Here we go again...

[bomber]

Which bit of software of am divesting freedoms given to it by the original author....

[IAHM-COL]

ok
I'll talk example here

we have, lets say the Citation X by Sid Adams, GPL software

IH-COL makes 20 beautiful liveries for it. and licenses them all as Creative Commons.'

Option A.
IH-COL forks the Citation X in github. Adds the 20 liveries. and Adds a note saying: This is GPL Citation X, bundled with 20 Creative Commons liveries by IH-COL

Now the Citation X in IH-COL area is not fully GPL anymore.

Indeed, Syd Adams, lets say, is selling his Citation X for profit on SyDGreatPlanes.com

He released GPL and allowed you to fork and modify, if you respected ALL GPL clauses (copyleft). This allowed you to benefit from SydWork. But also Syd to benefity from yours.

As soon as IH-COL released the bundled Citation X with much better liveries under a mixed license, then SyD cannot longer benefit. Read, as in, it would be illegal for Syd to take IH-COL work, use it on SyDGreatPlanes.com (his site) and continue profitting. Because IH-COL chopped the commercial Liberties that GPL provided initially to both of them.
Now SyD looses on the competition, because IH-COL work is better and more complete. And what SyD is selling cannot longer benefit from IH-COL's work.

The problem is SyD work is Free. (Full GPL freedoms).
IH-COL is not free.

Can IH-COL do that?
According to copy left, no he cant.
Why, because by bundling this way, all new liveries by IH-cOL can be seen as nothing else but modifications of Syd Original work

A modification can be as small as a comma at the end of a source code, correcting a bug, to a complete revamp of the work. IH-COL using all SYD content and adding liveries is nothing short of just modifications. And thus, copyleft suggested that IH-COL must release the content GPL and to be fair allow SyD to benefit, as much as He did benefit from Syd releasing GPL

GPL is not a means to take what you need and make it yours when you want.

option B
IH COL just releases all these liveries standing alone

Then all content on IH-COL distribution are solely IH-COL content

[bomber]

I hear what you're saying and my son and I have been having a tandem discussion along those same lines all afternoon...

And the thing is in no way by releasing separately (in your example) has IH-COL still not benefitted from the original authors work and Skd not.

It's kinda missed the point of that if you crib someone's work and improve it that you allow the original author to also improve it...

Also understand I'm not against anyone taking my work and improving it for flightgear use.... so Richard still has that right... I'm against him or anyone else selling my work....

To me this whole thing seems to be working not to aid flightgear content development.

Anyway.... if you could set up a download system which associated other work to the ' main' GPL work.... ala Amazon and users were also interested in this....

I'll graciously accept defeat

Simon...

P.S. nice debate by the way.

[IAHM-COL]

..

Also understand I'm not against anyone taking my work and improving it for flightgear use.... so Richard still has that right... I'm against him or anyone else selling my work....

Yes. I sense this is your problem.
If you fear that either R. Senior or someone else (read Curtis) can bundle this in a DVD and sell it to profit
http://store.flightgear.org/
Then, yes, your fear is surely realized that by releasing your work GPL, then Curtis will sell the improvements.

It boils down to a fact
And even FlightSim PF would (it comes down to very likely)

If you are against people monetarizing on your software. GPL is just not for you.

To me this whole thing seems to be working not to aid flightgear content development.

They can't add non-GPL content mainstreamed (read FGADDon) because they use it on commercial purposes. So you, either play by the rule of GPLing, or don't dream on pushing to FGADDon.
FligthGear content needs to be still selleable by C. Olson.

Anyway.... if you could set up a download system which associated other work to the ' main' GPL work.... ala Amazon and users were also interested in this....

I'll graciously accept defeat

Simon...

My suggestion:

Make a repository
Name it

Beagle-Pup-Bomber-FDM (or some of the alike)
Then host it on FGMEMBERS-NONGPL

Finally, add there the new content that you would be copying into the Beagle so that the new FDM is installed. Don't copy any GPL material from Richard's Pup.

Add a License file saying:

Code: Select all

New FDM re-worked by Simon Bomber :copyright 2016:
License: All this content is covered under a Creative Commons "BY-NC-SA 4.0" License

Copy the CC license from the CC page in a file named COPYING

Lastly, but not least important add a README.md file that tells all the nice features of your FDM and include this line

Code: Select all

This FDM can be installed in Beagle-Pup by R. Senior
(link to it, either FGADDON, FGMEMBERS or both).

To install, copy this content in the main directory of the aircraft.

To distribute the bundle material in non-commercial settings, contact R. Senior at
(obfuscated email)

Have fun! Fly Free!


That should do

P.S. nice debate by the way.

[IAHM-COL]

Important note

By doing this way, and coming back to the liveries by IH-COL situation too, notice that people wont be able to obtain a non-fully GPLed Beagle by you.
They'll need to first take the GPL beagle, and then each user decide if they will patch their content with non-free (commercially restricted) material after that.

Clearly, R. Senior won't benefit directly, but also he won't face disloyal competition either. Anyone patching and modifying his Beagle following GPL copyleft, instead, would allow R. Senior to benefit
(if he so wishes)

Example, notice the case of Helijah, where he disregards and rejects any JSBsim FDM that improves his planes.
Those are GPL, and hosted clearly as so, in FGMEMBERS.

Helijah can benefit from the content, yet he chooses not to. But he is not obliged to. It comes down to options, and decisions.

[bomber]

Please do me a favour and not use that French hogs name

[bomber]

And this week's nasty piece of work award goes to

[quote="Bomber";p=286944][quote="Thorsten";p=286936][quote]The risk being that an unrealistic law suit is attempted.....[/quote]

I dunno - one of these days, you'll manage to annoy someone so much he gives GitHub a hint - then it's their legal liability and you can watch them pull the plug if they judge the legal risk different from you.[/quote]


Is that a threat... ?[/quote]
[/quote]

[bomber]

[quote="Thorsten";p=286946]Well, if there's no legal risk in your opinion, it can't be a threat, because there's nothing being done wrong, right?[/quote]

[bomber]

[quote="Bomber";p=286949]No that's not how threats work.....

It sounds to me like you were threatening Fgmembers....

The fact that I don't take you seriously or that I don't believe the outcome will be as you think.. just means that I think it's an empty threat.

But it's still a threat carried out by you on another member or group of members of this community.

You can back track all ya like but it's now public knowledge of what a nasty piece of work you are.[/quote]

[bomber]

And locked......