The philosophy of content

[D-ECHO]

A little history, freely imagined but maybe interesting:
An author, let's call him Peter Runner (hope he doesn't really exist), builds an aircraft, e.g. the Mooney M10J using content from other fg aircraft he before downloaded from FGADDON. As he loves free content and the open source spirit and because he is interested in getting his aircraft downloadable inside flightgear (and because he has to due to using GPL content), he releases his work in his github repository. As it's a new fg aircraft, it's forked by FGMEMBERS (I think that's the way it works?). Now people from FGMEMBERS start improving his aircraft by adding stuff to it, and so someone adds some systems. Now that author doesn't like to have these new systems in it as he is working on much better systems based on the data he exclusively got from Mooney. He asks the FGMEMBER maintainers to take his aircraft down from fgmembers to prevent people from double-doing efforts.
What would YOU answer?
Regards, I'd make it better but I have to go

[KL-666]

So if i were maintaining fgmembers, then you tell me now to forbid people to do double work by removing the gpl plane? By what right can i forbid people to do double work? By the right that you find double work inefficient?

Let me tell you this D-echo, many things go inefficient in the world. In fact being alive in itself is inefficient. Gathering all that knowledge over the years, and then just destroy it all by death.

No really, there can not be any right drawn from being convinced to be more efficient than someone else. If someone else wants to be inefficient, that is his choice. You can not force him to be efficient. And depriving him from access to the gpl plane is a form of forcing your will upon him.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

What would YOU answer?
Regards, I'd make it better but I have to go

Personally, I think the maintainer of a forked GPL work who has been handed a removal request, should answer:

Dear Peter Runner.

We appreciate your concern. Unfortunately we cannot fulfill your request.
From your petition we understand you do not have a sound understanding of the privileges and also the requirements provided to you and everyone else, given by the licensing of GPL on the content. Your petition ignores such, and it demonstrates your deep misunderstanding of the philosophy of the GPL.

Our recommendation to you is that you inform yourself better, so in the future you make more informed decisions of whether you want to use GPL software, and to use the warranted liberties given by it.

With deepest appreciation
(the maintainer_s_ of the fork who receive a remove content request.)

[bomber]

he releases his work in his github repository.

At this is GPL licenced to everyone in the word.... it's a public release.

Now people from FGMEMBERS start improving his aircraft by adding stuff to it, and so someone adds some systems.

Not his plane... his plane is in his repository, this is just a plane on FGMEMBERS that anyone can work on and when it's publicly released FGMEMBERS ensure that Mr Runner gets the benefit of all FGMEMBERS work.

Now that author doesn't like to have these new systems in it as he is working on much better systems based on the data he exclusively got from Mooney.

That's brilliant, I'm sure these systems will be great and once he's done them and released them to the public FGMEMBERS will see the light of these brilliant systems and use them in place of their much poorer versions.... However not saying 'it's cake tomorrow' but until these new systems are available we'll just muddle on through with the ones we've got at present, thanks tho,

He asks the FGMEMBER maintainers to take his aircraft down from fgmembers to prevent people from double-doing efforts.

Oh he's concerned about the effort FGMEMBERS are putting in ?.... that is so sweet.
But I think as FGMEMBERS have already added their systems into this plane, the only person doubling up on the work is Mr Runner.... Also I assume he's downloaded the plane from FGMEMBERS and so can see that his work will be so much more superior than at present, if not he's a bit on the old presumptuous side isn't he.
But above all else it's not HIS plane... it's a plane he's added too, and others would like to do the same, what right does he have to prevent that ? And how could anyone support his actions in preventing players from enjoying the additions that the FGMEMBERS have already added whilst he hasn't pulled his finger out and done any himself.

So why don't we wait and see what he present as his superior systems and see if they are infact as he says..... of course he could just be talking bollocks and his systems are crap having a rather over inflated opinion of himself.

What would YOU answer?
Regards, I'd make it better but I have to go

Oh that a tough one.....

[Richard]

An author, let's call him Peter Runner (hope he doesn't really exist), builds an aircraft, e.g. the Mooney M10J using content from

Real world scenario.

A developer, me, builds an F-15 using some modules from the F-14. This F-15 is not announced, the code isn't in an available git repository, although obviously I am using git. Pre-release versions of the F-15 are made available as a download of a zip file.

Once I released the zip file; which had some GPL content in it - somebody could have taken this zipfile and made a repository for this and continued work. Their choice, not in my control. I can't care if someone does this and then complains when I made some massive changes (which I did do).

If I didn't want to release as GPL; or didn't want anyone to have my model then I would never have uploaded it to my site. I uploaded but just didn't widely announce it.

Development works best when everyone works together in a coordinated manner. So for example if someone forked my F-15 in April 2015 and didn't work with me is that their changes probably would not have made it into mine - unless these changes were so great that I just had to add them even if it meant redoing some of my own work.

In future I'm probably not going to release anything publically until it goes into FGAddon, or maybe it doesn't get released as GPL if I want to keep control. These are the options that a developer has - providing that their model doesn't ship any GPL items as part of the distribution.

[bomber]

Well yes and no there Richard....

GPL allows you to distribute your work bundled with GPL content internaly within your organisation without having to make it available to the public.

So then we need to define what an organisation is...... if it's within a collaborative team that is for all intent and purposes 'A closed club' and the download isn't accessible to the general public... and say someone else from 'the club' handed over the zip, I'd say you're pretty well within your rights to ask FGMEMBERS to cease distributing.

If however you distribute to all and sundry, then you've no leg to stand on.

[D-ECHO]

Now that's somehow how I expected it.
Though I'd like to ask you whether it isn't a kind of unrespectful to honor the time the author spent by not complying with his wishes? Let's say he spent like 150 hours developing it as it is. Maybe my example why he wants to have it deleted was a bit bad, but if he just wants it to be down because he doesn't support the FGMEMBERS philosophy? It happens that I know some authors who specifically try everything so their airplanes don't get onto FGMEMBERS for example only distributing it to several known people while telling them to not re-distribute it. Do you think this situation is good? Or shouldn't it be possible for the author, who invested his time in the aircraft, to be friendly to him and say, hey, it's him who did the work. let's honor that and respect his wishes?
Regards
Important: I'm not talking about the legal aspect here, I know it's all legal (as far as my legal understanding reaches), I'm talking about another thing, you may talk it moral or whatever...

[KL-666]

Speaking of morals, how do you see speaking with a double tongue?

1) With making gpl stuff accessible you state: Take it, and you have all gpl rights (including redistribution). Nothing legal about it (yet). It is what you state by making gpl reachable in any way.

2) State that you do not want someone to redistribute, and start whining about morals.

These two are opposite statements, and i think speaking with a double tongue is very disrespectful. This guy must get his act together and choose either of the mutually exclusive statements.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

well... given that now Peter Runner started moving into the realm of what it is ACTUALLY a copyright violation and thus an illegal act, I may concern myself again that he is still totally unclear on what is demanded upon him by the license.

It becomes troublesome and concerning when you realize that ignorance of the law is not excuse to not fulfill the law.

Personally, I would persist into requesting him to clarify the restrictions imposed onto him (and everyone else) by the GPL license, and at this point kindly advise him to get some advise from his lawyers. (as in his learning how to get back to lawful behavior)

Morality and immorality. Those are difficult ethical topics that do not escape epistemology. And frequently, deeply subjective.

As for me: If you ask me to act illegally -- that is an immoral act, by itself. If you know your petition being dubious in the legal realm, then now it is not only immoral but with aggravating circumstance.

[bomber]

A philosophical debate that's hypothetical, these are my favourite.

Should we respect an authors wishes ?

YES !
100% agreement with you on that every time, no quibble.
It is morally reprehensible to go against the wishes of the author..... and you can quote me on that !

But let me ask you a question D-Echo, which considering I've answered quite a few of yours it would seem only morally correct for you to answer a few of mine (ours).

At which point did Mr Runner decide that the opinions and rights of the original author were of less value and importance than his own ?
Was it at the start, or maybe after 50 hours or 150 hours or when the task was complete ?
Is it the quantity of hours, the level of complexity the type of work or what that transfers ownership as at some point Mr Runner must had an apothemy and said "This plane is now mine !"

Mr Runner it seems wants respect, yet shows no respect for the original author.... his scruples seem very much in question.

Simon