About trenches

[KL-666]

Really Opfor77, how many times did you accuse of being illegal without substantiating it? I did not count, but it can easily be 30 times. This is not the normal way the real grown up world works.

The name of the game there is: Substantiate your accusations in court, or be silent, or be sued for libel.

Now in this game environment probably the soup will not be eaten as hot as it is served (Dutch expression), but it would be nice if people adhered to some of the decency rules of the real world.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

Thanks to Hoorays true and honest representation of GPL, the debate at the other forum has turned into a truly enjoyable debate between gentlemen. Not a twitch of an unsubstantiated accusation, nothing. Much better than the last two page here. Let's hope all future debates can be of the same quality.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&start=105#p294125

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

well... yes...
That was a really honest post by Hooray.

But all honesty about this is broken when the usual suspect shows up

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 20#p294145

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 05#p294125

Sorry, but that is a little misleading -

Yes. Well... No.
It is VERY VERY misleading.

And to be misled by Curtis and Thorsten about the real repercussions of your work to be GPL because it is a derivative of other GPL works or because after you started from scratch, you release it GPL is downright morally wrong.

If you are going to be working with collaborators in a GPL project, you only do good to yourself, your collaborator and the project by being honest about what are the consequences of stamping such licenses.

You are feeding hopes to daweed that are non-real, and you are fueling his sentiment that he has been stolen: when that's far from the truth.

All that Thorsten disclaims later is wrong. And I pressume intentionally very misleading. Intentionally, being very important here, because it represents the existence of ill intention.

[KL-666]

Really a pity that this guy barges in again. Are there not more Hoorays at that forum that can tell this guy to quit spoiling every debate with his hints to his usual palette of unsubstantiated accusations?

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

You are feeding hopes to daweed that are non-real, and you are fueling his sentiment that he has been stolen: when that's far from the truth.

This firing up false hopes in a person with less knowledge on this matter, is a sad by-effect of the constant stream of unsubstantiated accusations that come from these men. Surely they are old and wise enough to realize that their actions can grow such false hopes? And then realize that they would not want to be responsible for such thing happening, like decent gentlemen should?

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 20#p294143

That may be the thing: for collaborators, this is more than just a free gift - it's a mututal thing, i.e. more akin to car-sharing, where you make certain assumptions about the use of the product/service, so that people can effectively use the same resources, and possibly contribute to them.

Very good point. more akin to car-sharing than car-stealing. I follow the logic here

The very instant someone doesn't play by the rules (implicit or not), that's spoiling all the fun for others

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 68#p294040

More :applause:

That's exactly correct. Examples of not playing by the rules:
1. Attempt at subverting the GPL nature of content or create derivative works without the correspoding copy-left. (that is derived GPL content and merge non-GPL content in a bundle... or even think about it)
2. Add the "Gentlemen" condition to the license: This is GPL but not for FGMEMBERS
3. Non-accidentally omit to add the License or COPYING file

- e.g. because my dog (say, we call him "fgmembers") lost a little poo in the car, and its owners don't feel responsible for cleaning up things - so that people will no longer want to share their car with you.

Get real Hooray!!!

Legal leverage is an academic thing after all, because nobody is going to consult a lawyer about these things

The thing is; It is not!!
GPL deals with non-academic legal issues related to copyright law. I have consulted the FSF foundation lawyers myself in the past.
Hadn't you?

[bomber]

With regards the shuttle..... how does a person with zero 3d skills get as far as he's got ?

Where did the initial external 3d model come from ?

[IAHM-COL]

the external 3d was made by HerbyW mostly (GPL)

https://github.com/HerbyW/shuttle
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/shuttle

The cockpit was taken from somewhere in the internet (it was originally CC, but IIRC, Richard was granted permissions by the author to use within GPL *and I hope I do understand what it is correct! *)

http://www.blendswap.com/blends/view/74692
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... it#p243766

Hi Thorsten

I am unaware of the exact meaning of your statements above. In particular in what is related to the legal issues of the situation you are proposing. In particular I am having trouble to keep recognizing that 1) you have good intents related to the GPL license of the shuttle, and 2) that you want to be an open participant in the development of GNU covered software =such as Flightgear and the Shuttle.

Let me first remind you of the declaration of intent for Flightgear, as seen in the Readme file of FGDATA

You are wrong IAHM-COL, the cockpit model is released under Creative Commons for this project http://www.blendswap.com/blends/view/74692 you better go ask him if he wants his license changed. I don't want to see two free software providers in a legal battle FlightGear and the Blender Foundation. The Blender Foundation can shut down this site if they felt like it.

Its best for the entire participatingh community to make certin of the facts first and not flame out in arrogance!

Some of the switches were made by myself in blender--from scratch, and _maybe_ integrated later on the cockpit. My work being GPL, naturally: this makes me actually an author of that work collection --one that is not acknowledge in the AUTHORS file btw (speaking of not playing by the rules!!?)

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 15#p246352
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 15#p246370
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 30#p246395
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 30#p246413
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/SpaceShutt ... ls/Artwork (see file RCS_panel.blend commit log)

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 30#p246431



Then Wllbragg jumped in and improved much of both 3d works.

***
before I collaborated I made sure

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 60#p237303

Thorsten,
Is it GPL?

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 60#p237307

If you're really asking for the license, as it's based on GPL stuff (lots of things from Vitos' Vostok, some leftovers from the FG Space Program thing, Jon's attempt...) it has to be GPL. If you're asking whether you can put it onto a repo, I can't prevent you from doing it, but there's a reason I have not done it, and it's not lack of commit rights. What ends up on a repo should basically work for a number of use cases and be somewhat tested whereas this is not yet at this stage and I don't want to deal with 'X didn't work' reports at this point, I'm well aware of what doesn't work.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... it#p242451

If I donate time to make models for this I prefer them to be under an MIT style license instead of a GPL so I hope that is OK.

Well, FG is released under GPL, and both versions of the Shuttle are licensed under GPL - so you can't add something under a license that's not GPL without us having to ship your files separately and distribute things in a rather awkward way. I'm not a license expert and I don't know the terms of MIT, but the very fact that you ask indicates that it's sufficiently different to cause problems.

[bomber]

So the point I'm confused at is that Thorsten's added to an existing 3d model and yet he expected to be able to place distribution restrictions on it, and is mift that it didn't happen.

Is this in violation of GPL ?

Sounds like one rule for one and one rule for another.