GPL virus...

[IAHM-COL]

yes. We agree.
Violations can occur and be "automatic" (as in "non-intended")
Licenses aren't terminated automatically.

I mean, perhaps there's a better way to phrase it, but I hope you get my point.

Yes. I follow your point.

To prove that it's been violated is a separate issue.

Indeed. And without such prove there is not license termination.

I understand that position, and I can see the logic in that.

Good
I think we are in the same board, then.

[bomber]

Ok I'm glad that's clear... so we understand

90% of FG planes in 3rd party repositories have GPL derived content within their folder structure.
95% of ALL planes textures are in contravention of GPL licence because the author fails to distribute them in their correct form.

I don't think we're going to get agreement on whether a plane is a whole or a collection of separate wholes..... before anyone argues that wholes can't be collected together to create something greater, look at a sports team (yes stretching it I know) , But each player is a whole person, and they're brought together by the coach and molded into a team.

FDM, 3d, 2d are wholes brought together by the -set.xml to make a plane/object

Anyway I suspect as we can't see the difference between program code and 3d vector data we're not going to come to an agreement outside of a court on this..

If we look at this GPL defining case

https://opensource.com/law/14/7/lawsuit ... ing-issues

Versata Software has the same program code distibuted under 2 different licences, so it not true that once you released something under GPL you can't at a later date also release it under CC... version 1 could be GPL and version 2 CC. Versata Softwares point was that if Amerprise wanted to use it's programming code, and withhold their own bundled code within a CC licence then Amerprise should have paid for the correct licence. They didn't, they used the GPL version and as such when they created an exectutable from it and their code creating a single whole piece of programming code they were duty bound by the terms of the licence to give access to all the code as a bundled item.

Now although a final descision wasn't ruled it's deemed very unlikely that the descision would have been that Amerprise release it's software as GPL... They were however asked by the courts to rewrite and replace the offending Versata code in all their contractors software. There is some talk of momentary compensation and if someones using your free code incorrectly as oppposed to paying for it and then making money from it, you're damn right you want a bit of compensation for all the hard work you've done and they've skipped.

Now if Amerprise had given their software code away free, then how would the courts have viewed the loss of earnings of Versata Software, as all the crime that's been commited is in failing to adhere to the GPL licence. What loss of earnings would Versata have incured to be recompensed for ?

1) courts costs
2) loss of income from purchasing the CC version of the software.

And the courts would no doubt have slaped their hands with a fine for be a silly boy. But not too hard as there's now the potential for a customer client relationship to grow between Versata and Amerprise out of the wreckage.. (although that didn't happen).

So lets consider what the effects of adding a new 3d model into an existing planes folder that contains GPL content, has on the original author of the folder structure.

1) Has there been any reuse of the existing code.... NO
2) Has there been any monentary gain by the 3d modeler for distributing GPL alongside a CC 3d model..... NO
3) Have I removed the rights of the original authors work..... NO

I know someones going to scream.... but you have !

But if FG accepts that I can create a 3d model, licence it CC and distribute it separately from the planes main folder then all that's happening is that FG core is being pedantic (maybe to how they interpret the licence) and that the only people being inconvenienced is the end user who has to go to 2 places to get an up-to-date plane.

If I accept this is the case... which it very much seems to be as noones filed any GPL licence violation in the last 20 years of FG.

I respectfully ask if it's possible for someone to create an install.bat file that each creator of CC work could modifiy and add to their download such that the user simply has to press on it and their works are added to the existing planes folder in the correct directories..

This is not my bag... is it anyone here ?
and once this is done, I think we've basically nailed this... making it acceptable to the GPL author, the CC addon author and the end user...

In the end isn't that what we here at FGmemebers are all about ?

[IAHM-COL]

I am going to use Legoboy paraphernalia

Just a bit of clarification

Ok I'm glad that's clear... so we understand

90% of FG planes in 3rd party repositories have GPL derived content within their folder structure.

Eh?! I don't know about this. Firstly, yes: I agree that reading the code of CC planes, and using Ockam, you can conclude that many of those planes do use FG code (in xmls, and nasal files to name a few). A different topic is saying 90%. I never did an study on frequencies here. Nor intend to. I suppose is 100%, because it is the nature of the business (without that code reusing, I doubt a plane would even fly within FG infrastructure), but again, I am so no interested in testing this, that I can't put a hard number there.

Let's agree that the most logical situation is that this does occur. No Percentage indicated, since we had not measure it, nor by census, nor by sampling.

95% of ALL planes textures are in contravention of GPL licence because the author fails to distribute them in their correct form.

I definitely don't even know where you are going with this. Certainly many 2d artist don't release their sources (layered xcfs or svgs).
That's a fact. But on one hand, GPL does not require you to put sources up front. It indicates you are in the obligation to provide these if asked.
(a different topic is that many of these textures are old, and by people long -gone and some of those sources will be non-available for real).
Then if that's where you are going; yeah OK. You've got part of the point.
But 95%? again a hard coded number. I dont know if you ran a sampling or a census study to get there. Really?

In any case, I can live without textures source code.

On the other hand, the most important part of the code is totally open source. You can read nasals, and XMLs with any text editor out-there, and the 3d models are in plain text format: A.K.A ac3d file

In such case scenery, the meat of aircraft modelling is very opensourced, and I deem these definitely are GPL compliant in terms of source availability.

What's really needed to be transparent in those craft sources, actually is.

I don't think we're going to get agreement on whether a plane is a whole or a collection of separate wholes..... before anyone argues that wholes can't be collected together to create something greater, look at a sports team (yes stretching it I know) , But each player is a whole person, and they're brought together by the coach and molded into a team.

My point about this is: using Thorsten paraphernalia now: A bundle is a bundle is a bundle.

author, the CC addon author and the end user...

In the end isn't that what we here at FGmemebers are all about ?

Wait... what?!
I was not aware of such!

FGMEMBERS is a collection of repositories for content of FG.
I don't think our goal is making CC planes out of GPL content.
Am I getting you wrong here?

If something, I like when I move a plane back to the GPL area.
As KL666 makes it clearer, Keeping everything Free and GPLed is a more clean and nicer world

If something, I despise FG laying in the same bed with Creative Commons, and to even include aircraft with CC-BY parts in FGADDon (CRJ700), which after FGADDon accepted the Creative Common license on this particular plane family I went an step further and kicked it out of FGMEMBERS into the NON-GPL area.

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/CRJ700-family

On the other hand, FGMEMBERS does have a non-GPL area, as indicated above, and if you want to make some CC work, certainly FGMEMBERS-NONGPL can offer you a place to keep it .

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL

I hope really, that it clarifies.

[bomber]

Let's agree that the most logical situation is that this does occur. No Percentage indicated, since we had not measure it, nor by census, nor by sampling..

The point being that it's not a rare occurance or one that exist primarily in the FGMember domain because you guys are all sons of Satan...

95% of ALL planes textures are in contravention of GPL licence because the author fails to distribute them in their correct form.

I definitely don't even know where you are going with this. Certainly many 2d artist don't release their sources (layered xcfs or svgs).
That's a fact. But on one hand, GPL does not require you to put sources up front. It indicates you are in the obligation to provide these if asked.
(a different topic is that many of these textures are old, and by people long -gone and some of those sources will be non-available for real).
Then if that's where you are going; yeah OK. You've got part of the point.
But 95%? again a hard coded number. I dont know if you ran a sampling or a census study to get there. Really?

Yeh I pulled it out of the air, simply having looked at my own download folder....

And the asking is within 3 years, after that there's no obligation to forward original files.

In any case, I can live without textures source code.

That's a personal opinion and is not consistent, it's either all or none....

On the other hand, the most important part of the code is totally open source. You can read nasals, and XMLs with any text editor out-there, and the 3d models are in plain text format: A.K.A ac3d file

In such case scenery, the meat of aircraft modelling is very opensourced, and I deem these definitely are GPL compliant in terms of source availability.

What's really needed to be transparent in those craft sources, actually is.

A person working on updating a planes texture wouldn't say this

I don't think we're going to get agreement on whether a plane is a whole or a collection of separate wholes..... before anyone argues that wholes can't be collected together to create something greater, look at a sports team (yes stretching it I know) , But each player is a whole person, and they're brought together by the coach and molded into a team.

My point about this is: using Thorsten paraphernalia now: A bundle is a bundle is a bundle.

As I said, don't think we're going to agree.

author, the CC addon author and the end user...

In the end isn't that what we here at FGmemebers are all about ?

Wait... what?!
I was not aware of such!

FGMEMBERS is a collection of repositories for content of FG.
I don't think our goal is making CC planes out of GPL content.
Am I getting you wrong here?

If something, I like when I move a plane back to the GPL area.
As KL666 makes it clearer, Keeping everything Free and GPLed is a more clean and nicer world

If something, I despise FG laying in the same bed with Creative Commons, and to even include aircraft with CC-BY parts in FGADDon (CRJ700), which after FGADDon accepted the Creative Common license on this particular plane family I went an step further and kicked it out of FGMEMBERS into the NON-GPL area.

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/CRJ700-family

On the other hand, FGMEMBERS does have a non-GPL area, as indicated above, and if you want to make some CC work, certainly FGMEMBERS-NONGPL can offer you a place to keep it .

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL

I hope really, that it clarifies.

That's what I meant, that FGmembers is a home to house GPL and NON-GPL content without prejudice for the benifit of the flightgear users.

Your likes and dislikes aside FGMember needs to market itself where all are welcome and treated equally....where getting a GPL plane and downloading it's associated NON-GPL addons (if required) are made as easy as possible for the user.

Having a NON-GPL addon download button/link within the same area of the GPL download would allow FGMembers to effectively 'quarantine' none NON-GPL content and suspected NON-GPL content... basically FGMembers would be ahead of the curve in that respect, copying a CC plane from a 3rd party repository and having an instant option of separating out the bundling.

It would allow FGMember to effectively stick two fingers up at those say this place is a nest of copyright theft.

Simon

[IAHM-COL]

The point being that it's not a rare occurance or one that exist primarily in the FGMember domain because you guys are all sons of Satan...

Totally agreed.

That's what I meant, that FGmembers is a home to house GPL and NON-GPL content without prejudice for the benifit of the flightgear users.

Totally agreed.
My personal preference is GPL. But that does not mean that FGMEMBERS will not strive for an inclusive attitude of all opinions, and all possible ways to release content, that is correct and acceptable.


Thanks for clarifying.

IH-COL

[IAHM-COL]

That's a personal opinion and is not consistent, it's either all or none....

Been there. Done that.
I definitely agree that one end up crying out loud the lack of the source files when you are, lets say, working a new livery on a model whose texture sources are lacking.

For that reason, I like releasing the sources myself, and play fair

Example:

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/727-230-Sources

[swamp]

Here is what I found in one of the CC models. License: Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA

They can choose which type of CC license.

"You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms."



https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

[bomber]

And I can see no reason why anyone with a sane mind would not say that is the best licence for flightgear going forward.....

[IAHM-COL]

NC ==> Non Commercial.

[swamp]

If it is BY-SA 4.0 It is compatible with GPL 3.0. So its all according to the type of CC and version. Sharing seems to not be a problem. The problem will be the CC models that have GPL code added. CC also doesn't recommend using CC for software for reasons they explain. Why are people using it?

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_use.3F

https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses/