GPL virus...

[bomber]

I just looked up my previous posts in my user control panel... anyway here's the question.

Lydiot, if the plane had used a placeholder exterior model as some do for the interior and fdm....

Would adding a new interior be adding to the whole plane ?

Considering no work has been done other than create a plane folder and copy another planes files in to it.

[Lydiot]

It seems to me that if you have an exterior model under GPL and someone replaces the interior then the interior will need to be GPL as well. If you read the GPL FAQ I think that's basically stated, although with the caveat that if there is any ambiguity it'll have to be decided in a legal preceding. But basically, the passage on the FAQ that makes me have this view is:

Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.

In other words, it doesn't appear to me that exterior model and interior model constitute two separate programs/modules. It seems as if they are merely two parts of one whole, and that whole has already received a GPL.

[IAHM-COL]

In other words, it doesn't appear to me that exterior model and interior model constitute two separate programs/modules. It seems as if they are merely two parts of one whole, and that whole has already received a GPL.

I will agree with this.
An author could release an stand-alone Addon for the plane that users can take for patching a GPL content with non-GPL content, if the author of the latter makes sure not to include any GPL content in such addon.

An user will ultimately have all freedom to patch their software with whatever content they may want. (but not liberty to redistribute bundled/patched versions as per the limitations set by the addon manufacturer)

Yet, I understand the addon manufacturer will also be limited in his/her/their ability to released a bundled/patched content in completion. (since that implies using GPL code, and the copyleft clauses kicking in)

I don't go as far as calling GPL CopyLeft clauses a virus. And to be fair, many other redistribution-permitted licenses have CopyLeft clauses as well (read as in CC family licenses, per example)

[IAHM-COL]

but if you believe it's not lies... then ALL flightgear planes in any 3rd party respository are now GPL...

i don't think that follows actually......

On this topic thou, I fear I agree with Simon.
This is the thing. I have got to see lots of aircrafts in the NON-GPL area where the authors used Creative Commons "NC" with or without derivatives.

Here is the rub,
If you actually look into the xmls itself, you will see an ontological similarity that is too high to believe not to be reused content from other FG planes. That is, the maximum parsimony explanation here would suggest the authors did in fact used FG GPL content within these planes.

How can this XMLs now be released as Creative Commons, and not stand as a violation to CopyLeft Clauses of the FG team?
I don't know.

I fear, if FG would wanted to pursue the Creative Commons aircraft manufacturers (like FGUK and United World, to name a few) following this logic, the situation would be really one that needs court ruling.

As I stand, since FG allows this content to be distributed by the 3rd parties (ex. FGUK) as Creative Commons content, then I also accept it and take such content as released by the 3rd party content provider (as in -- maintain the derivative plane in the nonGPL section of FGMEMBERS)

You can even extend this to the use of nasal. If you take nasal as a library, the question remaining is:
Is nasal GPL or LGPL? and the later consequences of this are major. (as in, you shouldn't use Nasal within non-GPL non-free aircrafts.)

But again, ultimately, the FG core has the upper hand here. If they allow the usage of this content in CC-NC (ND or not) material, then they need to agree in a class -manner (like/ for everyone). And ultimately, allowing CC aircrafts to stand, regardless of who is the manufacturer (UK, united world, lesbof, etc) and the redistributor if any (FGMEMBERS-NONGPL to name a famous one)

[bomber]

In other words, it doesn't appear to me that exterior model and interior model constitute two separate programs/modules. It seems as if they are merely two parts of one whole, and that whole has already received a GPL.

Well you asked earlier where the disagreement is, and that's it...

No 3d modeller that's ever done a planes exterior and interior would call them a whole... there's no requirement for them to be modelled as a whole and the skills for an interior are far greater than an exterior and as such are invariably done by different people. The only thing that makes them seem a whole is that they're for the same plane, but on many occassions with place-holder interiors used this is not even the case.

So it's not about taking an extisting interior model for that plane and improving it, but instead a wholesale removal of that interior model being replaced by a brand new model.

Let's take 2d artists work... I'd say that 95% of these artists within flightgear are breaking the GPL licence. Why ? because GPL requires the updated 'software' to be in it's original form. But I can tell you for a fact that EVERY 2d artist using photoshop or simpliar uses layers and other techneques to produce a final image... And to protect their work they then 'flatten' it, removing all of it's orginal form and leaving just an image.

I do flight modeling.... I use the ASK-13 for all my flight modelling. I simply copy the folder and call it the new planes name, as I don't care what the 3d representation of the plane looks like, I'm intertested in something seprate, the flight model. Only when it's finished would I hand over the flight model files to be included within the planes folder structure for distribution. So up until this moment the flight model and other files have never seen each other, they've been created in complete isolation, so there can be no misunderstanding that one is the derivative of the other.

The documents filed by Amerprise in the case reflect this fearful atmosphere, adopting the classically fear-mongering characterization of the GPL as a "viral" license that "infects" its host and "requires it to become open source, too." It's unfortunate that these ideas are still in circulation, even among lawyers who should know better. The "virus" analogy in particular is badly flawed. - Aaron Williamson

Finally.... lets just think this through....

You can copyright your work within a planes folder but not the plane as a whole.... if you think you can just go ask Honda, see how they feel about you copyrighting one of their planes... your feet not touch the ground.

[Lydiot]

but if you believe it's not lies... then ALL flightgear planes in any 3rd party respository are now GPL...

i don't think that follows actually......

On this topic thou, I fear I agree with Simon.
This is the thing. I have got to see lots of aircrafts in the NON-GPL area where the authors used Creative Commons "NC" with or without derivatives.

Here is the rub,
If you actually look into the xmls itself, you will see an ontological similarity that is too high to believe not to be reused content from other FG planes. That is, the maximum parsimony explanation here would suggest the authors did in fact used FG GPL content within these planes.

I actually don't disagree with that at all. I went back and re-read what I wrote, and what Bomber wrote, and I think it was all a bit unclear. So since your statement above is clear let's just agree to agree on that.

How can this XMLs now be released as Creative Commons, and not stand as a violation to CopyLeft Clauses of the FG team?
I don't know.

I fear, if FG would wanted to pursue the Creative Commons aircraft manufacturers (like FGUK and United World, to name a few) following this logic, the situation would be really one that needs court ruling.

As I stand, since FG allows this content to be distributed by the 3rd parties (ex. FGUK) as Creative Commons content, then I also accept it and take such content as released by the 3rd party content provider (as in -- maintain the derivative plane in the nonGPL section of FGMEMBERS)

You can even extend this to the use of nasal. If you take nasal as a library, the question remaining is:
Is nasal GPL or LGPL? and the later consequences of this are major. (as in, you shouldn't use Nasal within non-GPL non-free aircrafts.)

But again, ultimately, the FG core has the upper hand here. If they allow the usage of this content in CC-NC (ND or not) material, then they need to agree in a class -manner (like/ for everyone). And ultimately, allowing CC aircrafts to stand, regardless of who is the manufacturer (UK, united world, lesbof, etc) and the redistributor if any (FGMEMBERS-NONGPL to name a famous one)

I actually don't care about the "FG core's" interpretation of this as much as I care about doing the right thing. If other 3rd party repos are violating licensing legislation then that's on them, and if FG core doesn't want to act on that, then the same thing applies. However, it would make 100% sense to me for FGMembers to be cautious about distributing problematic content, regardless of what FG core thinks about that. Just because they look the other way on other repos doesn't make it legal, and the latter is the problem, not FG core's opinion. Know what I mean?

[IAHM-COL]

yes. I know what you mean.

But my position is that I inherited the license as Creative Commons directly from the manufacturer.

When the manufacturer extends a license like that to me, he/she/they can't really revert it.
Now, FG could take the posture of forcing them to restructure the content as GPL... and I would be secretly super happy about it

In other words, I play safe by accepting the manufacturer's (FGUK, united world, Buckaroo, Lesbof, etc) license to stand, and to remain unchallenged.
I do see how their content should inherit GPL licenses by their code reuse thou.

I think it is clear that I am not a copyright holder of most such content (the xmls or nasal reused), and thus, I am really not in the position to either 1) challenge the CC licensing or 2) edit those planes licenses onto GPL. Thus, that's how my safe standing is accepting the manufacturer's licensing stand, and wait for FG to decide their posture on this.

For what I see, and read, FG allows it. (as in, allows 3rd party hangars to license CC content while using XMLs and or nasal, and or content from originally GPLed aircrafts/content)

[Lydiot]

In other words, it doesn't appear to me that exterior model and interior model constitute two separate programs/modules. It seems as if they are merely two parts of one whole, and that whole has already received a GPL.

Well you asked earlier where the disagreement is, and that's it...

No 3d modeller that's ever done a planes exterior and interior would call them a whole...

I expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that regardless of the fact that you have two modules, they still constitute two parts of a whole. It doesn't matter what a modeller calls it. If you go on YouTube you can sometimes find copyright violations with ridiculous caveats like "No copyright infringement intended" etc, as if that makes it legal. Having an opinion about how a license works is one thing, how it actually works is a different issue. Same thing regarding the content.

there's no requirement for them to be modelled as a whole and the skills for an interior are far greater than an exterior and as such are invariably done by different people. The only thing that makes them seem a whole is that they're for the same plane, but on many occassions with place-holder interiors used this is not even the case.

So it's not about taking an extisting interior model for that plane and improving it, but instead a wholesale removal of that interior model being replaced by a brand new model.

Doesn't matter. To me, conceptually, it's similar to taking Jurassic Park the movie, and then replacing a large part of the film with something else. It doesn't matter if your new work on that old movie shows "far greater" skills and is done by different people, it would still be an issue. Doesn't matter that your scenes aren't just improvements on effect shots but instead a complete replacement, it's still an issue.

Let's take 2d artists work... I'd say that 95% of these artists within flightgear are breaking the GPL licence. Why ? because GPL requires the updated 'software' to be in it's original form. But I can tell you for a fact that EVERY 2d artist using photoshop or simpliar uses layers and other techneques to produce a final image... And to protect their work they then 'flatten' it, removing all of it's orginal form and leaving just an image.

So you're saying that those artists are using previous content, add layers, flatten the image and then pass it off as original? That doesn't surprise me at all, and I don't dispute that that's happening, but I obviously don't think the fact that it happens makes it right. It's still violating the terms if that's what you're implying.

I do flight modeling.... I use the ASK-13 for all my flight modelling. I simply copy the folder and call it the new planes name, as I don't care what the 3d representation of the plane looks like, I'm intertested in something seprate, the flight model. Only when it's finished would I hand over the flight model files to be included within the planes folder structure for distribution. So up until this moment the flight model and other files have never seen each other, they've been created in complete isolation, so there can be no misunderstanding that one is the derivative of the other.

But this is why I asked you to quote the relevant text from the actual license rather than paraphrase it. Go back to my "Jurassic Park" example above and I think you see the difference.

But look, from a practical standpoint there's actual a logical argument for why this doesn't appear to be a great issue; The less that is left of whatever original content you're adding yours to, the less there would be for you to just rewrite to avoid any possible issues in the future - and conversely - the more work it is to do so the more there arguably is left from that original which in turn speaks for your content being either straight up derivative or at least simply a part of a whole.

[Lydiot]

Israel,

I see your point. It's actually a quite interesting situation....

- On the one hand you seem to be pushing the onus of the work being legal onto the 'manufacturers' who provide 'their' models. The only issue with this is if there ever is a legal case in which case I would argue that you're actually not necessarily protected, especially not now that you've acknowledged this.

I think this is a bit akin to torrent sites and other hosting services that have questionable content on there where they claim they have no knowledge of it being copyright violated content, and simply push the responsibility onto the members that upload. I do think that some legal precedents have been set which actually do say that the hosts have a responsibility. Either way it's a bit "iffy", and it amounts to betting on nothing being questioned.

- On the other hand the fact that if FG core makes something out of it it just points back to those original 3rd party repos/creators that uploaded here, and if they in turn are "approved" by FG core then that's obviously an issue.

[IAHM-COL]

Let me put it this way
If FG forces me to change to GPL, I'll do it with an smile.



But as it is right now, I don’t have moral ground, or copyright holding to change the license of any work for which I receive a CC license for.

OTOH, yes, legally, since I received the CC license from let's say, Buckaroo, (I even have emails stating that), then yes, I can legally take the work as CC from Buck, and it could remain CC.