Here we go again...

[KL-666]

The deal is really quite simple. Copyright is copyright. So if Israel decides to include all rights reserved in a repository, he should state that it is "illegally" there, instead of changing the copyright to CC. That would be the most straightforward way. So i would expect not a repository FGMEMBERS-NONGPL, but a repository FGMEMBERS-NONLEGAL. Copying is not the worst thing one can do. From there wait for the raction of the original author.

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

Agreed @KL666 and @Bomber

This is what I'm going to do
I'm going to remove the temporary CC, and leave a LICENSE file that says:
"The copryright holder <name here> has not declared a license for this work yet. FGMEMBERS has contacted them via email <date here> and waiting for a response on what license (if any) covers this work"

Then, I'm emailing the author, and waiting for them to clarify their intentions.
(I wish GPL is the answer).

When the author replies, well... we (I) will honor their stated intentions, as opposed to guess for the best (they want their work to be distributed) or the worst (they want their work to disappear in an aged 6+ years link)

I think the fair here is letting them clarify. (and be proactive towards getting a response)

Best,
IAHM-COL

[IAHM-COL]

Okay, not exactly the subject, but I have a question about this license thing. Lets say, a certain sometimes slightly senile plane tinkerer forgot to add his name to the authors list (lets say in some dozen planes O.O) because some things were only relative small fixes and expansions ... now this makes this part of the plane "undefined license", right? Which means, a source code stealing clown like Thorsten could come and say, said plane tinkerer didn't say explicitly so there is a non-GPL part in the plane ... maybe with a bit drooling and threatening the tinkerer to go to court if he ever says, it was supposed to be GPL. I mean, those guys over there are that crazy.
So, is there a thing like a blanket license. "If you see a plane in FG and I did work on it and forgot to write my name on it or explicit to write, my work is GPL, it is per definitionem GPL"? Because if I, for whatever reasons, want something else, I will write so explicitly.

Not an easy - straight topic JWocky.
About Licenses: The reality is; when in doubt contact your lawyer

But this is how it goes in most cases (only a court of law rules):
If you modify a GPL work (a work a previous author_s GPLed, then you have no option but to keep the work GPLed. You don't need to add a notice. Since it is already there. You can feel free to add -a posteriori- your name to the authors tag.

No amount of work is too little.

But importantly, no amount of work is so much that it grants you a right to decide to, let's say, change the license out of GPL. That's what Copy Left is protecting you from.

No part of "a plane", or a software remains unlicensed. Because of copy-left.

Example.
Lets say Charles made a dummy 3d model and licensed it GPL.
Jules can make an FDM for Charles model, and modify that model to make it flyable. The result, by provisions of copy left MUST REMAIN GPL.
You can have a complete revamping of the work, but everytime you start from Charles dummy model, you are bound to his license, and there's only 3 ways to get off that (the loopholes)

1) start from zero. Make your own 3d model, and disregard charles work. This makes you sole copyright owner of the new work
2) don't bundle with Charles.
This is, you can make a Charle's plane add-on and dont add any of the Charles content onto yours, and say, this is the FDM that would work with Charles plane, and instruct your users to get your material and give them instructions how to patch Charles'
By NON-BUNDLING, then all your work is self contained, and you can say you are sole propietary owner of such addon and license as you wish, disregarding Charles' GPL provision.
3) Agree with Charles (+ any additional author) to change the license, and re-launch the software under new license. (this does not invalidates the previous license on older content, but does allow companies/people/etc to offer more restrictive material on advanced options, and less restrictive material on a more general content)

But
The way we do in FG, that is, just copy Charles' content and modify it such the plane now flies, bounds us to the GPL they left.

Which, for me is not a problem. Since my vote is everytime for GPL.

Best,
IH-COL

__Relevant additional read
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

[bomber]

As I understand it so far you hold copyright on your work. By modifying existing code ie derived from this file (code) must remain GPL...

However if you'd added an include line in the code pointing to a separate new file then you could have created that file with any licence you wish.

[bomber]

Example.
Lets say Charles made a dummy 3d model and licensed it GPL.
Jules can make an FDM for Charles model, and modify that model to make it flyable. The result, by provisions of copy left MUST REMAIN GPL.
You can have a complete revamping of the work, but everytime you start from Charles dummy model, you are bound to his license, and there's only 3 ways to get off that (the loopholes)

No this is not the case, and nothing I read so far says otherwise.

The key wording is 'derived'..... not associated with.

The plane as a whole is not GPL only it's files ie the work... the 3d model is a completely separate peice of work using different tools and skills and is only linked to the fdm via another file xml-set.... even the texture associated with the 3d model is not derived from the 3d model as it uses no part of the 3d model.

There is no such thing as a copyrighted planein FG and as such you can't apply a GPL plane licence, there are just files that are grouped together to make a whole plane... and as such can be easily unassociate or associated with a different file.

The example you give is my no.1 gripe with a certain French man's behaviour as it's hog tieing plane development.

Simon.

[IAHM-COL]

Not bundled. That's the point.

You can't loophole around copyleft, bomber.

The reason is that GPL is to protect a middle-man to take proprietariness over the software.
Have you read the Copyleft document I linked?

The case is this.
You made a piece of software. You release it GPL.
I take your software, and use the GPL to modify it. Let's say I make it better, more appealing, more convenient for users.
Then I make My changes Propietary. (as in Windows or MacOS EULAS' type of propietariness)

That way, this supposed me, had removed the GPL nature of the content, by making the old GPL rather useless now, and the only useful software be "mine" in propietary terms.

Copyleft prevents that from the root.

If I agree on copying / modifying /redistributing my modifications of YOUR GPL software, I do so, by agreeing instantly to the copyleft clause, that imply I am forced to distribute my improvements as GPL, or not distribute them at all.

This means, that you could take my modifications as well, as they must be GPL and use them in your work.

(or a third person for that matter)

What Copyleft is doing is protecting a middle man to make propietary all the wealth of software that has already been GPLed.

In that sense, the only way you could release your mods in a propietary manner is by NOT-Bundling your content with GPL content AT ALL, and instead, release your content as a "optional" addon.

(as it is done in Linux modules)

[IAHM-COL]

The example you give is my no.1 gripe with a certain French man's behaviour as it's hog tieing plane development.

Simon.

GPL prevents the french hog to tie the development. He cant' prevent I from forking away, and develop. If he does not take my changes, he looses them.

A very classical FGMEMBERS/FGADDon situation.

And it is OK as soon as FGMEMBERS does not change the initial license.

[IAHM-COL]

I'm going to sleep
Get to read Copyleft (there's ton on information on this)

And tomorrow (for me) we continue

Have fun
IH-COL

[bomber]

I'll continue as I've just got out of bed it being 8:15 in the morning here.

I don't even look at other peoples flight models...if some one asks for an fdm for their plane I can't reuse their existing fdm....

With the beagle pup as an example I've looked at the existing, but only to attempt to show people different approaches to resolve issues.

So I've completed this flight model, I hand it over and I'm told it has to be GPL..... my reply is which part of my work is derived from the existing fdm, not even the file name is the same ?

Non of it is...and as such no one can demand which licence I choose for my copyrighted work..... all rights reserved to the author... ie me.

They might say, we're not linking to it in the - set file as it's not GPL and that's their right to have rules which say their repository uses only 100% GPL content.... but it's my right to do just that with an alternative version using files derived from the original (which remain GPL) and my fdm.

It's not illegal or immoral.... it's just a mixed licenced plane..

And if a person wants to take it and sell it, they can't unless they remove my CC content.

[jwocky]

Well, for me, this is basically what I needed. If I forget to mark my work explicitly, the original GPL takes over and everything including what I did is GPL ... I was only afraid, to get in an undefined state about that, if I forget to write it explicitly. So ... copy-left saves my sorry rear.

Enjoy your coffee, Simon, it's 3:30am here and I go to bed!