more untruths

[bomber]

Richard.... You've now got it down to being in zip files I see..... Is there anything else you can make up to sound like the truth. ?

Go on.... Have another go at talking bollocks

[bomber]

The author of any file has copyright and can choose whatever licence(s) they please.

If an author chooses a licence then you have to abide by that licence or not distribute.
.

Yes he chose GPL for his work...

The issue of mixed licence isn't that complicated. If you distribute something (e.g. a zipfile) that contains even a single GPL file then you need to licence the whole lot as GPL otherwise you have no licence to distribute the GPL file and will be in breach of copyright.

.

The GPL licencee does not have the right to tell me how I can distribute the work.... Just that it be GPL, freely available for all to copy modify and redistribute..

Adding additional powers removes my rights and that is something that GNU have said GPL licence does not do.

If you had two zipfiles one that contained the GPL content and one that had everything else then you'll be fine.

.

So it's ok if they distributed together but in different zip files.... Don't talk daft, it's about the rights the individual file author gave his work.... And as long as you're not in breach of that you're fine.

It is the person that chooses to ignore the author's licence that is wrong in your scenario.

If you want to distribute a file under a different licence then the correct thing to do is to ask the author's permission and not just assume that you can do what you please because the author licenced under the GPL without adhering to the GPL.

The file remains GPL... Even if you distribute it bundled with a CC or any other licence.... Each piece of work has it's own licence.

All a mixed licence scenario does it make it complicated for people.... And we can see from your interpretation bthat you can't deal with complicated.

[Richard]

The GPL licence does not have the right to tell me how I can distribute the work....

it kinda does if you distribute copyright material then you need a licence to do so; and the terms of the GPL require derivative works to also be licenced under the GPL.

Wikipedia calls this the Viral nature of the GPL, and New Media rights said this "The GPL license is ‘viral,’ meaning any derivative work you create containing even the smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed software must also be licensed under the GPL license."

If you do not modify and GPL licenced material in any way then maybe you could argue that a zipfile is a "mere aggregation of another work ... on a volume of a storage or distribution medium" in terms of section (2) of the GPL V2 - in which case you'd be OK; if you do modify then I'm fairly sure that it will be considered a derived work.

So maybe you can get away with distributing unmodified GPL licenced content in a zipfile along with other material that is differently licenced.

Therefore maybe usage in FG or other apps that use zipfiles is OK - but probably if you put GPL content into an MSFS package then I really thing you'd be hard pushed to argue that the entire MSFS package isn't licenced under the GPL because is a "mere aggregation on a distribution medium".

[123apple]

Ludicrous.

[bomber]

separate works... do you comprehend the term ?

Siemens Solid Edge includes some GPL code, it distributes this code along with their proprietor code on the same disk and includes a GPL statement of where to download the source code of the GPL material

The TV I own also came with GPL code and contains a statement of where to download the GPL material.

Your opinion just doesn't stack up with what business is actually doing whilst using and distributing GPL content alongside their work

Simon

[bomber]

Ludicrous.

Have you got an opinion or are you just stupid ?

[bomber]

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

And audio file that's GPL'd and a non-GLP 3d model is the very definition of communication at arm's length.

The above is the same as my example of an XML file that is GLP and contains an include to a non GPL XML file.... It is effectively a single program.

[bomber]

And here's another truth people might not like...

"More people in Flightgear believe Richards interpretation and than Bombers"

That is correct, but when you consider than anyone who challenges and speaks up about GPL or mixed licences are castigated and marginalised and if they continue with voicing it de-platformed, it's no real surprise that the only people left are those that believe it to be true and those that keep their mouths shut and fingers as far away from the keyboard as possible in the wish of having a stress free hobby.

[mue]

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and nonfree programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program.

And audio file that's GPL'd and a non-GLP 3d model is the very definition of communication at arm's length.

If you distribute the audio file and the 3d model so that they are not combined or linked, then you are correct.

But in the case we are discussing, i.e. aircraft for a flight simulator, the audio file and the 3d model file are combined via configuration files or scripts, e.g. in FlightGear's case XML-files and Nasal. Therefore the files are combined and became effectively a whole (the aircraft).

The GPL FAQ is quite clear:
"The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing."

[Richard]

separate works...

Siemens Solid Edge includes some GPL code...

That's much like the case of a Linux distribution; it is an aggregation of many component parts; some of which are licenced under the GPL.

As I pointed out earlier clause (2) in the GPL V2 specifically allows aggregation which is how Linux and other devices can be distributed.

It is only derived works that we need to consider - if you include a single GPL file then the you are probably making a derived work - unless you can legitimately apply the exception in (2) of the GPL V2 i.e. a "mere aggregation of another work ... on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".

The exception in (2) isn't going to apply if you make any changes to the file you are distributing because then it is definitely a derived work.

...consider than anyone who challenges and speaks up about GPL or mixed licences are castigated and marginalised

My interpretation of the GPL isn't just based on FlightGear or what is said over in the official forum - and it's not just FlightGear that has this interpretation of the GPL.

Finally did you realise the irony of this thread. You are doing exactly what you accuse those on the official forums of doing; because you started this thread just to castigate those who hold a different opinion and often in an aggressive or abusive manner.