GPL, does it work for you.

[hans05]

@Octal450
I just read about the legoboy-thing in FG-forum and that is a real bummer.
If I understood this right, legoboy was only pretending to be friendly to you in order to steal away your project from you?!??

Was that person such a good liar or are you not very good in analyzing people? I mean, getting betrayed like that is even in FG standards quite huge.
Legoboy, if you read this: You should be ashamed for the rest of your life.

Octal450, I feel really sorry for you and I hope that you do not lose believe in men as such! In my experience RL contacts are to be much preferred....

Does anybody here know if such a super-toxic ambiance like in FG is seen in any other open source project? I mean, people complain about Linus Torwalds for being rude (and they are right), but Linus is straight in your face and not stabbing your back.

[IAHM-COL]

Hey Israel,

Hey Benedict,

thanks for the commentary on the subject. Would you mind clarifying these two, as I'm really not sure about that?

You're welcome. You might be better informed by a copyright lawyer with experience in FOSS.
I can kindly give you my informed point of view, but legal topics are not my professional career.

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 Also, does that mean that I technically can be sued for not providing the sources when I'm no longer active online although my work is still in FGAddon?

That would be an strange position to be. If no one compelled you to release GPL then no one has compelled you to release sources. You agreed to release them the moment you choose to GPL your material.

If you choose not to comply with the license you freely had chosen, by restricting access to sources, you might find yourself in the position of being asked for pertinent sources. If at that point you choose to persist in being intentionally not compliant, and a third party, who is interested in the sources has collected evidence of your intentionally withdrawal of sources, you would be placing yourself in legal jeopardy. It will cost them money and time, but still you could land on a legal order to comply. If you posses the sources and you,ve released in GPL, I find no logical explanation why would you put yourself in a loosing position like this one, with the associated legal and financial liability.

A more logical course of action is that you recognize the required release of sources you agreed upon GPL releasing your material, and either make all sources available openly or upon request.

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.

XCF, SVG and BLEND files are all widely recognized as sources files for bitmaps 2d and 3d. They clearly fit the description of the data sources where change is more easily implemented.

These make sense to become available as indicated above.

[Octal450]

Sorry it was a misunderstanding.
Legoboyvdlp is a great guy and developer and I am proud to work with him then and now.

Kind Regards,
Josh

[IAHM-COL]

2. What is your take on whether .xcf, .svg and .blend files are "source code"/source and therefor must be distributed?

XCF, SVG and BLEND files are all widely recognized as sources files, etc

As a second note; I think I might be understanding your question here a little better. So, allow me to expand. And do so with an example.

Let's say a brilliant developer named itouchyourballs, writes an elegant piece of software that preprocesses text in order to scramble anyword written by a person in a forum whose nickname is buggy-man-the-pompous-ass.
(We all can agree that would be a seriously useful piece of software, but that is tangential and beyond the point);

Now, itouch releases the thing on GPL but as a compiled binary.

IAHM-COL loves the freaking thing to death and wants to expand its functionality to include another nickname for a renown arse by location in finland. So IAHM-COL looks for the sources of the brilliant piece of code by itouch, but don't find it anywhere so he sends itouch a letter that says

What's up Josh, can you provide me the source code of that elegant program that you released in GPL?

And here's the gist.

Off course, GPL does mean that itouch will not be touchy with the source code, and therefore sends it by email. He won't say, --since he is a senseful and the straightest man alive -- that "only the binary is GPL but the code aint, sorry". (Leave that sort of distortion of realities to the finnish Equidae)

Yet, when IAHM-COL receives the source code and its a piece written not in C++, but in damn Rust.

Game over for IH, poor guy has not been able to put brain on any rusty scramble. Now, if only Josh will produce serious source code written in real language, say python or c++, (and what the F is that thing .nasal doing embedded in the rusty code?, is a different part of the problem!!! :@)

But the situation here is that Josh has produced HIS source code. And now GPL tells something different to IH-COL.
No Warranty for any particular purpose
(in English: Go learn Rust and Nasal or you are SOOL)

***

If you get the point of my legend you'll realize that no-one can ever force you to release an SVG if you actually created the JPG/PNG binaries with gimp, and stored your sources as XCFs. Just release/produce upon request the XCFs and be blessed.

The blend file is a similar situation. Because an AC3 files IS a source code file (which is used and operated with the non opensource software AC3D)
Now, AC3D is hideous, and the AC3->BLEND scripts in blender fail to do a neat job 90 percent of the time, granted. If you happen to have your sources as .Blend then provide them is gracious and expected. But if not; as the developer, you would hardly be forced to produce a source that you don't even used or created, etc. That's like waiting for itouch to translate the code to C++ because that would be an industry standard. It just, doesnt work that way.


---
Edit: per Josh request, a clarification that he is the straightest man alive has been included.

[Octal450]

I do not appreciate you turning my former username into a gay thing. I am not a gay. Not funny.

Kind Regards,
Josh

[hans05]

@Octal450
Two of my best friends are gay. One of them male other one female.
No need to emphasize that you do not want to be held for gay, it is not a bad thing to be gay. It is very very clear that Israel was just trying to be funny and it was not specifically about calling you gay.
I do understand if you generally dislike abuse of your name though, don't get me wrong!

First thing I had in my had when reading "itouchyourballs" was that you might have had a firm grip on members in your project. Which -you know that- I think is the right thing to do
So I admit that I found it funny (the entire rest I still find funny).

Legoboy (now you've brought it up I find this also a bit gay and you now know I do not find that a bad thing ) thing is something I find REALLY unacceptable. You keep relatively calm.
Oh, I have not read the last 10 posts of the boom-thread which I will do after writing this. But let me give you an advice:
To me it seems that the core-group-of-asholes are preparing you for shoot down (banning). They provoke you and your language gets more and more aggressive. That's their standard trick to officially get rid of you "for good reason". So maybe you could manage to be less aggressive (e.g. against bugman)?!? I personally replace my aggression with irony and sarcasm. Feels just as good to me and I guess it is one reason I am not yet banned (surprisingly).
Just a friendly suggestion, no warning or command or anything in that direction.

I have to repeat, that for age of only 19 you are doing brilliantly, also in the forum!!

[edit] I just read the rest of "boom" and legoboy-taking-your-project-thread and I think you are doing just fine

[IAHM-COL]

I do not appreciate you turning my former username into a gay thing. I am not a gay. Not funny.

Kind Regards,
Josh

Hey Octal450,
No gay connotation implied. Per Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... my%20balls

[123apple]

@Octal450
I just read about the legoboy-thing in FG-forum and that is a real bummer.
If I understood this right, legoboy was only pretending to be friendly to you in order to steal away your project from you?!??

You are wrong, but then of course, you never care about being right - only being a pathetic person that only lives to stir up trouble in the hidden anonymity of online, so then I will not waste time on you

[Octal450]

@Octal450
Two of my best friends are gay. One of them male other one female.
No need to emphasize that you do not want to be held for gay, it is not a bad thing to be gay. It is very very clear that Israel was just trying to be funny and it was not specifically about calling you gay.
I do understand if you generally dislike abuse of your name though, don't get me wrong!

Whether or not one thinks being gay is bad or not is not really something I'd like to discuss here. (and did I say it was?) You are welcome to DM me if you'd like my thoughts on it, but it doesn't seem appropriate for this topic.
However, being a straight man, I do not want to be confused with gay. I would personally not want to be gay.

First thing I had in my had when reading "itouchyourballs" was that you might have had a firm grip on members in your project. Which -you know that- I think is the right thing to do
So I admit that I found it funny (the entire rest I still find funny).

I did not found it funny at all.

@Israel
That doesn't match what you said. At all. So ???????????????????

Kind Regards,
Josh

[IAHM-COL]

@Israel
That doesn't match what you said. At all. So ???????????????????

#donttouchmyballs