Here we go again...

[IAHM-COL]

As it is up till now he's issued his work as GPL...

He does not have an alternative. He is not the sole author. As a matter of fact he is not even the author that began the shuttle.
The only way to switch the SpaceShuttle from GPL is that all previous authors agree. This means they could release an alternative shuttle with an alternative license, BUT NOT that they could revert previous GPL content,. and thus, it could only block future contributions, but it does not endanger hosting what already is GPL (and modify it as we want)

I don't see feasible that all authors of the shuttle come down now to agree on a non-GPL release.

And if so, depending on the level of restrictions (a.k.a if the new license allows redistribution), then it could still be housed in FGMEMBERS-NONGPL'

In other words, a move away of GPL means more easily -not on FGADDon- than -not on FGMEMBERS-

The only case of a FG plane I know of, the author has disallowed anything but copying and private usage is Vitos' MiG15.
As is, you won't find it anywhere.

[and yes, I repeatedly email Vitos asking him to consider a re-release to allow me to redistribute. His answer is no thanks, because I couldn't guarantee that sooner or later, FG would be taking the plane for only FG benefit. True fact, and that's that]

[bomber]

OK before I go there read this....

If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses? (#IfInterpreterIsGPL)
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone.

My xml data file is interpreted by the main jsbsim application..... I think this covers my work.

[IAHM-COL]

You keep going in circles, simon
I already told you, It is perfectly acceptable for you to release your FDM as Creative Commons.
That's what that paragraph you quote above re-states.

The fact that JSBsim is GPL does not mean you can't make a privative FDM that is read by JSBsim.
You can. You can make it ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, you can make your FDM Creative commons, You can make it GPL.

As sole author the choice is entirely yours.

[bomber]

Oh no it doesn't say I have to make it private...

[IAHM-COL]

What you can't do is bundle.
(as in explanation 1 you gave above)

I don't know what you mean by option 2 on bundling per files. Or whatever.

The GPL on the beagle applies to the whole beagle.
You can't copy the beagle, add some file, and said that the file you added is non-GPL

That violates CopyLeft.

You can release your file stand alone, and instruct users to add it where needed if they wish to. But you can't release a modified beagle with CC content bundled.(Unless you get Richard Senior to agree)

[IAHM-COL]

Oh no it doesn't say I have to make it private...

Say?

I am assuming now you are using the fact that you are native English speaker and I am not to nickpick in the way I express my point.
I am sorry if English is a Second Language for me. The message, I gave, I think, clearly points out that you have options. Not that you must do or must not do.

[bomber]

No..... no nitpicking done here... just seeking clarification....

Bare in mind I'm not bundling code just data that's being interpreted from xml format.

[IAHM-COL]

bundling is
Releasing the content of yours together with other person's in the same repository (even one you create starting from his work ==in github known as a fork).
If you dont' agree with releasing your content in the same license as previous authors, then don't bundling mean, keep your content fully isolated.

This is, his GPL content is no where to be found in your distribution? then it is not bundled.

[bomber]

I would like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software. Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license? (#GPLCompatInstaller)

No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.

This is the same thing.... my work and the existing data are separate works....

In the same way that data stored in a 3d file is interpreted by the gpl program and then rendered....

[IAHM-COL]

At this point only a lawyer can help you bomber. (I mean as in consult with one, instead of me telling you what's legally right here)

I tell you- that from what I see -- you would be violating CopyLeft clauses if you release R. Senior GPL Beagle modified to include your own Creative Commons FDM.

You would be making a propietary Beagle, unvesting Free Software of some of the Freedoms Richard gave it.

How far you can go with this, really becomes now, a matter of legal knowledge in copyright laws and GPL protection that is way farther I can dwelve into. (and off course, court-ruling will be the only way to finally say who's right)
Copy Left stands, and R. Senior would have a case against you, if you do so.

That's as much as I know.