An interesting gpl case

[KL-666]

You clearly are not able to read comprehensively, only cherry picking in a wrong manner Opfor. The non-free spoken about in your reference is about being payware. That is allowed as long as all the rights of gpl are observed, like that the receiver may modify and/or redistribute the paid for gpl material. If you have read on 2 faq items further (or the actual license), you would have known that:

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use? (#CanDeveloperThirdParty)

No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

And thus the program stays gpl, and you can not put it in another package under another license.

So for your own good, you better quit spreading nonsense, which makes you look like someone who can not understand a simple legal text.

Kind regards, Vincent

[OPFOR77]

Stop with the condescension.

What you posted applies if it's the same version. They can't distribute something GPL, and then after everyone gets their hands on it say "oh just kidding". If they release a new version, they can license it however they want before distributing it.

Maybe you should also sue VLC, or 7zip, or FreeCAD, or multiple others, who all relicensed GPLv2 or GPLv3 source to non-GPL-compatible licensing. In some cases with the blessings of Richard Stallman. Or the multitude of projects that went from GPLv2 only to GPLv3 only. Those aren't compatible.

All these people are apparently wrong too, according to you.

http://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/221/can-i-license-a-project-which-i-have-already-released-without-a-license
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/242760/can-i-as-author-and-copyright-holder-relicense-my-code-under-a-more-liberal-li
http://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/33/how-can-a-project-be-relicensed
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/55326/can-you-change-a-license-once-you-pick-one
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/173193/open-source-library-can-the-project-owner-change-the-license-to-be-more-restric

Anyways, I've said my piece. If you want to keep parroting that "FG core devs are Satan incarnate and everything they do is evil!", well, that's your right I suppose.

Edit: please, give me the exact license language that says no relicensing ever is allowed.

[KL-666]

Good, because i am kind of done with your twisting of information too. I am certainly not thinking for a second about wasting tons of time on refuting the plethora of false examples you produce.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

And... just to clarify for myself:

GPL or not GPL?
If the webpage is outdated, it would be kind for the "estate holder" to update that to reflect accurate, current information.


I noticed that updating this content in FGDATA has not gone smooth, but if it's GPL I would rebase to FGMEMBERS myse.lf.

I am glad to see it stay GPL too....

[OPFOR77]

Yeah, it's GPL. My additions to it are GPL-only, so if it's not GPL then that causes some dual-licensing issues. The website is out of date, I have emails from the team confirming that the new stuff is indeed GPL.

[bomber]

KL... I think you might have got that wrong..

Here's an example of what looks to have occurred..

A person creates a model and then copies....

copy A) he gives a GPL licence and distributes
copy B) he gives a CC-N..... licence and keeps on his hard drive and works on privately.

Some time later he decides to stop working on the GPL version concentrating on the other and eventually decides to release the CC-N version.
So far there's no infringement as long as development has been kept separate...

[KL-666]

Hi Bomber,

There are two foundations on which gpl license is built, which cause a lot of confusion under the readers:

1) Legal entities: A legal entity can be a person or an organization. Within a legal entity anything can be done with gpl material.

2) Distribution: Whenever the gpl material is transferring from one legal entity to another, only then gpl starts to become effective. And not a little bit effective, but fully effective.

What happens in the minds of many people is, that they read the parts of the license that are about what may be done with gpl in private (within one legal entity) as if they are about when the material is distributed, I suppose the hardest thing for them to comprehend is that within an organization the material may be transferred between people, while staying within the same legal entity. There they get confused about what legal entities are and what distribution is (between legal entities). Exactly the two foundations that should have been most clear. Therefore i recommend people to read carefully.

if i understand your example well, then at the start A and B are equal. At the moment A is released gpl, then B is too. They are one and the same. A is worked on further creating A'. Then A' is stopped working on and B is developed further. In that case the A-part in B is still gpl which can not be withdrawn after having distributed A or A' gpl.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Don't think that's correct as the Author retains full copy right of his own work.... what he's doing is licensing it for others to use.

So he's able to give his work many different licences.. the difference is where a 3rd party downloaded it.

It's the 3rd party that has to obey the rules of the licence not the author... he has full rights to do what he wants with his work and never loses these rights.

Simon

[IAHM-COL]

I think KL666 main point is that dual licensing is not a mechanism for ungpl or revert the license a given material.

Furthermore, in the case of FG aircraft, we have mentioned this in the past, there is massive reuse of GPL code that is inherent and required to run such aircraft within FG environment. Code that does not belong to the grtux team. When you are not sole author, then you do face restricted mechanism on what and how you could dual licensing.

[KL-666]

Hey Opfor (and Bomber) you should have hit me with this faq item:

Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL.

However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#DeveloperViolate

This clearly undermines my case about the one who started the absolute first bit of gpl code. He seems to have the right to multi license. I apologize for that mistake.

Yet anyone building dependent code on the gpl code right after that is bound by the strict rules of gpl. All their dependent code must be gpl. Now you claim that those grtux people developed all their gpl stuff from the ground up. Are you really sure about that? Did they not build upon a model already under gpl, no matter how underdeveloped?

Kind regards, Vincent