort, something to hold on to. Is non-commercial only use and distribution sufficient to satisfy ethics for all culture that isn't practical in nature? Or is it perhaps necessary to evaluate, say, music differently from videos or novels? Also, do you consider using games which have a Free Software engine yet use data that is only available for non-commercial use and sharing acceptable? Also, you consider the right to build upon (derive), even if only non-commercial, to be fundamental for everything as well? Thank you and Best Regards. Danijel Orsolic

His response:

Richard Stallman wrote: yet people on the

FreedomDefined.org seem to have come up with a definition which would

exclude works licensed for use only in a non-commercial way as

"free". I think that is the right definition of "free",

but I don't think that non-functional works must be free.

It is enough for them to be sharable. It is nice if other works are free, but not ethically

imperative in my view. Also, do you consider using games which have a Free Software engine

yet use data that is only available for non-commercial use and sharing

acceptable? Yes. Also, you consider the right to build upon (derive), even if only

non-commercial, to be fundamental for everything as well? I think copyright should last only 10 years. For non-functional

works, I think it is ok if copyright requires you to wait 10 years

to release modified versions. However, it is nice if you make them free right away, esp. for video

games, since collaborative development of them is quite effectivel.

My reply:

Danijel Orsolic wrote: Thank you for a quick answer Richard. I'm just curious about one more thing then, why do you think non-functional works don't have to be free (like Free Software)? What is the key difference that justifies it not being free as ethical? I'm asking because we are discussing this issue on our site and were comparing software with non-functional works like art and we recognize some differences, such as the fact that art can't lock one in as software can and it doesn't control anything the way software can. Software can manipulate non-functional data, but data manipulates nothing. So is that the reason? With your permission I'd like to publish the conversation to our forum thread here: http://www.libervis.com/topic/freeness_of_data_in_games

Richard Stallman wrote: Thank you for a quick answer Richard. I'm just curious about one

more thing then, why do you think non-functional works don't have

to be free (like Free Software)? What is the key difference that

justifies it not being free as ethical? If you use something to do jobs in your life, you must be free

to change it today, and then distribute your changed version today

in case others need what you need. Art contributes something different to society. You appreciate it.

Modifying art can be a further contribution to art, but it is not

crucial to be able to do that today. If you had to wait 10 years

for the copyright to expire, that would be ok.

Then I just asked for permission to publish, which he granted, and thanked him again for his replies.

So in short, he agrees with the definition of Free Works provided at FreedomDefined.org, but unlike with software, he simply doesn't think that it is an ethical imperative for non-functional works to be Free. It is merely better for a society for them to be free, but not absolutely essential. Within that context we can characterize the Free Culture movement not so much as a movement for restoring a certain state of ethics (in the same sense as a Free Software movement), but a state of balance that can benefit culture more than restrictions. However, perhaps more than anything else it is a movement against the copyright extremes supported by the big entertainment industry.

Elsewhere Richard has mentioned that the minimal freedom everyone should have with digital works is non-commercial sharing. Current default draconian copyrights don't allow even that much.