Thorsten Postures on GPL

[IAHM-COL]

If the GPL covers his work, then GPL means that by respect of users, the material can't be redistributed unless author heartfully agrees. (Like he had argued several times over his Shuttle)

But if the GPL covers works by other authors, they had long-time argued they wont liberally add such works to FGADDon unless the authors agree. But it seems, he is not going to be respectful nor consequent with his postures:


https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 46#p322049

Actually any GPL material can be freely included in FGAddon - this is quite legal and does not require your further permission - regardless of the undisputed copyright of Gerard.

[IAHM-COL]

So much for the "we will not take material against author wishes" posture


https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 46#p322228

After conducting some discussions and thinking of my own - I believe we need at least one decision from grtuxteam now.

***

The GPL is designed to grant the freedom to developers to re-use, adapt and re-distribute material such that development does not rest on the goodwill of any single person. The GPL explicitly does not require consent of the original copyright holder.

Somewhat in contrast, the FG policy is to respect creator's rights where reasonably possible. That means that the active maintainer gets to coordinate development and people are encouraged to go through his upstream repository with any changes. Also, should the original creator decide to not place his work on FGAddon but in a 3rd party hangar, the project does not actively seek it out and copy it to set up a competition (even where the legal right to do so exists).

***


I have in my possession a package of aircraft downloaded from the GRTuxhangar repository before it was deleted. These aircraft were all originally started by Gerard Robin and the package contains the Alouette-III, the H-21C-Shawnee, the Lynx-WG13, the P-38-Lightning, the S-51-Dragonfly, the F-8E-Crusader, the HUP-Retriever, the Noratlas, the PBY-Catalina, the SR71-BlackBird.

All these aircraft (in an earlier development stage) are found on FGAddon where Gerard placed them.

As not unusual for a GPL project, there is content created by different people in the package - in addition to Gerard's material, there is work by the grtuxteam - but also by others: To name two explicitly, there is development by PINTO as well as code by myself. The copyright question is hence somewhat murky as usual, but due to the license, this is not an issue.

The development is based on originally GPL licensed work, the download link identified a GPL license, the individual planes in the package contain GPL licensing notes and Josh has confirmed in this conversations that the content is GPL. So I think there's no question here.

***

While the GPL grants us the right to re-distribute the package content, we have so far not done so - largely based on the notion that you're good to your word and seek your own way to bring these aircraft to FGAddon.

However, the situation changed and your actions now have become destructive rather than constructive - not only have you deleted the repositories hosting the package, but you also actively seek to hinder people wanting to work with the content under GPL - as is their right, and you're also trying to hold work by people such as PINTO effectively hostage.

In discussions, I've also heard the position from other developers that FG should actively seek out and re-distribute modifications of all planes which were originally placed by their creators into the care of the project (and in these cases effectively compete with 3rd party hangars).

***

The question then arises whether you, grtuxteam, want to act as maintainers and upstream repository of FGAddon or not. In the past, people (such as PINTO) have been directed to use the grtuxteam repository as upstream hangar. However, this setup requires that updates are made to the downstream hangar, i.e. FGAddon.

***

a) If you opt to act as maintainers, you need to make such updates via merge requests or by picking a person you trust to commit on your behalf. You will be responsible for coordinating further development under an obligation to work constructively with anyone interested.

***

b) If you opt to not act as maintainers, please let us know whether you intend to set up your own 3rd party GPL hangar to distribute the work - generally FG would not try to compete with you by distributing mere copies of your content. However, in this case what may happen is that anyone else who is interested can become maintainer of the FGAddon version and develop it further without consulting you first.

***

c) If you opt to not act as maintainers and not set up a 3rd part GPL hangar of your own, FG will start to distribute the package content under GPL eventually. They will certainly be made available to anyone who wants to work with the content and I will have no hesitation to help to commit such work to FGAddon - equally without consulting you first.

***

I hope this strikes a reasonably balance between the interests of all interested parties - past, present and future developers. We have no interest to steal your reputation or set up a competition, but likewise it's not acceptable that development is actively hindered - there is a consensus among the FG developers that this is not part of the project policy.

Please let us know which alternative you prefer - if I don't hear from you, I'll assume you are not interested in doing anything which defaults to c).

[IAHM-COL]

Thorsten. You abusive piece of .....


You had hold everytime in the past that FG as a project will be respectful of author's wishes, and that it will uphold itself over an ethics above GPL licensing, yet your words towards the GRtux team is on perfect oposition such such ethos.

The GPL explicitly does not require consent of the original copyright holder.

Yes. But not what you and others have pray the FG policy towards authors contribution to the project including FGAddon, to be.

largely based on the notion that you're good to your word and seek your own way to bring these aircraft to FGAddon.

That's not how it works. You cannot tell people; We will respect your wishes of not adding material to FGADDon, as long as you remain cooperative into desiring to add material. But if you decide NOT TO add material, then we will not respect your wishes anymore.

The FG policy can't be based on the notion of willingness to bring material to FGADDon. To be consequent, it should be based on giving every author full right on their choice to either add or not material to that collection. Respect here always meant, that if an author does not wish that material to be in FGADDon then FG project will respect that wish above the GPL law.

you're also trying to hold work by people such as PINTO effectively hostage.

As you had tried to hold other people's work hostage with the Shuttle.

this setup requires that updates are made to the downstream hangar, i.e. FGAddon.

Not such thing. GPL is not a requirement for transferring information, data or codes. It's a license that grants the right of using such. Taking a plane of FGAddon and developing further given that is GPL does not come with a requirement that one has to merge any content back.

anyone else who is interested can become maintainer of the FGAddon version and develop it further without consulting you first.

So, do you have no limitation to respect other authors wishes, not any interest in uphold FG policies?

FG will start to distribute the package content under GPL eventually

It shouldn't if the author here remains in his posture of not being willing to move content to FGAddon. Not by FG policies. GPL says you can, off course. But FG policy says you will not.

I will have no hesitation to help to commit such work to FGAddon - equally without consulting you first.

Dirty piece of ***;
You not only should have hesitation, but your rights of committing to any FG material should be revoked, because your attitude implies you will go over the projects policies, intently and without hesitation!!!

there is a consensus among the FG developers that this is not part of the project policy.

In other words, there is a secret consensus that now you will play GPL rules, not Respecting author's wishes rules?
No-one had been notified of such consensus that I am aware of!!

[jwocky]

And since the pretense of "respecting author's wishes" was the only argument, they had for FGAddon (aside of the not propagated reason for having a gate keeper in place to make sure, nobody whoever looked wrong at Thorsten can distribute aircraft), Thorsten's argumentation now finally declared this one and only official reason for obsolete. Which means, Thorsten actually outed FGAddon as what it is, a pure political tool to maintain control for a little bunch of people. Say thanks for proving the point, dear core clowns, Thorsten nailed you again!

[LesterBoffo]

The thing is FGaddon is only available now through Source Forge and as only huge download. And if you don't have NoScript that website is rife with adverts, Did the FG maintained sources of older versions of FG aircraft on the original FG Download Central go away?

[IAHM-COL]

The thing is FGaddon is only available now through Source Forge and as only huge download. And if you don't have NoScript that website is rife with adverts, Did the FG maintained sources of older versions of FG aircraft on the original FG Download Central go away?

Aircraft in FGAddon are intended to be downloaded with the FG launcher. (roll eyes)

But also, for "convenience" one could use their FTP library of zip files:
http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/flightgear/ftp/Aircraft/

[bomber]

So the wolf bites, who'd have guessed ?

The Sheep knew he was a wolf when they let him stay in the field... he's not THEIR wolf.

I may be a rabid dog but I aint a wolf and I don't bite sheep, But I've no sympathy to the sheep that supported that wolf over this dog.

He can do what he wants, that's the permission those sheep gave him so let him run amok.... it's now my turn to get the popcorn, pull up the chair and laugh.

regards

Simon

[bomber]

However to clarify MY opinion on this licence issue...

What Thorsten is saying now is the stand I've always had towards GPL or any licence for that matter....

Thorsten HAS changed his opinion from the past when he was spouting his desire for the shuttle to be GPL but with his say on who, when and how it can be distributed, which makes him the two faced individual that we know him to be.

So ALL can clearly see he's someone who changes the rules/law to suit himself or his political desires.

Frankly I wish he'd just fecking die already.

[Wecsje]

My only post here: You guys do the same thing when putting work in FGmembers... IIRC, D-ECHO made some nice scenery addons, and specifically said in his repo (and is still there): "Please don't fork this scenery to FGMEMBERS or similar" (https://github.com/D-ECHO/SintMaartenAntigua). But it is all in FGmembers... (https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-SCENERY/SintMaartenAntigua). Now I know this is allowed, but please don't become hypocrites, and shout at other people who also do it.

Regards,

Charlie (Wecsje)

[SHM]

We never made claims as such. While they did.