Free Flight, Free Speech

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=30275

In this topic a user implies that he has a Tu-144 running on his FG.

I can't find any Tu-144 in FGMEMBERS, does anyone know where this might be?

It's here
https://gitlab.com/mdanil/Tu-144

This aircraft is not free software (not GPL, nor Creative Commons). Therefore any form of redistribution/copying/modifying is not permitted.

https://gitlab.com/mdanil/Tu-144/blob/m ... OPYING.TXT

All files included in this package, unless stated otherwise, are distributed
under the following terms.
1. The Author (Michael Danilov <mike.d.ft402 -eh- gmail.com>) permits you to:
1.1. Use this Software for personal virtual flights and multiplayer
observation/recording/traffic control.
1.2. Archive and distribute complete, unmodified copies, provided that you:
Clearly refer to the Author and the License.
Do not receive any kind of compensation in exchange for the copy.
2. Distribution of this software via mass distribution channels focused only on
content aggregation is explicitly forbidden. This includes but is not limited to
so called "aircraft hangars": FGMEMBERS etc.
3. For any usage other than that listed in p. 1 you must have explicit
permission of the Author.
4. The Author has the right to change licensing terms, retract content or revoke
permissions.
5.1. These terms will expire in 500 days after last sighting of the Author.**
Materials that constitute a sighting are dateable document or other form of
communication including but not limited to: printed or hand-written materials,
photography, audio, electronic messages.
5.2. After expiry of the terms the materials must be distributed under terms
of GNU GPL version 3.
The following files are excepted from these terms and are distributed under
their respective license:

Althought the author does clarify he does use some GPL2 files, which is arguable. But irrelevant, ultimately, since you can get those files many other places.

About Numeral 5, it states that the content will become GPL3+ on a given time/date.
But I guess the meaning of the whole paragraph is a mistranslation from Russian, because I don't know what 500 days after "last sighting of the author" means.

Anyhow, in reality, the author will need to make a GPL or CC release in order for FGMEMBERS to carry this content, in either of the collections. Otherwise, we won't.

This, and Vitos Su-15 are similar cases of non-free Software addons for FlightGear FS.


You can call them Malware if you wish ;P [Edit: I fully withdraw this statement, and apologize to Vitos]

IAHM-COL wrote:Althought the author does clarify he does use some GPL2 files, which is arguable. But irrelevant, ultimately, since you can get those files many other places.

No you can't get at the files anywhere, the guy states that he has modified (corrected) the files:

GNU GPL VERSION 2 (LIC/GPL2.TXT) Corrected copies of FlightGear files: gui/dialogs/pushback.xml Models/Goldhofert.xml Sounds/rattleroll.wav Sounds/whine.wav PRules/generic-autopilot.xml

Anyway bundling of gpl and non-gpl is a violation of gpl. You can not say: oh i took so little gpl code, that must be irrelevant surely.

Also it would be interesting to know if it provable has ever been released under gpl. Gpl is not revocable.

Since this guy went to great length to make up his own license, i think with this plane you can not simply ignore the nonsense and bluntly use it gpl. Better go the report way in this case. That is, if you have a problem with this violation of course.

Kind regard, Vincent

I fully agree with KL666

That's why I said before, that such usage of GPL content within fully proprietary material is arguable, which in reality is my moderated way of saying, such usage superseeds the GPL nature of such content, and it is a violation of GPL content usage.

It is very simple: lets unvest this argument of emotionality by putting FlightGear to the side.



Let's say (hypothetically) Microsoft is very interested in a couple of great subroutines used in LibreOffice, and it is interested to use them in their very popular propietary MS OFFICE software suite.


Questions:

Can Microsoft take those subroutines openly, then modify them to suit their proprietary source code?
Can Microsoft keep the source code of the content using these routines, legally non-GPL?
Or does Microsoft stand in violation of GPL by copying/modifying/and distribruting GPL material within propietary code?


These questions apply, one after the other at Michael's usage of GPL2+ content within his purely ALL RIGHTS RESERVED material. So that's why I said before, this usage is [u]arguable[/b].

Well, it depends probably on how extensive the changes are. In case of minor changes, it would be probably against the GPL. If the changes are so extensive that a significant part of the software is actually rewritten, it is not. The problem is the definition of "significant" because it doesn't mean, just number of lines touched (I format sometimes old files to make them better readable, that doesn't establish a significant change). However, actual algorithmic changes or rewriting of 1/3 of the actual statements were used by courts in Germany and the US to establish a "significant" rework.

No all Microsoft has to do is have a readme file containing the list of stated GPL code and an address in which to contact if you want the source code.

it's really simple and as I've said happens all the time.

IAHM-COL wrote:You can call them Malware if you wish ;P

If You are that good, why did't You made comparable model alone, as I did, and then share it under GPL terms?

It took me years to make my model at its level, and I do not want to share if for free with people who at first calls me "fool" at public, and then takes my ideas without mentioning me. I do not even mention making money at ads plus moderating out any mentions of it.

As of Your bunch, it's GPL, and nothing keeps such people from taking ideas and parts from it. And it depends on FG anyway - changing couple of basic properties names, some shader calls, etc, at new FG version would make all models from it unusable. Again and again - while You can not do anything in response.

They can look into Your GPL code, find weak spots in it, something which uses features others don't, and then hit at You - legally completely.

If You would make something better than what they got, they just will take it - again, legally. To take is much faster than to make, so typical over-the-leader-jump could occur without any questions.

I do tell that for sure, since I had both stories already. My "MiG-15", "Vostok-1" models are GPL still anyway. Why community can't make it much better than I made it alone, in five years which I made "Su-15"? Why those people can't make 3D comparable with "Su", or add ejection seat working same way as five different stages of "Vostok-1" works with different aerodynamics and weights? It would be just one sixth of what I made. And "It's COMMUNITY!!! We are FREE!!!", nah. If they are so free, why they are't so free to make something good really?

And as of work not related to me - why those guys at Bombable did't made missiles visible to opponent at mp - in years? It took just week or so of single me to make it. And why, why, did not they just took the code of that mp missiles protocol when I proposed it to them at GPL?

It's quite simple - just because it would mean that I am an equal. They just want to make less but be more - to take that part as something underneath, with other name at cover; and, moreover, not to get into it, not to comprehend it - but me to do all that instead of them. "Kill Your kid, and give it to us to eat.". Haha. Aren't You same as them really? You had possibility to implement that protocol at Your stuff, why did not You made it, huh?

GPL could be heaven, and could be hell. It depends on people. With FG its hell, and You cant' help it. If it was heaven, we would talk about flights to Alpha Centauri at FG already - at common place, not at some subforum existed due to conflicts at main one - which are just post-products of hidden conflicts at lower levels.

As of free speech - I seriously doubt You could stay conversation of that type long.

Welcome to the forum Vitos,

I am sorry to hear that you feel (and maybe are) mistreated in several ways. I do not know much about the issues you mention. But it is good that you come to discuss them, so some of them can hopefully get cleared up.

Kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote:mistreated

Sounds like Deep Purple song. Well, I do not think it would be cleared. I messed with FG long years, and do not think so. To me all mechanics behind words and solutions here and there is quite obvious - same powah and outority as anywhere else, even more hard maybe, since it's fake for most of participants finally. But You may try.

Just to try to fly that "Su-15" model - at least to read wiki page and manual to figure out what it is - and read forums about these three models, taking in mind a lot of what which said was moderated out later.

Good to see you here Vitos.

First let me say I think it was unfortunately rude of IAHM-COL to call your work 'malware'... I find it to be the symptom of the failure initiated by Fg's core developers to understand why dedicated vehicle creators wish to not release their work as GPL or even CC.

I have 10 Avro Lancaster variants and 3 Avro Manchester variants that I've spent years on and I refuse to release them GPL or CC.. I'd like be able to share them for people to experience but not at the cost of someone being able to sell these models or abuse them as we've seen with adding a HUD to a Spitfire or reducing the authentic prop torque of the P51 because it's too hard to fly.

Flightgear as it stands is simply not the vehicle to showcase this type of work. And it's core developers refuse to see any benefits for accommodating the wishes of this type of dedicated vehicle author.

Like you that's not to say I don't do GPL or CC work and contribute to the community but take exception to the criticism when I hold some of my work closest to my heart back.. Why people can't accept my descision, and just take the free gifts I offer without resorting to calling names I cant understand. But I do feel the root of it lies with the FG core developers and their desire to maintain a strong hold/control over what should be an open design environment but in reality is nothing of the sort.

It's sad is all I have to say.