GPL virus...

[IAHM-COL]

- On the one hand you seem to be pushing the onus of the work being legal onto the 'manufacturers' who provide 'their' models. .

Onto this, I specifically reffer you to the CC license's legalese

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/legalcode

8. Miscellaneous

...

Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work, Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the original Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License.

[Lydiot]

Israel, I think you have to explain that a bit more to me.

Reading it I don't really get the impression that it works "both ways". I understand that the CC license allows for a "pass through" of "embedded" licenses if the work is a derivative, but I don't think that means that it modifies that embedded license. In other words that embedded license also has to allow for the CC license. So as long as the GPL does that everything is fine. But if it doesn't, then I don't see how this "pass through" of terms in the CC helps at all.

Or am I misreading something?

[IAHM-COL]

Israel, I think you have to explain that a bit more to me.

... etc

I apologize Lydiot, but I don't really understand what you said there.

IH-COL

[IAHM-COL]

Important read referrering to the topics discussed in this particular thread

(this is: The GPL is not a virus _ nor viral_, and this is just Thorsten spreading fear)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?stor ... 4210634851

Have fun,
IH-COL

[Lydiot]

Israel, I think you have to explain that a bit more to me.

... etc

I apologize Lydiot, but I don't really understand what you said there.

IH-COL

Well, sorry for sounding evasive, but if you don't understand what I'm saying then it would probably be best if you explained the importance of what you quoted using your own words.

All I'm saying is this:

Suppose I create a work called Ferrari. I attach a CC license to it.
Frank now takes Ferrari and creates a derivative work, and gives it CC.
Frank then distributes Ferrari v2.
Israel downloads and uses/distributes Ferrari v2.

So I read the CC paragraph as "Each time Frank distributes Ferrari v2 (a Derivative Work), Licensor (me) offers to the recipient (Israel) a license to Ferrari v1 (the original Work) on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to Frank under this License. "

But to me it's unclear if any of the above refers to anything other than CC, specifically. So if I gave Ferrari v1 GPL instead, and GPL says that any derivative work needs to be GPL, then Frank has to make Ferrari v2 GPL and can add anything else that doesn't contradict GPL terms. So when it says "same terms and conditions as the license granted to frank under this License" I don't think that refers to GPL. I don't think it can. If it did it would in practice mean one could write a new license that would override an older one, by definition. It'd make licenses useless.

So if Ferrari v1 was GPL, and Frank's Ferrari v2 is CC (and that contradicts GPL), then Frank made a mistake, and all I'm saying is that just because you say that CC was given to you by Frank it doesn't necessarily put you in the clear if you keep distributing it. It's just like the "lockers" for personal content where the owner of the "locker" knows that the "boxes" contain illegal material yet does nothing to prevent it. If that's provable it can be a problem.

But like I said, if you think I'm missing the point just explain in your own words how you think the text you quoted is relevant, because I'm then clearly not understanding it.

[IAHM-COL]

All I'm saying is this:

Suppose I create a work called Ferrari. I attach a CC license to it.
Frank now takes Ferrari and creates a derivative work, and gives it CC.
Frank then distributes Ferrari v2.
Israel downloads and uses/distributes Ferrari v2.

So I read the CC paragraph as "Each time Frank distributes Ferrari v2 (a Derivative Work), Licensor (me) offers to the recipient (Israel) a license to Ferrari v1 (the original Work) on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to Frank under this License. "

I understand that quoted section from
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by ... /legalcode
as the copyleft clause on CC licenses.

So I read the CC paragraph as "Each time Frank distributes Ferrari v2 (a Derivative Work), Licensor (Frank) offers to the recipient (Israel) a license to the original work (in Ferrari v2) on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to Frank (by you) under this License."

This is, Frank cannot distribute the modified work to Israel with a License differing that license Frank receives from you.

But to me it's unclear if any of the above refers to anything other than CC, specifically. So if I gave Ferrari v1 GPL instead, and GPL says that any derivative work needs to be GPL, then Frank has to make Ferrari v2 GPL and can add anything else that doesn't contradict GPL terms. So when it says "same terms and conditions as the license granted to frank under this License" I don't think that refers to GPL. I don't think it can. If it did it would in practice mean one could write a new license that would override an older one, by definition. It'd make licenses useless.

GPL also has CopyLeft Clauses, thus you are correct. CopyLeft applies, and Frank cannot derive CC Work starting from and/or using GPL work.

So if Ferrari v1 was GPL, and Frank's Ferrari v2 is CC (and that contradicts GPL), then Frank made a mistake, and all I'm saying is that just because you say that CC was given to you by Frank it doesn't necessarily put you in the clear if you keep distributing it. It's just like the "lockers" for personal content where the owner of the "locker" knows that the "boxes" contain illegal material yet does nothing to prevent it. If that's provable it can be a problem.

But like I said, if you think I'm missing the point just explain in your own words how you think the text you quoted is relevant, because I'm then clearly not understanding it.

That's an interesting paradigm. But the fact is that, while I don't violate Frank's License (CC), I am distributing Frank's work with permission he granted me under Creative Commons Licenses, and even if Frank is challenged in court and looses his ability to distribute the work further (let's say there is a ruling suggesting he needed to release as GPL), such ruling only applies to Frank -- in effect.

I could say: I have doubts whether Frank's Ferrari must be GPL instead of CC, since it uses GPL code by George. (Clearly our situation).

But then,

Options I have

1. Accept Frank's work and thus agreeing with his licensing (which authorizes me to redistrubute under CC conditions)
2. Not accepting Frank's work, and thus, limiting my use of such work

Options I don't have

1. Assuming that, in the absence of a court-ruling, I can accept Frank's work and change his licensing status myself (ie CC -> GPL), under any pretense or suspicion

2. Initiate a court action against Frank to get him to revert what I think is a wrong CC licensing issue

(why I can't do number 2?)

Because, in copyright law, only a copyright holder (who has already patented his work in the correspoding copyright offices) can initiate a copyright infridgment suing. Since any original work (The GPL part) was George's, only George could initiate action against Frank to prevent any further CC distributions and uses.

This is, while FG allows Creative Commons planes to stand, they will remain unchallenged, and as such we can all accept such licenses.

[IAHM-COL]

it doesn't necessarily put you in the clear if you keep distributing it.

And this is another interesting point, and one in which both You and Simon seems to me to be inaccurate.

These Licenses are not Licenses for Distribution.

These are licenses for All of the Following

0. Using
1. Copying
2. Modifying
3. Redistributing

Given certain clauses.

Sometimes you feel like 0 ,1 , and 2 are FAIR game even in the absence of the license, but the problem starts on 3.

Not such.

In the absence of THE LICENSE, everything 0 through 3 is illegal.

So, Let's say, I can't use the CC license for X or Y reason. This does not means that I (or you or we) are good and clean if we Download the plane (copying it), fly it on FG (using it) and modify it privately.
All those are only acceptable practices, since the License allowed us to.

Redistribution is not granted differently than the others 0-2.

[Lydiot]

(this is in reference NOT to your post immediately before this one, but the one before that)

So I don't think we disagree on the actual interpretation of CC / GPL then. All I'm saying is that I see the possibility of someone going after FGMembers at some point in time because of a violation, although the probability of that is very low. And so, again, it appears to be a purely pragmatic issue rather than anything else.

[Lydiot]

it doesn't necessarily put you in the clear if you keep distributing it.

And this is another interesting point, and one in which both You and Simon seems to me to be inaccurate.

I meant that if Frank tries to slap a CC license on a work that is derivative of a GPL and GPL doesn't allow it, then the fact that he did it anyway without the right to do so doesn't give you any rights. It was his error, but it was an error.

Use the word "to" instead of "if" above and it should make more sense perhaps.

[IAHM-COL]

I see your point.
Let's say someone opens a claim against FGMEMBERS for distributing Buck's work under CC, given that it includes GPL content by FG.

That's the point. FGMEMBERS did receive Buck work under a CC license, and as such we can only 0->3 under agreement with Buck that his work is CC.

Or, FG could get Buck to agree on revert to GPL, and FGMEMBERS would follow suit.
Or, I get some other authorization for transferring Buck works to GPL. (say, Buck allows us to)

A court would unlikely be ruling FGMEMBERS to change Buck's CC work to GPL without getting Buck to do likewise. But in the remote situation that a court does so, that is my immediate authorization to change Buck's works to GPL --which I obey smiling.

_____

Bottomline: Yes. It is purely a pragmatical issue at this point.