About trenches

[bomber]

I agree Richard. .... are you saying however that the shuttles licence is unclear ?

[IAHM-COL]

For the record I did ask for authorisation prior to the release and this was granted by the author. Proof of this is available to all members of the Shuttle team should anyone be asked to provide this proof[1]. I will provide this proof, if required to, to anybody who has a need to see it and agrees to keep it confidential.

That's good. Typically, such proof by C. Khun that you can reuse his cockpit in the context of another license is not confidential. It places really well in a README file, so to make it a public disclosure.

If you said you have proof, but you are not making it public, that's fine with me. I have no reason not to believe you. And, instead, I believe he has granted you the right to reuse this cockpit within the context of GPL for the SpaceShuttle:

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgaddon/HEAD/tree/trunk/Aircraft/SpaceShuttle/
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/SpaceShuttle

It is not right[2] to take an author's work when the licence is not clear and either make a repository with it in, or publish it elsewhere. Getting permission before doing this is the only right thing to do.

Claiming that someone else has done this does not justify or provide a valid defence to a situation where an individual also does this. Get permission first and if permission isn't forthcoming then one should not assume or assign licencing conditions that do not exist as copyright remains with the original authors.

---------------
[1] I asked for permission via PM and if I wanted to post the proof I feel I'd have to ask for permission to do so.
[2] as in "doing the right thing", rather than the chances of being taken court being virtually zero.

OK. Thanks again for the clarification. I understand well now, that you asked permission, and that permission was granted to add this cockpit to the Space shuttle work. Even thou such permission is reserved for you and the Shuttle team, and is to be kept confidential.

Also, just in case that Thorsten decides to move forward his "shuttle" case into a court-resolution, chances are that such authorities will require you to show this proof, you are here guaranteeing you do have. Having such proof may become critical for all people involved (Thorsten, you, FGADDon, FGMEMBERS) to not loose the SpaceShuttle if it were to be verifiable that this content cannot legally exist as GPL[1]

So, That's awesome.

----
[1] Give Software Liberty or Give It Death!

I mean this in the context that the SpaceShuttle could become incompatible to the GPL license if this situation continues, and this could be a permanent situation.

https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensiv ... dech8.html

7.1 GPLv2 §4: Termination on Violation
***
GPLv2 §4 is GPLv2’s termination clause. Upon first examination, it seems strange that a license with the goal of defending users’ and programmers’ freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause. However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability and this termination clause becomes clear.

The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect.1 The copyright holders have the right to relicense the same work under different licenses (see Section 12.2 of this tutorial), or to stop distributing the GPLv2’d version (assuming GPLv2 §3(b) was never used), but they may not revoke the rights under GPLv2 already granted.

7.4 GPLv2 §7: “Give Software Liberty or Give It Death!”

In essence, GPLv2 §7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright systems what GPLv2 §6 says for copyright. If there exists any reason that a distributor knows of that would prohibit later licensees from exercising their full rights under GPL, then distribution is prohibited.

Originally, this was designed as the title of this section suggests — as a last ditch effort to make sure that freedom was upheld. However, in modern times, it has come to give much more. Now that the body of GPL’d software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of GPL’d software have a tough choice. They must choose between avoiding distribution of GPL’d software that exercises the teachings of their patents, or grant a royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to those patents. Many companies have chosen the latter.

Thus, GPLv2 §7 rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution. Instead, it is inspiring patent holders to share their patents in the same freedom-defending way that they share their copyrighted works.

[IAHM-COL]

I agree Richard. .... are you saying however that the shuttles licence is unclear ?

Thus the problem I outline above.
Thorsten version of the SpaceShuttle is nothing but a modified version of previously existing GPL material.
(as he chooses to present it as a bundle)

The material can only be legally presented in the context of GPL.

[IAHM-COL]

Now consider what Israel has done: He's licensed work he has no copyright for released it under GPL against an explicit statement 'not for release'. Illegal - plain and simple.

See, even if I take your own work and add files to it and publish the whole thing as not GPL, you still can't unilaterally change the license of everything to GPL. You have to inform me that I can't use your files that way, but you don't get any right to my files before a court says so (and as you taught me yourself elsewhere, that's not the most obvious outcome). It's still illegal even if I misuse the license of your files - then I can't use your files, but you don't automatically get a right to mine.

Unsurprisingly, this is all a misrepresentation of what happened:

1. Thorsten offered the download link on the FG Forum (March 30,2015)
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 60#p237249


2. I ask Thorsten and verify whether this material is GPL
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 60#p237303


3.Thorsten does verify that the content is GPL.
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 60#p237307


4. I therefore use his presented material to create the SpaceShuttle repository in the FGMEMBERS collection
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 60#p237310


So, this new history that I broke into his computer, or that I hacked his website to obtain a prerelease is slander. I obtained the file because Thorsten himself offered in on the FlightGear Forum, openly, and FOR THE ADVENTUROUS. He did not say, this is for X or Y person or group specifically, nor he can cover that in the context of an internal release. He was openly presenting the prerelease.

Furthermore, Even Thou I knew the material was derived from GPL, I did not guess so. I asked him directly if the material was GPL. And he did in fact verify what was already obvious to me: Since it was derived from previous material, which is GPL, the new SpaceShuttle, in respect to CopyLeft clauses, must be (and is/was) GPL.

He said he would preffer for me not to make a Repository. But that is beyond the letter and beyond the scope of GPL for him to ask.

Later Thorsten re-confirms that the material is GPL and that I am acting within the GPL law

You are quite within the letter of the GPL license - so you may do whatever you please - but don't ever again lecture anyone else from the moral high ground how your repository respects aircraft maintainers, because we just have established that it really does not care.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 60#p237359


5. And not many days later, Thorsten himself posts a first Milestone in FGADDon. A requirement of such commit is that this content is in fact GPL
https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 75#p237994





So, this new history of Thorsten that I took or I am taking his ALL RIGHTS RESERVED material and stamping GPL notes onto it or that I have ever done it, is a lie. That I have hacked his web-servers to obtain material, is a lie. That I never asked him about the license covering this material, is a lie. That I created a repo before knowing the material was GPL, is a lie. Repeting this misinformation and misrepresentation of facts, is defamation and character assassination

Once Thorsten gave such material under the GPL (legally, as the copyleft requires him to do), he cannot revoke that.

He can indeed release with dual licenses, under ALL RIGHTS reserved, material he owns copyright. But he cant present that as an ALL RIGHTS RESERVED bundled SpaceShuttle. His own material must be isolated from all previous GPL content (specially content who's copyright is not his). He cannot certainly, bundle ALL RIGHTS RESERVED material within FGADDon either.

Attempting to subvert the GPL letter and the nature of it (freedom for software/freedom for users) is an insult to GPL, and an insult to the thousands of hours of work many others collaborators had placed not only in this software (FGFS) but in any other GPL software ever existing. And thus, Thorsten postures and actions currently superseeds him.

[jwocky]

Aside of that, Thorsten obviously in his lies wrongfully pretends a crime against him has happened, a hacking. To accuse someone of a felony that never happened is actually not just libel, it is a felony. Actually, there was just an interesting article in Penn Law about it.

[KL-666]

Do not think of the shuttle when reading this, it is too laden.

I get the impression that this discussion on both forums is not about the letter of GPL, but about how people want to cooperate. Let's say under unwritten gentlemens rules. Like: If i ask to postpone publishing my plane widely, because it is not ready yet, i would appreciate it if you respect that. If then the reaction is about GPL, then we talk 2 different languages at that moment.

The mixing of the 2 languages is causing all the confusion and irritation. Especially when someone tries to explain a cooperation request in terms of GPL. It simply can not be done.

In case of gentlemens agreements i always look for possibilities to help someone out when it is not too much work for me. In case of postponing, i guess i would help out (if he asks me by mail or so). In case of asking all repository owners permission, while their material is GPL anyway, it is a bit too much senseless work.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

I think you're spot on there Kl..

If Thorsten had been calling FGMEMBERS for not respecting his desires to not publish, then I'd agree with him as under those 'gentlemanly' circumstances I'd be pissed off. And I'd probably be arguing for his stance to ensure that this didn't happen again here...

That said, if you treat people like shit, you shouldn't be too surprised when they treat you back in kind.

But that's not what he and others have been doing as it's been quite a clear campaign to tar FGMEMBERS with the brush of us all being thieves. Not just the creators of FGMEMBERS but anyone associated with them or this forum it has been decreed 'cannot ever be trusted, either in their actions, their intended actions or motives'. and what's more this is the founding justification for some pretty unsavory postings by Curt, the moderators and the small number of core developers who have an axe to grind against us.

We have been all judged on this theft and now that this theft has been proven to have only taken place in Thorstens mind, we can hopefully draw a line under it.

I suspect otherwise and as such would advice the creation of a short document/topic detailing the why's and what not's, that we can in the future ( I expect near) provide a link to and shout bullshit !

[KL-666]

Re: What is a fork (split from How the project works)

Postby curt » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:25 pm

The theme of this thread is respect. Those that ask for it, those that give it, and those that refuse to give it. Citing a legal basis for disrespectful actions may be 100% correct and 100% legal, but it is still disrespectful.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&start=180#p294360

Wat is the purpose of this Curt? Trying to fire up the emotions again by throwing in irrationalities like respect? Claiming that following the law is disrespectful implies that you think you have better laws. As far as i heard, only insane people think such things.

I expect better from people in leading positions.

Edit:
Better meaning: being more diplomatic.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

yeah! right!
They are a model of respect to people over there!

The GPL provisions are there for a reason. The problem is the lack of understanding of the GPL meaning over there, and the general disregard for it.

It is not: GPL for Gentlemen. That such thing is their own fabrication to keep gatekeepers.
And people like daweed, and Ross: they are just being misled, and there is a failure to educate them properly in what it means to work in a GPL environment for everyone involved.

Hooray tries hard to avoid all of them to keep making an ass of themselves, but to not much avail as soon as the great leader does not clarify GPL within FlightGear and does not even seat of a posture required to keep the content and the users free.

[KL-666]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&start=195#p294373

Well, well, Curt is now openly beating the wardrum of: One can not talk with fgmembers, they are all mean. Why do this Curt? Are you afraid of your friends finding out you can speak normal with most fgmembers? Is that why you want to spoil a good conversation?

I hope everyone ignores this attempt to disrupt and continues the good conversation.

Kind regards, Vincent