About trenches

[Richard]

That is not really going to work, if someone persistently calls you a thief and doer of illegal acts, is it? If you suspect it is based on low understanding of the law, i find one is obliged to try to correct him, instead of dragging him to court immediately.

The response depends on whether I have been a thief and a miscreant. If it is untrue I will post my version and leave it at that; as the argument generally just keeps the discussion going and nobody ever gets the last word. Ongoing discussions tend to keep the matter at the forefront of everyone's mind, and very rarely does one of these arguments finish.

If the accusation is true I will say "that my honourable friend has raised some interesting points that warrant further investigation to ascertain the truth, and that a full and thorough inquiry should be performed at the earliest possible opportunity". I will then consider a career in politics.

Sure, and as long as no one's calling you a thief it's alright because you're not really interested in getting into arguments preferring to code and model.

Sorry Richard I can't stand by and be bullied or watch others being bullied and say nothing safe in the knowledge that I'm modelling.

That's not what I was referring to at all; I said I'd rather be modelling than writing a licence; didn't mention a word about bullying or the ongoing argument. I still think arguing is a waste of time, but I'm not going to get into an argument about it.

[KL-666]

Hi Richard,

You are completely right in case of a simple dispute, and i would not act differently. Yet you underestimate the severity of this situation. Think of it as a man that follows you all day long screaming to the public that you are a thief. Then we get into the more serious area of libel, and your advise is not enough to fend him off.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Richard wrote
Maybe because we should all be writing code and modelling rather than writing licences and arguing about them.

3 posts later

Richard wrote
That's not what I was referring to at all; I said I'd rather be modelling than writing a licence; didn't mention a word about bullying or the ongoing argument. I still think arguing is a waste of time, but I'm not going to get into an argument about it.

'We' refers to you, I and anyone else...so you weren't talking about just yourself.

'Arguing' refers to well.... ongoing arguments.

Shudder to think how I could have misunderstood you.

[KL-666]

What i think basically goes wrong between the two trenches is that they exaggarate a mistake on a part of the persona into that the complete persona is bad.

An example: Someone is probably wrong on his interpretation of gpl. Then you can say realistically that he is probably violating some terms of gpl. But saying he is a complete criminal is a bit far fetched.

Let's judge eachother realistically, objectively on mistakes we make, instead of completely slaughtering persona's on a thin base.

Kind regards, Vincent

[KL-666]

I see Thorsten still somewhat in disbelief about the legalities concerning gpl and the internet, and planning on measures that have a good chance in them to get him in the trouble of violating gpl. Let me try to help him avoid such thing before it happens.

My consequence is that I will in the future use a very carefully phrased disclaimer and technical measures to prevent such things from happening and will back that up by takedown notices when necessary. It's sad that among people we know and had conversations with, we can't find other ways of communicating and see intentions and rights respected - but it's not my choice to make unfortunately.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&sid=1f9efcc2f41f40ba8dd397fd320ce25a&start=240#p294632

The most worrying thing is: "very carefully phrased disclaimer". No matter how careful you phrase something, there is no option whatsoever to add any provision to gpl. So i guess he is planning on distributing it non-gpl. But in case of distributing non-gpl, be very carefull it is indeed a 100% non-gpl. All in all i think having a bundle of a 100% non gpl material in flightgear may be difficult to achieve, but who knows.

There is a gpl faq item specifically written for Thorstens case:

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?

No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis.

See how sending something to someone else is also distributing (moving from one legal entity to the other), and the receiver must have all gpl rights. But be assured, if the friend is trustworthy and the right technical measures are taken (the material is in no way reachable on the internet), then no one will ever know.

The "technical measures" are the best option to reach what Thorsten wants to achieve. The disclaimer stuff only puts you at risk of accidentally violating gpl.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Thorsten wrote:
I'm still missing the part where 'I don't want to release to the public' means 'I make a public release', where Israel was unaware that I did not want to make a public release and where suspecting a license violation means you don't send a note but get to license content yourself. But okay, we've been going over this a few times, if your legal position is that the door sign said 'authorized personnel only' but the door wasn't locked, so that means it's public space then we can leave it at that - since lawyers got

This is a private response to Thorsten only, please no one else read it....

Thorsten You're talking fucking bollocks...

Ok everybody else can now read this next bit.

Hopefully the forum admin will understand that the above is an example of Thorstens idea of a private distribution.. please don't infinge on my rights to have one..

[bomber]

Curt wrote :
The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=29&p=294642#p294642 .

The kind of language choices you have made are not permitted on this forum. This is an official warning.

Well that doesn't make sense.... I told people to not read it surely that was good enough ?

I don't understand if telling people that this is a private distribution and not for public is ok, why isn't it the same for a private communique.

Me thinks Curt needs to get a grip....

[KL-666]

Smart one, Bomber Sadly the post is removed and can not educate Thorsten anymore.

Edit:
Wait a minute, maybe it is exactly their objective to keep Thorsten ignorant.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Curt wrote:
You don't explain to the reader that you directed the f-word at another user in your message which is not allowed. You did post a link to the offending material and I have removed that link. You are playing a game of brinkmanship when you intentionally violate the rules of this forum and push in the direction of mocking those rules and the forum moderators. I gave you a warning in private over this, but if you wish to make the issue public, then yes, you used the f-word, you directed it at a specific user on the forum, you have been given an official warning. We have already had to assign temporary bans to you 3 times for previous offenses. The forum rules specifically warn that repeated bans will be for longer and longer time frames. This message to you is from a moderator patiently explaining how the forum works, not a negotiation or debating the facts or the rules. The tools the moderators have at their disposal are removing offensive material, assigning warnings (which helps the group of moderators connect the dots of bad behavior over time), assigning bans of increasing time, and finally a permanent ban. You have received multiple bans, private warnings, and now an official warning. I'm sure everyone can see you are nearing the end of this progression. You then wish to mock the moderators on top of all this so that if you do get another ban, you can claim it is "personal" or an unfair "emotional" response. Believe me when I say we have been patient, but we also pay attention and we connect dots over time.

I ask you to please post respectfully and responsibly on this forum and if you choose not to respect this forum, it's users, and it's rules, we can continue along the progression of bans of increasing length.

I used the F word in a private conversation with Thorsten, not a public one..... I made it quite clear it was a private conversation, If you support Thorstens idea of what a private distribution is here on this forum, allowing him to call people names such as thief and untrustworthy, which is also against forum rules. And to do so without any moderation or correction of his misplaced opinions, why can't I do the same ?

It wasn't brinksmanship, it was simply pointing out the truth that this is a public forum and anything posted on here is not private, even if a person writes it's for private viewing only.

If you'd get your house in order, then I'd not have had to go to such extremes to ensure that people aren't being misled

Simon

[KL-666]

Here Thorsten repeats his deep rusted in misconception again.

publicly accessible != released into the public

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294665&sid=1f44231ee9b7fa42556601a43a9c22dc#p294665

In the real world Thorsten may be right, but in internet law and more specific gpl, these two are pertinently equal.

I really wonder why his friends sit on the sideline and do nothing to educate the man. Is it funny to see someone struggle in this manner?

Kind regards, Vincent