An interesting gpl case

[bomber]

then the court can impose an injunction to stop you from further distribution, but it won't order your code released under the GPL.

your code.... that's the clue here.

The example is about like you said, relicensing original GPL code with a more a restrictive license.

At which point you're in trouble... at no point does it say you can't release your code (that was fresh from your head and not a bit of modified GPL code) with a more restrictive license.

[IAHM-COL]

Because admit it or not Fligthgear DOES attempt to force a license on an author... just ask Daweed

I disagree.

Actually FlightGear is really lenient when it comes to accepting their work to be used within other Licensed materials. see the tu-144, and much Creative Commons work for FlightGear.

Daweed situation is rather intriguing.
1. He wants to put his scenery in terrasync. Terrasync is GPL. Can he release his material non-GPL and intend to add it to terrasync?
No.
Does this means that Flightgear Forces daweed to release GPL?
No
Why?
Because daweed is free not to upload to terrasync

2. Can daweed restrict the license over FlightGear Scenery?
arguably. I will say: No he cant!!!
Why not! isn't this restricting?

Well, this is the issue.
Where did he got the Terrain tiles?
(from terrasync; that is he copied GPL material in his bundle. he should not use GPL material if he plans ahead releasing propietarily)

Can he make the terrain tiles by himself in a propietary manner?

Let's see:

How one makes terrain for Flightgear, requires derivating sources from elevation profiles (which are released under GPL), and requires derivating sources from landclasses (if he uses CORINE or v0, or OSM both are GPL compatible material, but these are not compatible with proprietary work)
If he uses X-PLANE layouts for the airports, those are also GPL

So basically, daweed will need to make sure NOT TO USE any of those GPL materials in the process of creating the scenery, so as these sceneries cannot be misconstrue as derivative work of GPL materials.

I will admit, that is a very uptight situation there.

[bomber]

it doesn't even say you can't bundle them together... it says we'd rather you didn't.

Well I'd rather I did thank you.... as it's not illegal, just a possible inconvenience to them as they'd get people suddenly asking difficult questions.

[bomber]

Sorry but you've now gone into the realms of DATA.... and GPL is very clear about this....

Data is NOT covered.

Output from GPL program does not make it GPL.

[IAHM-COL]

what data?

[bomber]

How one makes terrain for Flightgear, requires derivating sources from elevation profiles (which are released under GPL)

[jwocky]

The elevation profile is maybe not the problem here, but the land classes are because they are not pure data anymore, I think?

[bomber]

ok I'll make it simple, if he's used any previous GPL work to base his work upon then he's not got a leg to stand on...

But originally we weren't talking about that, and I'd like to got back to that.

[bomber]

Also we need to differentiate between

a) club rules ie ALL FGAddon must be GPL
b) License rules.

[IAHM-COL]

How one makes terrain for Flightgear, requires derivating sources from elevation profiles (which are released under GPL)

both elevation profiles as well and land-classes are not in the realm of data. They are in the realm of source-code

One uses terragear to compile a variety of source-codes which include apt.dat (xplane/gpl), landclasses (corine, osm, v0), and elevation (panoramio/others) into a binary collection (the scenery).
To modify the binary, you actually go ahead and modify such sources. Just as you would, normally, with any other source code you may want to take your hands on.

Are you saying the authors of all those materials stamped GPL license onto them, but the license wont apply on the argument that is data? That's stretching

And again, the way terragear uses those materials, they qualify as source-code. Completely,