Here we go again...

[bomber]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 3&start=60

[IAHM-COL]

Thorsten being an ass?
Nothing new there.

[KL-666]

Well, i see that discussion get stuck in the mud of finding loopholes in gpl again. Is this a match about who can pis furthest?

Gpl is basically really simple. If you depend on something gpl, then your code should be gpl. Everyone can feel by their guts if they need to comply or not. There are really no lengthy legal discussions necessary.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

No Vincent that is NOT how it is.....

As I've explained solid edge 3d package costs £5000 and is not GPL. ... However it uses some GPL code which it makes available to anyone upon request.

There's no 'it uses some GPL so it's got to be GPL as a whole'.

GPL is simple I agree, and that is once freely available all ways freely available and any updates transparent to all....

But you cannot make a plane as a whole GPL just it's parts... if these are 100% GPL then the plane can be said to be 100% GPL . But there's nothing to say you can't have a plane with a 80/20 split.

[KL-666]

Hello Bomber,

Then i believe we have different things in mind when we with our separate minds read this same thing:

the GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the Free Software Definition[7] and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved whenever the work is distributed, even when the work is changed or added to. The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

So whatever you derive from gpl, must stay gpl. Thereby it is not said that a whole plane derives from gpl. If the visual model is derived from gpl, the visual model should stay gpl. If the fdm added does not depend on any gpl, it can be a different licence.

Even the simplest soul can determine if he has something depending on gpl. That part should stay gpl. Again no lengthy legal discussions necessary.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

The point I'd make is that if a plane uses a GPL exterior mesh that's a bit on the rough side and a 3d modeller comes along and creates a new 3d exterior mesh and adds this alongside the original. Then this new mesh can be any licence he so wishes and not restricted GPL.... however if he takes the original 3d mesh and modifies it ie it's derived from it.... then it must remain GPL.

[bomber]

There does seem to be some claim that adding a licence to existing work is wrong..

As I read it all work is covered by default copyright... so if it has no licence you can't simply add one as this is reducing the copyright.

No licence is a higher protective licence than CC on this case.

[KL-666]

Just theoretically, i do not know if this can be done. But if you modify something within "code" that is on gpl, it is still gpl. So if the mesh is newly made, but it can be considered as part of the total, say it still uses the gpl skin, then it is a *modification* of the gpl-ed code and it must be gpl. You cannot inject a new part into gpl-ed code and thereby claim the whole thing (visual model) is not gpl anymore.

Anyway, my point was not to start the discussion myself, but that gpl is so obvious, that anyone can feel what the right thing to do is. If i modify gpl-ed code, then it shall be gpl, if i use say functions of gpl-ed code in my new code, it shall be gpl. If i make something aside of gpl-ed code, and bundle it with gpl-ed code, then my new code does not need to be gpl. Simply multiple licenses in one package.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Let me tell you as a professional 3d modeler..... 2d is very very much different and I wouldn't dream of telling a 2d artist his work is derived from my 3d mesh or visa versa.

[IAHM-COL]

There does seem to be some claim that adding a licence to existing work is wrong..

As I read it all work is covered by default copyright... so if it has no licence you can't simply add one as this is reducing the copyright.

No licence is a higher protective licence than CC on this case.

You can read Thorsten today in the devel list suggesting D-ECHO not to take legal advise from me
(but his graduating from law school with a degree on licenses I had seen not)

In any case.
This is the clear cut situation.

Copyright protection implies that any copyright-eable work is BY DEFAULT granted ALL RIGHTS RESERVED status. All right reserve implies that only the copyright owner has authority to control everything, from copying, modification and distribution.

Thus, if you wish your work to remain "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" you can simply exclude any licensing term. BUT the recommendation is add the note in a license file

A license, translates legally as "a permission" or an authorization.
In the case of GPL, per example, the author maintains copyright, but relinquish or grants permission to all Copy, Modify and distribute (both equal copies or modifies copies of the work). This maintains as such, only if the third person respects the GPL license. (ultimately GPL license is respected by maintaining strict adherence to the CopyLeft Clauses, that is the license and authorship can't be changed or deleted).

Now. Let's say author X did make a plane for FG 6 years ago, and did not add any license at all.
It is correct that ALL RIGHTS RESERVE currently applies. And as such, Downloading the aircraft, which is an act of copying is illegal.
But now the author placed a link somewhere in Internet. Which implied he had will of allowing you to hit download, and thus copying.

So? How is that compatible? It is not!
The clear understanding here is that the author at least is providing some means to copy, and thus authorized copying.
This does not mean he accepted to license as GPL.

In the case of very old FG planes (many of those "license undeclared" in NON-GPL), the most logical implicit situation is that the author, working on a plane for FG (a GPL software) intended, to begin with to create a GPL work, but omitted stating the license.
That omission is big, because as the author leaves the community, his work is definitely unlicensed. Then downloading is unpermitted. yet he created the link.

Assuming GPL and stamping GPL on that work is problematic (although the most likely original situation)

Now, why is it problematic? Because GPL is too open. 1) it allows derivative works, 2) it allows commercialization. Both situations some authors may be more wary of, when compared to just allow download and usage (which Certain creative commons licenses permit restriction)

So, What I decided, given the lack of a license was to temporally protect the work under Creative Commons, which allows redistributions (aka create and fork the repository) but prevents commercial usage. Thus All I'm doing is placing restrictions on the work, [b]Until the original author pops up, and tells me what's what[b/]

I have got 1 author, Heiko, telling me that the work of his undeclared license was supposed to be GPL
(Just as my guess for the rest). No problem. I complied his request, removed the NON-GPL repository, clarified the license and transferred to the proper FGMEMBERS collection,.

If other author comes and tells me it 's all rights reserved, I can just knock the repo down. Sorry, but he would own the rights. But Skyop does not own that right, either, so that's that.

An author could claim: Why did you add CC to my GPL work. The answer, is, with deeply apology, he forgot to clarify license leaving the door open to all sort of management
GPL lawyers would even tell you that your protection is limited, and people could even take the work and make it fully propietary, and since the author is the one making a clear omission there is a posibility that the person taking the work and making it propietary could make the case a win for them (triple loss)


I hope it clarifies, and it makes sense that in the mean time providing some temporal protection under CC makes more sense than fully opening the work (GPL) [most likely original intention],

IH-COL