About trenches

[KL-666]

because the material is publicly accessible it is released into the public to use as you like?

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294665&sid=1f44231ee9b7fa42556601a43a9c22dc#p294682

"to use as you like" is a new addition, but i can go into that. In all cases the material is definitely released by the sheer fact that it is accessible. Yet it depends on the license what you can do with it. In case of gpl it means that you can do as you like with it. I'm very sorry, but that is how it is.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

Just to see if I am getting delusional Thorsten's argument correctly: he is saying that one should take this material as if GPL licensed or any other of free-License, as a matter of fact?
Or is he saying, because there is material that is not GPL, then GPL can be treated as such?

Mind-boggling

http://www.warnerbros.com/terms

Your Use of Material: Your right to make use of this Site and any Material or other content appearing on it is subject to your compliance with these Terms of Use. Modification or use of the Material or any other content on this Site for any purpose not permitted by these Terms of Use may be a violation of the Copyrights and/or Trademarks and is prohibited.
You may access and display Material and all other content displayed on this Site for non-commercial, personal, entertainment use on a single computer only. The Material and all other content on this Site may not otherwise be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, distributed or used in any way unless specifically authorized by Warner. Any authorization to copy Material granted by Warner in any part of this Site for any reason is restricted to making a single copy for non-commercial, personal, entertainment use on a single computer only, and is subject to your keeping intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. Using any Material on any other web site or networked computer environment is prohibited. Also, decompiling, reverse engineering, disassembling, or otherwise reducing the code used in any software on this Site into a readable form in order to examine the construction of such software and/or to copy or create other products based (in whole or in part) on such software, is prohibited.

I may be naive, but that read NON-GPL to me. Not even covered by any sort of free license.

[bomber]

Bomber wrote :
But that's not what occurred here... why not stick to what happened as a perfectly good example ?

Thorsten used GPL content and public domain content.. to this was added a small amount of his own work which at the time was wanted to be non-GPL.
Thorsten then distributed the total content via a public forum (which I demonstrated and Curt agreed by deleting it, is not private or 'internal only' even if I include a statement saying otherwise)

I think we all agree that:
The GPL and public domain content of Thostens distribution cannot be covered by his statement
The non-GPL content of Thostens distribution can be covered by his statement as he owns copyright on this material.

The problem arises when a person wishes to redistribute (as the licence permits) the GPL and public domain material.

Thorstens expectation is that others must identify and 'strip out' the non-GPL content before doing so.
Is this a reasonable expectation ?

I personally think it's not a reasonable expectation, and I don't think it's in the letter or spirit of GPL, which I'm continually told is at the core of Flightgear ethos. Thorstens actions and requirements are an attempt to make it harder to redistribute GPL material. Not impossible but certainly a lot harder and in a manner which would make the content non-functional, so for all intent and purpose a waste of time distributing, thus a stealth way of preventing redistribution.

GPL does allow for code to be embedded within non-GPL material as long as anyone asking would receive the GPL code in it's original format... but this is not what's occurring here.
Neither is it as Thorsten would have you believe the relicensing of non-GPL material simply because of a suspicion of GPL content within.

Thorstens premise is that having added this 'for internal use' statement on this material that others shouldn't be able to redistribute it. Not just as a 'club rule' of gentlemanly behaviour but more importantly as a point of international copyright law.
Thorstens belief is that although he might have made 'an error of judgement', those redistributing it actually broke the law, and as such accuses them publicly of theft.

Thorstens initial desire to not see the content redistributed was to not be pestered by users with error reports as he knew what was wrong with the content... Surely then the inclusion of a statement along with the redistribution expressing Thorstens non pestering desires shows some movement towards appeasing his wishes whilst at the same time following the spirit of GPL and redistributing.

The question is which party acted more reasonable...

The party that attempts to limit the redistribution of GPL and public domain material or the party that attempts to redistribute whilst at the same time appeasing the core wish of the Author ?

Simon

[bomber]

Does anyone remember those shaped blocks you had as a baby, that you'd fit into the correct holes...

It's kinda like Thorsten is fitting the octagonal block into the circular hole and thinkings he'd done it...

He simply fails to accept posting a link on a public forum is distributing your material to the public.

[KL-666]

Yes, i too see a man completely out of touch with the internet reality. Actually i think it is a hopeless case, running in circles all the time with his arguments. As long as it does not lead to excesses like libel, i'd just leave him and hope that his convictions do not get him convicted some day.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

I think you're correct about Thorsten.... and I simply don't understand how someone supposedly as intelligent as Curt refuses to see the error in thinking.

I deliberately crossed a line, internationally

And the buttons I was pressing were yours... I saw you were logged on.

This is a private forum in that you need to be a member to post..... however it's very much a public forum when it comes to reading.

I demonstrated this.... and as reasoned debate was getting nowhere and you or the moderators were making no attempt to correct Thorsten from misleading this community into thinking that you could post links on here and magically call them 'internal' publication. I felt I was left with the only course of drastic action.

You put me in that position by your passive support of Thorsten, so I put you in a position where you had to act.

Thorsten uses example after example but never uses the case in point....
He uses FSF FAQ's but they're always off target and never about what represents a public distribution.

[KL-666]

What the hell is this? I have not seen such thing in my life.

Re: What is a fork (split from How the project works)

Postby curt » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:33 am

You have stated directly and it is noted that you are deliberately crossing lines and manipulating issues and attempting to push people's buttons here. As a result I am posting this public notice of your 4th ban on this forum. Normally bans are a way to let emotions cool off and flame fest settle down, but clearly in your situation your behavior here is conscious and deliberate.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294830#p294830

That forum bans you for debating "conscious and deliberate"? How did you want to have it Curt? "Unconscious and arbitrary"? Like the only qualification that can be given for this ban. You have done your forum a great disservice by showing off your adolescent biasedness like this.

Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

"Unconscious and arbitrary"

A good description of Thorsten's line of thought.

[KL-666]

So he is in line with that forums rules, and therefore he shall not be banned....

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

A dictator, like Curtis, nor his freinds and helpers, are bound to the rules. They make the rules. I offered in another post all persecuted asylum here because everybody else there is now subject to unmitigated whims.
So ... in another good old American tradition, I opened the door for the oppressed ... means, I will get next time some hate mails, I guess?