About trenches

[bomber]

Yeh it's becoming pretty clear that under no circumstances can anyone associated with FGMEMBERS be correct...

First it's all about the GPL facts of the case at hand.. Once that was debunked it becomes a matter of respect and FGMEMBERS no showing enough of it to the core members... and guess how they show our lack of respect ? by calling us names..

I'm not going to give them the pleasure....

I think we well and truly have the moral high ground on this one.

[bomber]

I just couldn't help myself..

But if you're not bothered and wish not to learn from this.... then by all means put your head in the sand, talk respect respect respect and wait for the next person to pull your trouser down around your ankles.

It's as if, you lot are masochistic.

[KL-666]

Yes it is hard to stay emotionless, neutral, objective after everything that has happened. But it would be for the best when there is some fragile progress.

Trust comes on foot, and goes on a horseback.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

About your question there, why they accept Curts behaviour: I am pretty sure some people over there are not happy with it. Yet they have a tradition of discussing things behind the scenes. So we may never get a straight answer to that. I think we must respect their way of handling their own internal affairs.

Edit:
I wonder whether the other forum realizes that ever since they painted my name green, and before, there has never been any internal communication, no mail, no pm. All happened here openly on the forum, everyone spoke for himself, up to steering by undesired behaviour. Not to critisize their way of doing. But maybe if they tried some of it, they notice the advantage of it. No secrecy makes life pretty easy.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

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

Postby bugman » Tue Sep 13, 2016 7:28 am

It was clarified in the GPLv3 licence, but the legal implication is there in the GPLv2. Hint, it is present at the start of section 0. This is a fundamental part of the licence that has been explained by the FSF FAQ for many decades now:

Frequently Asked Questions about version 2 of the GNU GPL - Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be psoted to the public?

Also studying contracts won't help here as the GPL is not a contract

Regards,
Edward

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294444#p294437

Thanks for showing where your misconception comes from, about being allowed to add provisions to gpl on your modifications and still making it publicly available. That always makes correcting it quicker. Let me make a faq of this faq item for you:

"You may keep your modified version private on your LAN. But as soon as you make it available in any way on the WAN, the GPL obligations start to work."

This faq item is fully inline with the gpl text, when you read it well. Btw, The title of this faq item should have given you a hint in the right direction. Ah i see, you misspelled posted, that must be the cause of all the confusion.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

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

Postby bugman » Tue Sep 13, 2016 8:00 am

The key legal term is "distributed". That first sentence of section 0 is rather important, and the "distributed" conecpt is then reinforced throughout. Now, is a publicly accessible link "distribution"? By itself, no.

Regards,
Edward

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294444#p294443

Misconception number 2. Purely making something reachable without even a link to it is distribution.

There was a case of a woman that moved some music via her web server, probably to her phone. Then she forgot all about the music still being on the web server in some obscure unlinked directory. But the music was discovered and she was sentenced for the full fine for distributing the music.

Edit:
Shocking, is it not? But you have to realize that many concepts we know from the law in the real world, are quite different in the law concerning the internet. Like the concepts of 'distributing' and 'stealing'. A different medium has different possibilities, so the concepts in the law concerning that medium must be adjusted to it. That is also the reason why the real world analogies of Thorsten are always false. It would be better for him if he refrained from doing it.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

I think I now understand Thorsten....

What he's saying is that although he made an 'error in judgement' by publishing the bundled shuttle and attempting to limit the usage of it contrary to the rules of GPL.. Isreal still isn't allowed to take that work and publish it himself as at that moment in time the bundled shuttle contained fully copyright material. And in publishing it, what Israel is doing is alter the license of the fully copyrighted material or at the very least going against the rights of the Author.

If we take this at face value it seems reasonable, however.

Bundling Fully Copyright material with GPL and crying foul is just a backdoor way of attempting to restrict the redistribution of the contained GPL material contrary to the rules of GPL.

Thorsten like it or not lost the right of control of distribution when he bundled these two different licenses and published them.

Now I would however say that he shouldn't have lost full copyright on modification of his material, and as long as this remain untouched no reason for him to cry foul.

[KL-666]

That sums up Thorsten's case quite correct.

What has been distributed can not be turned back, and sadly for him, at distribution time, the gpl rules became effective. The best thing he can do is to keep any further development truly private, as in: on his LAN. Distributing it to friends can already become tricky. (Or of course: do not use gpl source at all).

It is astonishing to see how little understanding there is of what distribution in the context of internet really is, and the implications of it. And not only at the other forum. I hear everywhere the misconceptions, often illustrated with wrong real world analogies, like "It was in my house and i left the door open, so what, it is still not distributing it".

Really, everyone should carefully check their web servers whether there is no old material that should not be there. It does not matter whether it is linked or not. If say a spider can reach it, you are distributing.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Ya gota larf...

Thorsten wrote

I don't think you know what the term 'fully copyrighted material' means, because also GPL material is 'fully copyrighted'. Therefore also the rest of your conclusions doesn't make any sense. Also, bundling GPL with other content means just that you distribute them as (separable) bundle (the separable aspect is important) - and there's nothing preventing you or anyone from re-distributing the GPL part of the bundle, nor has this right to re-distribute the GPL part and its derivatives ever been denied.

I'm using a term that he uses when he says "I have full copyright of".... yet when I re-use it to ensure people understand the difference between the material that's GPL and that that is not, he does this......

But the best bit is that he's surely taking the piss because what he's saying is that yes you can download plane which contains my material, which I've included with the GPL material... yes you can then distribute the plane , but only after you've taken out of it the non-GPL material.. at which point it don't work.

And they accuse me of not knowing the 'spirit of GPL'

[KL-666]

Thorsten seems to be living in his own world, with his own laws. That's fine, and it is not much use to discuss then. But it is not smart because he may get in trouble some time, and then the standard laws apply, not his.

So, Bomber how about sending him the link to what he needs to import in fgaddon?

Kind regards, Vincent