Free Flight, Free Speech

First let me say I don't care if Richard is the friend of Satan it has no bearing on this beagle experiment.

Next I'm the author of both the engine and prop xml files, which I've licensed as CC.

This allows Richard to distribute them... he's allowed to modify them but he hasn't. If he did my name would have to be included as co-author in the licensing header of those particular files. And these files would continue to remain CC....

Understand this... I'm not the co-author of his FDM file, even if he calls up those files I'm sole author of. I could be considered co-author of the beagle pup and that would mean my name would have to appear in the set.xml file, as this is the file by which ALL co-authors works are brought together to create a whole. So all the other co-authors of the 3d, 2d, sound, particles, shared instruments etc.

And my set.xml would also need to include these names, which at present they don't, neither does anyone elses.

So to clarify, Richard retains the right to be sole distributor of his work... I've given him permission to distribute my work
I'm not co-author of his work...

Removal of the files I've given him permission to freely distribute, does no one any favours, neither him or me, it's just a spanner in the works of this experiment... which benefits who ?

Satan... I'll tell you.

So I request Richard to re-instate those files such that a single download of his plane version is all that's needed....

bomber wrote:I could be considered co-author of the beagle pup and that would mean my name would have to appear in the set.xml file,

I dont think so, Bomber.

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/Beagle-Pup
Nothing distributed in the Beagle pup is authored by you. I dont see why you claim your name is to appear in these set files.

The Beagle pup remains a GPL work.

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/Beagle-Pup/blob/master/COPYING.txt

Both Richard (Harrison) and you have made addons, and have licensed in a manner that prevents the author of the original work to use it.
But this is the point I object of your assay above. Making an addon that remains separated from the beagle keeps your work separated, and as such you are not entitled to be an author of the Beagle-pup. I dont think so, not for a minute.

You are an author of your patch. That's clear. And you are following the proper proccedures by not including any GPL material into your addon.

In other words, as the Bomber patch remain a separate work, the authorship also is clearly separated.


About Richard Harrison and his bundle. Why exactly he splitted in parts I don't know and I don't care. As I never had cared from propietary software. That's the problem of every author. The free software on the contrary is a communal property and a communal problem (of caring for it and maintaining it, and maintaining it free).

Upon my original criticism, Richard Harrison should have done a very different thing. He should have added an Authors.txt file, and list there which files are "All rights reserved" and which files are "Creative Commons NC-SA". And maybe add a note about the bundle being authorized by you. In other words, a disclosing note to anyone that may get that package, so they know how to treat each file correspondingly. These disclosures are not a courtesy to me. There could be hundreds of people interested in that content, and maybe just a fraction of them reading these forums. A file and a note that clarifies it all. It is a courtesy to all of us.

But again, an now rather unsurprinsingly to me, Richard Harrison decides to take the worst solution of all. He is not being stupid. He is being spiteful and malicious. And by doing so, at least for me, he shows his real colors of why he has chosen to use "All Rights Reserved" to this experiment. In other words he is baiting for an argument, and at the same time stating <<I don't want to enter in licensing discussions>>. Finally, at the first excuse, he pulls off a move that can really endanger the final execution of the experiment itself.

Would he reconsider?

Israel - I think you're missing the point completely. This is an experiment. It's not about licencing and rights it's about development (well at least for me it is).

I've explained why my FDM is still my copyright - it's about making sure that this model doesn't get widely distributed. That's all. I don't want a rubbish FDM with my name on it being distributed. It's an experimental, development FDM, not something that should be included anywhere.

I'm not being spiteful, or malicious; I split the bundle simply because of possibility that I'm infringing copyright - something that I take seriously, and something that I have to take action about as soon as I'm informed of. I'm not well enough informed about the CC licence to actually know whether or not I would be allowed to include Simon's files within the bundle without licencing the whole bundle as CC.

I've changed the -set.xml file to credit Simon and RichardS and make it clear that only the FDM is my copyright. If I need to add an authors.txt then I will.

There is a new bundle on my site now that includes only Simon's and my files and will once again overlay on RichardS's work from FGAddon.

I've put over a month of my spare time into this experiment so far, so it's a bit of a ridiculous accusation to say that I'm endangering the experiment.

The licencing debate is contributing nothing to the experiment; I've seen many things get derailed by endless debates about copyrights and licences, endless threads where the original subject is lost in the noise of rants and debates and the experiment is too important for that to happen.

Would he reconsider?

Reconsider the licence; I've already said that if the result of this is an FDM to be proud of then I will reconsider.

Can you see that your actions are creating conflict where there was none.

Richard wrote:
There is a new bundle on my site now that includes only Simon's and my files and will once again overlay on Richard S's work from FGAddon.

This is what I was hoping you'd reconsider. Good you did.

Yes. I think an Author.txt file would be a good addition, where you specify which files follow what license and specific authorships. As in, anyone downloading such bundle will get clear information on what things are covered under what license.
You can prevent redistributing files you own, but you can't on those you dont. And there is where you must clarify. To everyone.


The reasons why you choose to do propietary work in a free software community are none of my business. and as such I am not asking you to reconsider that part /nor explain yourself/. Remember, you can be the best (FDM modeller and whatever), but everyone, including you, is dispensable. So, in that sense, if I dont get an FDM from you I can play with, test and report; at least I am getting bomber's and R.Senior's.

For what I care you can make the best beagle FDM ever and never license it anything free. We'll figure it out with you or without you for the free software community,.

Hopefully others will see the current license choice of Richard has no relevance on his final choice and continue to test his fdm in the hope that it's the solution to a better fdm.