About trenches

[bomber]

5. There were few exceptions: One exception was Dave Culp. Who indicated me he forgot to indicate the works were CC for every of his work listed, exception the pc7, with E. Hoffman

.

Really..... so there's no dave culp work on fgaddon?

Wow.

[IAHM-COL]

the pc7 is now there. After Erick Hoffman and I together put the plane back together out of the trash-bin, and updated it FG2016.3, then Erick imported it on FGADDOn.

That makes it David Culp work on FGADDon.

IH-COL

[IAHM-COL]

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgaddon/HEAD/tree/trunk/Aircraft/pc7/

The same content as in FGMEMBERS

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/pc7


You can even read the README of FGADDon, literally says:

Code: Select all

**Original Readme (with small editions by IAHM-COL)**

Furthermore, the normal map used was made by me. And implemented by Erick.

Dave Culp is among the authors.

[IAHM-COL]

I gota love the idea that if you licence a work as GPL, basically give it away. You have some fairy tale idea that you can then ask a person not to use it... and that they'll comply...

Fumb Duck.

Yup. Mind-buggling.
This work is GPL for you, but it aint for him!!

It just doesn't work that way.

Also, you can put these statements together, coherently:

I am fully aware now of what the GPL means , and totally agree with the principles of sharing. I can not digest actually that my repo was savagely dumped without my permission

They just dont belong to the same thought process.


I don't blame daweed. I think he has just been awkardly confused by the Thorsten rethoric that has been allowed to stand unstopped by the FG core group (like Curt).

He feels, enemies have taken his work in a way he can't prevent for happening. Where did he get this antipathic reaction towards FGMEMBERS and terraGIT? you may ask? (nah! it is redundant!)

[OPFOR77]

only authours can initiate legal action. As well as only authors really know their original intentions and what is the correct action to be taken And they cannot do before contacting me about such, and requesting a reversal. That is, their legal case is, at most, weak, if they don't prove that they've done as needed to find a negotiation of the conflict.

Just because an author isn't pressing charges or bringing litigation doesn't mean that you didn't do something illegal. Until a work is explicitly licensed by the author or the author's legal representative, it falls under no license, which means the author retains full copyright.

1. Every aircraft with license undeclared corresponds to works that have been abandoned or stop progressing many years (7-or more). There was a time on FG where people assumed GPL and authors ommited adding the comment/License in their contents. Such omission wasnt seen as out of the norm, but they were indeed working under FG umbrella (that is their intend was GPL)

Copyright law doesn't care if a work is abandoned or if it has stopped progressing. And 7 years is nowhere even close to the amount of time it takes for the copyright to be released.

From http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-basics/:
For works published after 1977, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, if the work is a work for hire (that is, the work is done in the course of employment or has been specifically commissioned) or is published anonymously or under a pseudonym, the copyright lasts between 95 and 120 years, depending on the date the work is published.

2. The author, leaves, and his work becomes an obscure link somewhere. Mainstream (or upstream) abandoned those works. Essentially, one could consider that the authors' intention wasn't that these works became lost for ever, and thus intentionally omitted the license. By hosting these works in the FGMEMBERS-NONGPL collection I am attempting at preventing these little flames to be put off. Trying to rescue these works of oblivion.

Your intentions and the authors unstated intentions don't matter, you're still illegally distributing copyrighted materials.

3. I pro-actively emailed every single author of all these unlicensed work.

Doesn't change the fact that you illegally distributed copyrighted materials.

4. Just as expected; Every author that replied, did in fact indicate, very kindly, that the work was intended for GPL. There's a thread on this forum where I left the evidence

Doesn't change the fact that your illegally distributed copyrighted materials. The license wasn't stated at all when you were distributing, and you cannot pick which license you want, as it falls under no license as previously stated.

6. For the exception above is why I decided not to grant full GPL to the works were the license was undeclared. It is easier to change my mind opening more freedoms to any piece of work, than change my mind attempting to close freedoms granted. That is: if someone wants to take a mis-placed CC content, where a GPL version already exits, that person is just loosing freedoms already granted in the GPL. Nothing much else.

This is illegal. You don't have ANY freedoms granted in the first place! You can't add a license to a no-license work because you aren't the author nor are you the authors legal representative.

7. A last exception is two authors that I know are active withing the core of FG developers, that have not yet given me a frank, and honest answer of what license covers their work. If they wish to initiate court action, the fact that I address them for an advise of howto proceed, and they have not given me yet, a response, just makes everything clearer on why I have not taken the appropriate action: of which there are 3. Options: Option 1) the work is GPL and gets transferred to the proper collection. Option 2: The option is a non-GPL license with Share-Alike permissions, for which the license of the work is simply ammended to reflect the correct licensing, or Option 3) the work is unlicensed and All rights reserved. At this situation I will drop the content, no questions asked.

If they won't tell you what license covers their work, then it falls under no license, which means it is copyrighted and you cannot distribute or re-license it.

Option 3 is the default here, there's no way around it.

But as bomber clearly points out, the only person(s) able to clarify the licensing question in these works and determine what is the next plan of action is (are) the authors themselves. Bugman can feel there's an infridgment but he is legally out of bounds. He CANNOT claim, in this case, that He has a case against FGMEMBERS. Nor he can, as he wrongly insist, persist on libel and deprecation of the FGMEMBERS project publicly: Cause, interestingly, as it has been mentioned before, that can indeed be cause of a valid case I can bring against him/them.

There's nothing to clarify at all. No license is a valid way to keep your work.

It's not libel if you're actively doing something illegal, which you are.

Copyright law is very effing clear, and you're doing mental gymnastics to get around it. You are illegally re-licensing and distributing content when you aren't the author.

I don't get how this is that difficult. There's no way around it. You are doing something illegal.

[bomber]

Yeh wrote the same thing about sharing over on FG. ..

How can you come with the idea that someone like 'free flight' can take your plane and sell it. But that someone from your own FG community dares distribute it under the same license as you did is somehow wrong.

How do you square that circle ?

[bomber]

Yeh but it doesn't give you any rights to complain...

Considering there's been license volition sound files found on fgaddon.... shouldn't you be equally critical of Curt and Co. ?

[OPFOR77]

Point me to one single copyright violation that they are currently distributing (not in the history of their repos, but in the latest) and hell yeah I will.

[bomber]

So history of licence violation can be brought up and used against FGMEMBERS.... but not against FGAddon?

How does that work ?

[IAHM-COL]

@OPRF777

The problem is that law does not work that way.
You can not say under pressumption that I am doing something illegal.

A court of law has to step in to demostrate it.

You pressume. And that's fine. It does not mean that to be true.

Take the case of the https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/GulfstreamG550 per example

Before XSaint clarified the work was GPL. you would have pressumed: IAHM-COL is distributing the work and it is illegal.

But is solely a pressumption.
Law works not under pressumption of guiltiness, but under pressumption of innocence.

That is. The real pressumption is that my distributing the Gulfstream is totally legal, unless XSaint (the copyright owner) proves the contrary to the court, and then the court does agree.

But what really happened.
XSaint step forward and say: Yeah, the work is really GPL.

was I before Illegally distributing a work that in reality is GPL? Off course not!

Such presumption of guiltiness was totally fabricated on this case.

And I can assure you that XSaint did not granted GPL to avoid a problem. I can assure you he was honest by saying it is GPL.


Likewise with other works, like that.


If you actually DO REVISE the law around licensing, and revise the documents: Many of them will strongly encourage you to declare the license. The reason is that ultimately declaring the license DOES protect your work for being intentionally or unintentionally used in ways you did not intend. Only a declared license provides the legal protection as required/desired by the author.

You want to believe this is a black/white argument. No. It is not. It is way more complicated than that.
And so far, All those "copyright infridgment" allegations are pure libel. It has never been declared (legally and under a court of law) that such thing ever has happened. So, dont' come tell me "You are guilty". I am NOT.

And, yes, Thorsten will bring forward the "he stole a car" caricature.

Are you gonna take that seriously?