About trenches

[KL-666]

There are trenches now, and we have to live with it, whether we like it or not. Those who choose to be in either one of them can do one of two things. Look for as much common ground that can be found, and benefit from it (will not be much, but any benefit is better than more costs). Or loose grip of your emotions all the time and start senseless inaccurate artillery bombardments, that do not hurt your enemy at all, but costs you a lot of grenades.

At this moment i see the people that want to travel freely between the trenches as the most value adding assets. Do not shoot them in no man's land out of prejudice that they are the enemy. Do not try to imprison them in your trench by fulminating all the time about your enemy, and treating them bad if they have to say anything that is not completely negative about your enemy. They'll notice, and devaluate themselves to you.

These people are of most value to you if you let them be free. And maybe in the far future they can even be of help in cooling down your emotions and in getting a more realistic view of your enemy. Yes, yes, i can already hear the protests in both trenches arise that they will never give up anything to the enemy. But with treating the independents decently, you have not given up anything yet. Your beloved entrenched world stays intact, and you get some benefit.

Entrenchment is bad as it is. But loosing control of your emotions all the time is even worse, and gets you in a lose-lose-lose situation.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

To make it more vivid, look, here is a person making statements that do his trench the disservice of getting into the lose-lose-lose situation.

Israel might have found a reason to steal it anyway just as he has done with other non-GPL licensed contributions.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294080#p294080

Edit:
For those who wish to know why there are 3 losers:
1) The senseless attacker's trench looses massively on sympathy of the independents
2) The independents do not care much. They simply devaluate themselves towards the attacker's trench and go adding value someplace nicer. Not much lost by them.
3) The other trench also loses slightly some sympathy, due to the general atmosphere of animosity created by the attacking trench.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Ai, ai. This one is going to cost that trench dearly. A moderator not correcting the previous lose-lose-lose causer, but repeating it:

it is almost impossible to escape from being sucked into FGMEMBERS

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294088#p294088

If there is one thing decent people hate, then it is knowing they are being judged by bent judges. I wonder why others in that trench are not angry at these two, for causing so much harm to their trench.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

Israel will take content of any licence, including CC BY-NC-ND:

FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/Velocity-XL-RG

How can this guy be taken seriously?

CC BY-NC-ND implies Share alike -- that is exactly what "BY" means.
The rest of it means it cannot be used commercially (ex, to sell or other commercial purposes) NC,
and one cannot redistribute modified versions (Non-derivative=ND)

Such License does not imply that the work cannot be freely distributed.

See:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

You are free to:

Share— copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Legalese:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

License grant.
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and
produce and reproduce, but not Share, Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.

Which in layman terms it means: as a content in FGMEMBERS-NONGPL can be shared and distributed but NOT included in the Official FlightGear, because that is a commercial enterprise (that is; this license is fully incompatible with GPL).

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 88#p294088

Or even unlicenced material:

FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/MB326

Well.. The MB326 does not even reside in NON-GPL anymore. It is actually a GPL licensed aircraft:
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/MB326.

I wrote an email to C. Ingels requesting to clarify the license:


He kindly replied that it was his omission. That he recognizes the work to be GPL.


Thus, I moved the aircraft from NON-GPL to GPL, and the aircraft is now where it does belong.

And you are using a "back there" machine. It just that without the clarification by Ingels, back then, I couldn't just stamp GPL because I thought so, or wanted so. Thus, I choose to disclose that the License was undeclared.

[KL-666]

And then, how to do the win-win-win situation. Debate constructively on the content. You may disagree, but never become irrational, like starting to talk about motives. Here is a good example:

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294092#p294092

1) This guy's trench is going to attract many independents
2) The independents are happy to add value to the trench
3) Due to the good atmosphere, the independents might even have a look in the other trench

Win-win-win and lose-lose-lose are the only options. Anyone that thinks that he can win and the others lose, creates a lose-lose-lose situation for himself.

Edit:
Ow, and sorry that all examples come from the other forum. Everyone here is too well behaved towards each other to get fresh examples after i wrote this.

Kind regards, Vincent

[OPFOR77]

The issue is that if a license is undeclared, it means it's under full copyright and you have no permission to redistribute it (let alone re-license it) at all, whatsoever.

It's not that you put the creative commons license on it, it's that you illegally re-licensed and were illegally distributing it in the first place.

http://choosealicense.com/no-license/

[bomber]

Shouldn't it be up to the Author to complain about licence violation ?

[IAHM-COL]

only authours can initiate legal action. As well as only authors really know their original intentions and what is the correct action to be taken And they cannot do before contacting me about such, and requesting a reversal. That is, their legal case is, at most, weak, if they don't prove that they've done as needed to find a negotiation of the conflict.

Ultimately, here, we have this case:

1. Every aircraft with license undeclared corresponds to works that have been abandoned or stop progressing many years (7-or more). There was a time on FG where people assumed GPL and authors ommited adding the comment/License in their contents. Such omission wasnt seen as out of the norm, but they were indeed working under FG umbrella (that is their intend was GPL)

2. The author, leaves, and his work becomes an obscure link somewhere. Mainstream (or upstream) abandoned those works. Essentially, one could consider that the authors' intention wasn't that these works became lost for ever, and thus intentionally omitted the license. By hosting these works in the FGMEMBERS-NONGPL collection I am attempting at preventing these little flames to be put off. Trying to rescue these works of oblivion.

3. I pro-actively emailed every single author of all these unlicensed work.

4. Just as expected; Every author that replied, did in fact indicate, very kindly, that the work was intended for GPL. There's a thread on this forum where I left the evidence

5. There were few exceptions: One exception was Dave Culp. Who indicated me he forgot to indicate the works were CC for every of his work listed, exception the pc7, with E. Hoffman.

6. For the exception above is why I decided not to grant full GPL to the works were the license was undeclared. It is easier to change my mind opening more freedoms to any piece of work, than change my mind attempting to close freedoms granted. That is: if someone wants to take a mis-placed CC content, where a GPL version already exits, that person is just loosing freedoms already granted in the GPL. Nothing much else.

7. A last exception is two authors that I know are active withing the core of FG developers, that have not yet given me a frank, and honest answer of what license covers their work. If they wish to initiate court action, the fact that I address them for an advise of howto proceed, and they have not given me yet, a response, just makes everything clearer on why I have not taken the appropriate action: of which there are 3. Options: Option 1) the work is GPL and gets transferred to the proper collection. Option 2: The option is a non-GPL license with Share-Alike permissions, for which the license of the work is simply ammended to reflect the correct licensing, or Option 3) the work is unlicensed and All rights reserved. At this situation I will drop the content, no questions asked.

But as bomber clearly points out,
the only person(s) able to clarify the licensing question in these works and determine what is the next plan of action is (are) the authors themselves. Bugman can feel there's an infridgment but he is legally out of bounds. He CANNOT claim, in this case, that He has a case against FGMEMBERS. Nor he can, as he wrongly insist, persist on libel and deprecation of the FGMEMBERS project publicly: Cause, interestingly, as it has been mentioned before, that can indeed be cause of a valid case I can bring against him/them.

[bomber]

I gota love the idea that if you licence a work as GPL, basically give it away. You have some fairy tale idea that you can then ask a person not to use it... and that they'll comply...

Fumb Duck.