GPL, does it work for you.

[Octal450]

Its 1.1525172847 of a plane, obviously.

Kind Regards,
Josh

[hans05]

@IAHM-COL
GPL is based on the copy left idea, but the two are not the same. There are other licenses based on copy left that differ from GPL.
Maybe not important as such, but I think it would be better to discuss a concrete license which in our case would be GPL.

@people
I personally prefer reality to theoretical discussion. So for me a pragmatic approach to what is possible in GPL or not would be to try out what I like to do. So my top-tip to Octal450 would have been to create a license that fits exactly to what he likes for his own files and leave the already GPLed files GPL. Whether or not that is legal is obviously not 100% clear (or there would not be so much discussion about it). I would still do it and wait. Chances are that nobody will ever bother to sue you. And even IF some idiot does sue you, then it is (in my opinion) more than probable that she would lose in court.
I think so because Richard Stallman (I think we can agree that he is the brain behind GPL?!?) in interviews has always made clear that GPL is NOT about prohibiting making profit or prohibiting to protect your code. The only background is to enable anybody to look at the code (in order to find e.g. backdoors or faults) and correct the code if necessary. For yourself you can do changes any time, IF you want to distribute your changes then you can not change the license from the original which is logical since you have not created the code, you just changed it a bit.
Therefore I would agree to bomber in assuming that every file the Octal450 has not only changed, but written entirely himself does not have to respect GPL.
The discussion about "entities of files" or a "functional entity" in the FG-forum thread is (in my opinion) missing the point. As far as I know, this part of the GPL tried to handle the situation that if your newly written code file has static includes to libraries that are under GPL, then the compilation result is a mixture of your code and the library's code. Therefore it is logical that the compilation result must be GPL if the library is GPL.
That's all.
No mention about airplanes, 3D-models or XML files. None of that fits to the original thoughts of GPL and again I agree with bomber that the FG-guys apply wishful thinking and no more.

But then again I am no lawyer. So in the end a judge in court will have the last word on this. If it ever comes that far which -as already written- I extremely doubt

[hans05]

1) 3D is not that difficult on a basic level. I had NO 3D experience what so ever and still started to work on EC665 (FGUK). I can tell you that blender is VERY time consuming, but I managed to do changes that I wanted. Probably I needed 10 times the time a real 3D person would take, but then I consider this an apprenticeship.

It is for me. I have problems because I am a perfectionist. And when I tried to do the 3D in blender it was too much guesswork (click and drag to what looks good etc.) Annoys me, plus I am very very bored by 3D modelling.

I am also perfectionist. But believe me, with age comes the wisdom that nothing is ever really perfect. If you look at a real aircraft, it will always have imperfections, dents and systems that do not work perfectly. So in conclusion, if you want to model a real aircraft perfectly, you must be imperfect
But I do understand that 3D modelling is not everybody's cup of tea. For me it is just that I would like to control ALL of my aircraft so 3D modelling is part of it even though not the most fun.

2) If you doubt that people will use your license, then maybe your idea of license isn't that great after all. But honestly, if your planes are good enough I would guess that a lot of people do not care about your license and use it.

No, I mean I doubt the 3D guys would allow it that I work with. Users don't really care that much.

Yeah, I did understand your point of 3D guys having problems. But again, if your aircraft is so excellent than chances are that one day you will find somebody who will still do the modelling for it.
The little problem is that such a person must be totally different than you because he must be ok with the fact to lose control over his 3D model to you while you do not want to lose control over your stuff. So such a person must be double-tolerant

And why you would not name people who are pissing you off in FG forum? I might even indeed tell them if I knew the names

Because they are "coo-coos"- and who knows what they will do.

Don't be afraid of them. The worst they can do is to ban you from the forum (they are already treating you in a bad way, so that one is already lost). If they ban you, you just create a new account.
And even ME is not yet banned from there, so.....

I understand that you have no interest in their planes. But, as you stated above, the interesting part is how they manage their planes. But I noticed that there is a big difference between you and them. They seem to not care if somebody steals code. In the opposite, they are happy if others would be using their stuff since well, they take (from others) and they give. That is also my preferred way.
Anyway, I now understand better what you are after. You really mind if people use your code and that said, FGUK is probably not a role model for you.

Well yes but actually no. I don't mind if someone uses my code as long as i am aware of it, and I am the one to give permission. But not free take.

Sorry, again I formulated wrongly. I wrote "mind if people use your code" but I actually meant "mind if people use your code and mess with it".
I think I understood what you are after

I start to like you more Hans, you actually willing to listen to people who have a differing opinion.

If you are a person who listens to people who have differing opinion than we are already two. Lets try to be three and more. I think tolerance is the glue that holds together society. And what is missing from the Curts, Thorstens and many others in FG-forum. And that again motivates me (from time to time) to write something there.

So sad if you leave FG because then I am all alone again

[bomber]

Just to clarify, being banned is not a simple case of just creating a new account....

[bomber]

Now they're just making stuff up...

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 76ff1e3b6c

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 6c#p355232

As the copyright holder, you can't conceptually be forced by the license what you decide to release - but if you release the sources, others have to re-distribute them.

Distributing 'all your sources' would certainly be in the spirit of the GPL, but I don't see how you could possibly violate any law if you do not include such things into a release.

That is actually said in a manner that facilitates misunderstanding of the facts; and for anyone that reads the GPLs (v2 or v3), the correct situation is spelled directly.

GPL requires the release of sources, in order to be compliant. One does not need to include the sources in the package (ie a program or a FG Aircraft). One is recommended to offer the sources by some other method, like a link where people can access them. On the absence of this, the sources must be available upon request: not delivering the sources upon request is again, non compiance with GPL.

One thing to keep in mind is that most GPL software is actually offered in source form; and it is expected to be compiled from the source by the final users. Distributions of opensource do sometimes distribute compiled binaries, in order to make it easier to a broader group of people.

[IAHM-COL]

@IAHM-COL
GPL is based on the copy left idea, but the two are not the same. There are other licenses based on copy left that differ from GPL.
Maybe not important as such, but I think it would be better to discuss a concrete license which in our case would be GPL.

True that. There are many licenses which are copyleft. GPL one of them, which is my point.

The interesting thing is that while copyleft is a very simple concept, still we seem to be able to juggle lots of theories of how it can be not applicable to specific interests we bear, occasionally.

[D-ECHO]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36434&sid=df6003a3d6a2d1e570f01576ff1e3b6c#p355232

As the copyright holder, you can't conceptually be forced by the license what you decide to release - but if you release the sources, others have to re-distribute them.

Distributing 'all your sources' would certainly be in the spirit of the GPL, but I don't see how you could possibly violate any law if you do not include such things into a release.

That is actually said in a manner that facilitates misunderstanding of the facts; and for anyone that reads the GPLs (v2 or v3), the correct situation is spelled directly.

GPL requires the release of sources, in order to be compliant. One does not need to include the sources in the package (ie a program or a FG Aircraft). One is recommended to offer the sources by some other method, like a link where people can access them. On the absence of this, the sources must be available upon request: not delivering the sources upon request is again, non compiance with GPL.

One thing to keep in mind is that most GPL software is actually offered in source form; and it is expected to be compiled from the source by the final users. Distributions of opensource do sometimes distribute compiled binaries, in order to make it easier to a broader group of people.

Hey Israel,
thanks for the commentary on the subject. Would you mind clarifying these two, as I'm really not sure about that?
1. Does that mean that publishing something under a license i.e. giving rights to other people by the license and in certain ways recouncing on one's copyright give others a legal handle to force me into doing something, e.g. releasing the sources. Also, does that mean that I technically can be sued for not providing the sources when I'm no longer active online although my work is still in FGAddon?
2. What is your take on whether .xcf, .svg and .blend files are "source code"/source and therefor must be distributed?

Thank you very much, really.

[bomber]

Although not asked for I'll give my opinion....

GPL is quite clear that the 'source' has to be made available.

If your work in producing a 2d texture is done in paintshop and then converted to a .png or .jpg, by making only these available you are not making available the source.... Which is the .psd

Simon

[D-ECHO]

Makes sense, thank you