Here we go again...

[bomber]

Coffee ?

An English gentleman drinks tea in the morning with his toast done on one side.

Night night

[bomber]

[quote="Thorsten";p=286768]

Did you or did you not change the licence from GPL2 to GPL on the shuttle?

No.[/quote]


So who's lieing ?

[KL-666]

On the other forum the arguing of the anti-fgmembers club is useless child babble. Children with their undeveloped brains can not think different than in black and white. But adults should be able to see the many shades of gray in between. Laws are not there to be followed by the letter, but by the spirit. In some cases following the letter will cause another grave injustice. Therefore judges rule by the spirit of the law.

In case of no explicit copyright, the author has full ownership. Then it is technically not legal for another to distribute the work. Yet in an environment where basically everything is gpl, one could make assumptions, and distribute it anyway. The best course of action then is to be very clear about the "illegality" of the distributing. In the real world anyone that claims his ownership back, will first demand to take the distribution away. Only second will he go to court. Why? because the judge will ask him: Did you demand to take the distribution of your work down? No? Then go away, no case here until you try that first.

The black and white thinkers on the other forum really make themselves nervous about nothing. In fact their reasoning can cause harm. If they see a child drowning in a pond, they will just leave it drowning if there is a sign: "Forbidden to swim". They go even further and claim that the child is illegally swimming.

Bottom line: Talking black and white about law is very much wasted time.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Well I've tried to explain the good intentions of distributing long forgotten work.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=29671

[bomber]

[quote="Thorsten";p=286814]
Btw.: Must really gall you that Israel couldn't actually find any evidence for me changing a licensing header - because... I didn't do it! That comes from trusting the wrong sort of people who are too liberal with the truth.[/quote]

He so very really answers a straight question... even here I ask did you remove a file, he replies with header..

[IAHM-COL]

[quote="Thorsten";p=286768][quote]Did you or did you not change the licence from GPL2 to GPL on the shuttle?[/quote]

No.[/quote]


So who's lieing ?[/quote]

That's nice.
If he says he has not changed the license, and the SpaceShuttle is still GPL2, unlike what he had told before that this is work containing unlicensed content (I could look for his forum posts if so much needed), again, I say, I he acknowledges the work has been from inception, and always, a GPL2 work; then that's great.

An important acknowledgment.

By him saying so, he is not lying.

If he brings the classical history that the SpaceShuttle carries non-GPL content, then there is where he lies and violates copyright.
For further info see this:

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/SpaceShuttle/issues/3

[IAHM-COL]

So I've completed this flight model, I hand it over and I'm told it has to be GPL..... my reply is which part of my work is derived from the existing fdm, not even the file name is the same ?

Non of it is...and as such no one can demand which licence I choose for my copyrighted work..... all rights reserved to the author... ie me.

They might say, we're not linking to it in the - set file as it's not GPL and that's their right to have rules which say their repository uses only 100% GPL content.... but it's my right to do just that with an alternative version using files derived from the original (which remain GPL) and my fdm.

It's not illegal or immoral.... it's just a mixed licenced plane..

And if a person wants to take it and sell it, they can't unless they remove my CC content.

Hi Simon

1. You are correct.
You can license the FDM you have written as Creative Commons, (or GPL, or any other license of your choice)

So that solves problem #1. Can you license differently than GPL. Yes. You definitely can.

2 . You are not legally allowed to take the FGADDon Beagle, or the FGMEMBERS (GPL) Beagle, and modify it such as it now contains your CC FDM, and it flies better. And it is a mixed license.
Why? (Copyleft clauses prevents you too).

So, basically you can

2.a. Release the FDM for the beagle as an addon. Do not include any content previously licensed as GPL by R. Senior, but offer the FDM in a way that a user can copy it on the Beagle, and get it installed. Your content being only yours, and CC, Richard's content being only his and being GPL. So, an addon without his content allows you to have full copyright ownership, and the ability to license it as you may want/need.
Such FDM (even stand alone) we can place in FGMEMBERS-NONGPL

2.b. Get on a negotiation table with Richard Senior (Sanhozay) about the licenses.

2.b.1: Richard could agree to have a mixed license. He could, per example keep his GPL FDM, in FGADDon and FGMEMBERS; and the plane with both FDMs the GPL and the CC bundled together in an additional Beagle release, more complete and with content from both of you. Such plane can be hosted in FGMEMBERS-NONGPL, and there is nothing preventing you two to reach such agreement. Except R. Senior wanting to maintain his work purely GPL, which he could.

So basically, all authors (both you and he), could agree upon re-releasing additional versions of the Beagle on more complex licenses, and this is perfectly acceptable.

The fact that FGADDon only distributes GPL content clarifies which of the beagles will go there.
But FGMEMBER offers the distribution of GPL only content (FGMEMBERS) and planes with other licenses or mixed licenses (FGMEMBERS-NONGPL)


***

Bottom line, if you want to license the FDM as CC, I advise you
1. do it, and add the license note promptly
2. Talk to R. Senior directly and ask him if he would be ok with re-releasing an alternative Beagle version carrying your FDM (or both FDM), in this case with mixed CC/GPL licenses. If you both agree, then nothing prevents such situation. This is the time to go ahead for bundling contents.
3. If he does not agree, and he says all derivatives of his work must be GPL under copyleft provisions, (this is he does not agree on re-release with new licenses) then you can create your content as an addon. But you couldnt have his content on yours. That is; you cannot bundle and distribute (a.k.a. release)

I think, as far as I understand, this is where it boils down.



Best,
IH-COL

[bomber]

That's rather interesting as if my explanation of GPL and derived work or new work being bundled as it applies to add on planes/content used within flightgear.... it could very much spell the end of fgmembers hosting any further shuttle updates...

You'd think he'd bite my hand off wouldn't you ?

As it is up till now he's issued his work as GPL...

Will reply to your post in a moment....

[bomber]

I think then the definition of bundling as defined by GPL needs to be explored...

If bundling is defined as a collection of different file types all distributed under a single folder... then I see your point....

If however bundling means having multiple authors contributing to a single file contain may different code routines, in which case having a single licence rather than attempting to have multiple licences defined by each author. Which would just result in chaos and be unworkable then my fdm is not bundled in anyway.

I believe it's the latter.... you might well believe it's the former... but clarification of the term bundling within the GPL licence would easily clarify one way or the other.

Simon

[IAHM-COL]

I dont understand very well what is the meaning of your second option above.