About trenches

[IAHM-COL]

basically. Yes. It can be standing as a copyright violation.

His point is that his shuttle CAN BE a collection of content

The 3d is GPL, but nasal files he wrote from scratch he can leave unlicensed (ALL RIGHTS RESERVED) in his repo, and dual license as GPL ONLY in FGADDON.

He claims in that way, the SpaceShuttle repo is not GPL, except the copy in FGADDON.

That ignores CopyLeft completely...
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

And thus it would be a copyright violation, if allowed to stand.

This is the situation.

The Space Shuttle began as a work by J. Berndt (the same creator of JSBsim) and it was licensed GPL and added to FGDATA (old gitorious days). the original Space Shuttle was only really a model-less JSBsim FDM.
Then Vitos and Mostly HerbyW added the 3d Model (the initial version). Which created a flying shuttle craft. They off course, in respect of the CopyLeft by J.Berndt released their improvements as GPL.

This is where Thorsten Jumps at this. He makes a pre-realease as a ZIP file in the forums. When I asked him he replied (as you can read above) that the content MUST BE GPL because it is derived from GPL. I pushed the content to FGMEMBERS and Thorsten ran amok. So he started researching ways to subvert GPL.

Any subversion of the GPL stands as a violation of GPL, by definition. All violations of GPL revoke the license and thus limiting Thorsten ability to publish this.

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25747&start=45#p237035
In continuation, Richard Joined the team, bundling a Cockpit that was CC (see the link above).

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 45#p237036

looks nice zlsa.

[disclaimer: space shuttle is not a project of mine]

i dont know about others, but for me a CC-BY license is a deal-breaker. A.K.A, not GPLed.

I warned that was suspicious. They claim they got "authorization" but never showed proof.

Bundling CC-BY content into a GPL material is a dubious legal move. Possible if you can work the compatibilities issues of license, BUT due to the copyleft over the previous Shuttle, it makes the entering content GPL.

And by releasing into FGDADdon (with the cockpit included), the content becomes a license mess, or GPL converted content --whichever you prefer.

Thorsten ultimate claim is that many files that he wrote from scratch (which are totally required for the shuttle to work, now, by the way) are totally his work and remain unlicensed (that is they don't take the GPL of the rest of the work).
And yes, everytime that Thorsten distributes this (as in having a SF repo), if he does not recognize the GPL nature of the software, then he is violating, 100% copyleft clauses.

To be allowed to do that, he needs agreement of all authors, which becomes a long list, but for certain include

1. J. S. Berndt
2. HerbyW
3. Vitos
4. Thorsten Himself
5. Richard
6. Japreja
7. Israel Hernandez *yes myself ... see the file RCS_panel.blend*
8. Wllbragg

I say again, he needs agreement of all authors that this work is to be relicensed with a license different to GPL.

For certain he does not have my permission.

***

Another GPL license agression is intentionally omit the license.
He is aware the content (even in FGADDON) lacks the COPYING file that acknowledges to anyone and discloses cleanly the license

As an example, this disclosure in the KingAir
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/KingAir-35 ... er/COPYING

That file is ommited here
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/SpaceShuttle

Besides in his AUTHORS file he does not declare GPL for his systems work, FDM works,

and does not acknowled GPL for the cockpit model taken from Chris Khun, suggesting this work may be Creative Commons.

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/SpaceShutt ... er/AUTHORS

Bundling CC content within GPL work should not be done in works distributed,
Specifically, the license here applying CC-BY implies (BY), share alike.

This is, one cannot use in GPL content. Because that would violate Khun's Share alike premise. Or would violate the Shuttle's authors GPL share alike premise.

So. Yes.
Certainly, the situation is dubious enough to claim that Thorsten commits Copyright Violations.
Finally, again, court ruling is necessary to determine that a violation DOES exist.

[bomber]

Well this muddies the waters some what...

Because what Thorsten is doing is exactly as I think a plane is.... a group of works and not a whole that you can slap a GPL licence over the whole lot.

The fact that the shuttle was initially a 3d less FDM... shows that these are separate wholes being able to work independently from each other.

Where we differ in agreement is that having bundled some GPL, CC and full copyright material together that a person can then attempt to restrict the distribution of GPL and CC content claiming that there is the odd full copyright material bundled with it and as such the whole plane cannot be distributed by another..

This is chaos and clearly both GPL and CC licence violations.

If you chose to bundle your copyright material with GPL or CC then clearly when it comes to distribution the lowest common licence denomination comes into play..

However that does not mean you've given any permission to modify your copyrighted material.... or for that matter allow the sale of CC-NC material.

Some common sense needs to be applied here.

[IAHM-COL]

This is chaos and clearly both GPL and CC licence violations.

It is. And it is an intentional chaos created by Thorsten to subvert GPL and prevent FGMEMBERS distribution. He miscalculated that I am also an author, and that another author (HerbyW) authorized me to port his version of the SpaceShuttle even before Thorsten Jumped at this.
At that early stage, Thorsten was nothing but some patch of HerbyW work (which rebased from J.Berndts FDM).
Whether herby began with the Nasal 3ds to create his original 3d is highly likely, and since it is public domain, perfectly legal for HerbyW to merge into JBernd GPL work, if the GPL license stands.


The current situation by Thorsten implies that the work stands as GPL or there are both GPL and CC license violations (of the cockpit).
Except, again, that IIRC, they announced, (see the text of AUTHORS again, line 18), that Richard got permission by the original author (to reuse this work in the context of a GPL work?

If you chose to bundle your copyright material with GPL or CC then clearly when it comes to distribution the lowest common licence denomination comes into play..

Yup. that's where some people had come to call GPL, a viral license.
But if Khun did not authorize it, then his copyright is prob. violated. (by releasing his cockpit within a GPL context, a.k.a as the SpaceShuttle)

or for that matter allow the sale of CC-NC material

Well. Note that the license on the cockpit is CC-BY
This means Commercial is not restricted. So selling it within FG is not the problem
The problem is that BY means share alike: that is, if you reuse or distribute, MUSTBE in the context of CC-BY

[IAHM-COL]

there are both GPL ***** snip*** license violations

To go around this.... once again... one needs to understand copyleft:
(and understand that Thorsten is not above copyleft requirements)

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.

Since Thorsten is bundled with previous GPL content, then his work, (a semicolon at the end of code to fix it, or the writting of 1billion new lines of code) all correspond to changes/modification or additions of such original GPL content.

When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.

This is the official copyleft guide, a comprehensive material that explains all this on excess of detail.

https://copyleft.org/guide/

[KL-666]

Seems like one of the mad dogs broke loose again. Is there not one post possible of this guy without crying out unsubstantiated accusations? Is there no moderation at that forum that can talk to to this guy?

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294172#p294173

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

Is there no moderation at that forum that can talk to to this guy?

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294172#p294173

Kind regards, Vincent

All evidence suggest that he is allowed to say and stand by anything he wants to throw at the ring. but everyone else will be heavily moderated away.
Defending oneself from Thorsten is among the greatest insults of that forum's rules. It caused permanent banning for both JWocky and SHM.

(assuming that I was just banned for creating FGMEMBERS)

[IAHM-COL]

@Bomber

Just look at the AUTHORS file in the FGADDON

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fg ... le/AUTHORS

You will note that even there no GPL declaration exists there either?
So, is he going as far as pushing non GPL content to FGADDon ?
FGADDon is a GPL collection. Is that correct?

(Others have done it before!!)

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 20#p294185

Nope, there's something called 'internal distribution' - I can make it available to FG developers only - and if I add a corresponding note that this is for internal use and not for release, that's perfectly fine.

I am not familiar with the space shuttle or any incidents relating to it, but I am well familiar with the "internal distribution" exemption/clause, and it is highly questionable whether your interpretation would apply (depending on the circumstances) - the FSF FAQs are actually quite clear about it, the only thing that might matter is the way of sharing/propagating the corresponding modifications (i.e. links) - i.e. the whole notion of a "closed organization" would stand in stark contrast to someone sharing links to such work via a public forum or a public mailing list (regardless of any "private-use-only" disclaimers, but I don't know how fgmembers got their hands on your work)- obviously, your interpretation would apply if you only shared the corresponding links/modifications with a closed circle of people via private off-list messaging, but otherwise, modifying existing GPL'ed work and posting links to it via public means is clearly covered by the GPL.

To anybody interested in the nitty gritty details, I suggest, to carefully review the corresponding sections in the FAQs:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en ... stedPublic
"But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... stribution
"when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution."

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.ht ... leasedMods
"putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this might want to use the GNU Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use."

For an actual legal case, see:

http://ipso-jure.blogspot.com/2014/04/i ... n-gpl.html
http://blog.internetcases.com/2014/02/1 ... s-forward/
The plaintiff (as they still call them over there - how quaint! Oh, sorry, I forgot that British irony would be completely lost on any American readers) wrote an XML parser and made it available under GPL v2. The defendant acquired software from another vendor that included the code, and allegedly distributed that software to parties outside the organization. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not comply with the conditions of the GPL (no attribution, no copyright notice, no reference to the plaintiff's source code, no offer to 'convey' as the GPL puts it the source code), and sued for copyright infringement.
The defendant's argument was that its 'distribution' of the software was merely internal, mainly to its own financial advisers, so the GPL's requirements were not triggered. The court rejected defendant’s argument, looking to the allegations in the complaint that defendant distributed the software to vendors in India, as well as providing it to 'thousands of non-employee financial advisers.'

Anyway, I don't think we need to be having this discussion here - anybody seriously interested in the details, should check out the FSF documents and if in doubt post the exact paragraphs that support their own interpretation of the situation (including Bomber and Thorsten).

I do share the view that Thorsten communicated in his last postings, under the precursor that the sharing of those modifications didn't take place using public channels like the forum, the devel list or public repositories.

SPOT ON! Hooray!

By the way.
Thorsten SpaceShuttle is not taken from his house computer at night.

It is distributed openly in a public repository at SourceForge
https://sourceforge.net/p/fgspaceshuttledev/code/ci/master/tree/

Also, the same content, a bit delayed is available in FGADDon (which host the official GPL aircrafts for FG)
https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgaddon/HEAD/tree/trunk/Aircraft/SpaceShuttle/


so, that much for

Code: Select all

under the precursor that the sharing of those modifications didn't take place using public channels like the forum, the devel list or public repositories

[KL-666]

Now several times i have seen Thorsten fending of arguments of Hooray with "a court should decide", like here:
,

GPL - a court can decide that

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&start=120#p294145

Thorsten, you may be very well right on that. But what you also need to understand, is that you can not continue to insult people with unsubstantiated accusations. You may question someone once about something, but you can not structurally repeat unsubstantiated accusations. Then we get in the area of:

Substantiate your accusations in court, or be silent, or be sued for libel.

Do you understand?

Kind regards, Vincent

[Richard]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25747&start=45#p237035
In continuation, Richard Joined the team, bundling a Cockpit that was CC (see the link above).

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 45#p237036

i dont know about others, but for me a CC-BY license is a deal-breaker. A.K.A, not GPLed.

I warned that was suspicious. They claim they got "authorization" but never showed proof.

For the record I did ask for authorisation prior to the release and this was granted by the author. Proof of this is available to all members of the Shuttle team should anyone be asked to provide this proof[1]. I will provide this proof, if required to, to anybody who has a need to see it and agrees to keep it confidential.

It is not right[2] to take an author's work when the licence is not clear and either make a repository with it in, or publish it elsewhere. Getting permission before doing this is the only right thing to do.

Claiming that someone else has done this does not justify or provide a valid defence to a situation where an individual also does this. Get permission first and if permission isn't forthcoming then one should not assume or assign licencing conditions that do not exist as copyright remains with the original authors.

---------------
[1] I asked for permission via PM and if I wanted to post the proof I feel I'd have to ask for permission to do so.
[2] as in "doing the right thing", rather than the chances of being taken court being virtually zero.