more untruths

[bomber]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... &start=900

Richard Wrote : If https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx is your project then you're nearly there because you're already opensource - but the next step is that all of the contributors need to licence their work under the GPL V2 (or later) and then you can use anything from this A320 - or anything else from FlightGear.

If you do not licence your work under the GPL V2 or later then you cannot use anything from this A320.

As long as they keep the licence for the copied work GPL V2 then they can use it....

GPL make it quite clear it's not a virus !

When will these people stop talking bollocks !

[IAHM-COL]

When will these people stop talking bollocks !

They won't since what they do is they pray (as in a religion or cult)

[bomber]

Now Lego's decided to talk shite....

[bomber]

Now Lego's decided to talk shite....

For the idiots that can't comprehend or for that matter think for themselves...

"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."

So understand this... it is not the intent to claim rights over the existing work done by another group making an A320 neo for FS2020, but to ensure that the GPL licenced work taken from FG and used within it remains GPL .

Saying anything else is happening is a misdirection of the truth !

[mue]

"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program."

You should have quoted the paragraph directly before your quoted paragraph from the GPL:

"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

[bomber]

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

This is where people say "the whole plane is a piece of work".... it is not... GNU licence requires that all program files should refer to their licence rather than have a single licence within an over arching folder. This is so that pieces of work can not be separated from their licences.... Because each piece of work is separate... If you were to take line 56 to 90 in an xml file and modify it, then you couldn't make these lines a different licence to the whole as the modifications are not a separate piece of work.

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

What we have here is a completely different plane being developed for a different sim looking to use an GPL audio file.... This GPL audio file must remain under the GPL licence... if it's modified you can't have the first half of the audio as GPL and the second half of it as non-GPL as this is a modified work and under terms of the GPL licence the whole of the audio file must remain GPL.

But using a GPL audio file does not require the 3d artwork to also be GPL as it is a separate piece of work, even if you do distribute them together.

Here's an audio file... can you tell me what licence applies to it ?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRuuZj ... sp=sharing

Simon

[IAHM-COL]

If you were to take line 56 to 90 in an xml file and modify it, then you couldn't make these lines a different license to the whole as the modifications are not a separate piece of work.

But a program is not "a file" within a source code
Is all the source code that comes together and compiles together.
Even adding a novel file that becomes integrated in the program via compilation can be considered a "program" modification per se.

but also , this is where there are some problems:
Firstly, a FG aircraft does not compile, and solving the "independent" part is critical.
I had always advocated to keep it separate, and allowing users to decide if "patching" with non-GPL content is on their interests and behalf.
But a join aircraft with multi-licensing content has always appeared to me a sub-optimal solution.

[bomber]

Yet conveniently grouping an audio file and the 3d model and call it the same piece of work.... they're nothing like the same piece of work. It's quite clear they're separate pieces of work... working on them you need different apps and skills.

In the example I gave above I used modify some lines within an xml file and stated that these new lines couldn't be of a different licence as they're not a separate piece of work...

So let's now create a new xml file and call this up as an include within the first xml file... Can I now licence this new file differently to GPL ? ..... the answer is no, if bundled with the first file it is not a separate piece of work, just some clever cody work around which GNU rightly so aims to prevent....
However If I was to distribute it not with the first file then I can choose any licence I want as GPL does not dictate what licence I can use in this circumstance.

The object of the licence is to prevent an authors work from being copied, modified and re-licenced as non free.... as long as this doesn't happen no foul is being committed.

Simon

[bomber]

So now let's look at it from the audio files authors perspective.

Planes needed a start-up audio file, so he works for some hours and produces a single start-up audio file and distributes it with a GPL licence. It's used by FG, not placed within a plane specific folder structure but within a generic folder structure called sounds. People can take it, copy it, modify it and the author is happy that his work is being used, appreciated and being built on.

Now someone comes along and see's this GPL audio file and, copies it and uses it within his plane for a completely different application. The file in the new app remains GPL and freely accessible to everyone and the author is ecstatic that his work is yet again being appreciated by others and that his reputation as a sound file creator is growing in stature.

And then some A-hole in FG chirps up that this other app can't use the sound file as the whole program isn't GPL... Yet the author was happy that his work was being used.... Now however his kudos is all drying up, his reputation has gone down hill because FG is dictating that his free work can't be used by others even though the author was quite happy to allow them to use it as long as his work remained GPL.

Ludicrous.

Simon

[Richard]

The author of any file has copyright and can choose whatever licence(s) they please.

If an author chooses a licence then you have to abide by that licence or not distribute.

The issue of mixed licence isn't that complicated. If you distribute something (e.g. a zipfile) that contains even a single GPL file then you need to licence the whole lot as GPL otherwise you have no licence to distribute the GPL file and will be in breach of copyright.

If you had two zipfiles one that contained the GPL content and one that had everything else then you'll be fine.

It is the person that chooses to ignore the author's licence that is wrong in your scenario.

If you want to distribute a file under a different licence then the correct thing to do is to ask the author's permission and not just assume that you can do what you please because the author licenced under the GPL without adhering to the GPL.