About trenches

[KL-666]

I'ts hard, but i try a line per paragraph.

Fishing in the spirit of gpl is very enlightening.

The shuttles heuristics will have all existing knowledge in them.

Thorsten's case would be shaky in court.

Internal use can not be applied to a group of individuals, as flightgear is (not a legal body).

The contributers of fgaddon have no clue about law.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Bugger me !

And all this time I've had Hooray down as a conniving git when it seems in reality he's nailed that spot on.

My apologies to him.

[bomber]

I also want to point something out to our younger listeners....

Hooray has said in the recent past that I can't possible win against Thorsten as his arguments are so eloquently put, and I'd just like to show you an example of this...

I frankly don't get you. You had a reputation as a certainly not diplomatic, outspoken, but essentially honest airplane developer here. Now you're squandering it arguing how 'I don't want to release' means 'green light for release', mis-quoting myself and everyone else here countless times, justifying actions that are plain illegal - as yourself whether that's what you really want.

I'm basically a dishonest person that repeats unfounded allegations to justify illegal activity.

He's a C unt.... but he wasn't lieing when he said I wasn't diplomatic.

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 25#p294501

it should definitely be part of the fgdata history (its removal pre-dating fgaddon IIRC)

Are you referring to the HondaJet?

No. You wont find it in fgdata git history.

When fgdata was reconstruted (thus the name fgdata next), Torsten Dreyer performed on all the repo an operation that's call git subfilter, that recreates the content of the repository as if a given file never really existed. He did that to strip fgdata of the Aircraft completely, while at the same time, effectively trim the size of fgdata .git content.

That meant the HondaJet was gone for good, from FGDATA.

Once again, I have the content. I have both the original content by helija (with fgdata git history) as well as several major improvements I made on it.

Follow that here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=223&p=3406&hilit=HondaJet#p3406





Now, about legalese:

1. The content is GPL
2. Therefore my modification are/must be GPL. Because unlike Thorsten, I am not above the law, and thus I am regulated by the license, which includes copyleft clauses.

3. I don't need to release the content publicly,
4. But if I do, I must grant all rights of GPL as it was given to me

But since I am not a selfish MOFO, unlike others,

5. I will gladly pass you over a copy of the content of the repository as it existed in FGDATA (the original HondaJet) and
6. I will kindly send you over a copy of the content of my modified version of the HondaJet (a great / wonderful / little jet)
It will come with a GPL2 notice, and you get it all as the license letter writes.


If you want it, just let me know where to send it to you.
I offered already I'll email to you. (as I have send a copy to many other people already, and all of them have it GPLed, so they don't need to ask me if they can rightfully distribute either)

[IAHM-COL]

About i4dnf's aircrafts


1. He initially released them GPL. (you can find the COPYING file attribution on the zips!)
Original outdated content:
IAR80: http://ftp.linux.kiev.ua/pub/fgfs/Aircraft-2.12/IAR80_20120912.zip
Lockheed Model L10: http://longfly.square7.ch/download/Lockheed-L10-Electra.zip

2. JWocky and IAHM-COL used his GPL content to produce more developed GPL planes
Updated Content
IAR80: https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/IAR-80-JSB
Lockheed Model L10: https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/Lockheed-Model10



3. You can read i4dnf's entertaining and saddening allegations we can't use his GPL material:
https://github.com/JWocky/IAR-80-JSB/issues/1
https://github.com/JWocky/IAR-80-JSB/issues/2
https://github.com/JWocky/Lockheed-Model10/issues/1
https://github.com/JWocky/Lockheed-Model10/issues/2
https://github.com/JWocky/Lockheed-Model10/issues/3

Yeah! Awry similar to the ridicule arguments of "I-know-who"

We did contact the FSF to clarify this issue, and we are OK to move forward now.

4. i4dnf released his planes now as Creative Commons Non-Derivative, with some (not major) improvements, creating alternative versions, which you can get here:

Original Updated content
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/IAR80
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/Loc ... 10-Electra


There you are.

Safe Landings

IAHM-COL

[KL-666]

I think i found the absolute core of Thorsten's misconceptions. He strongly believes that:

"GPL gives me the right to not release"

This is absolutely correct. So then do not release it. But due to poor understanding of boundaries between networks and between legal entities he went astray.

Corporate network = private (stuff stays within the same legal entity)
Internet = public (stuff moves between legal entities)

Within a corporate network you can "publish" as you like, yet it is not distributing. If you are worried someone might put it on a web server, you can add a note "please do not distribute it outside our corporation".

What can not be done is put it on the internet with the same sort of note. On the internet it will move from one legal entity (Thorsten) to many legal entities. Thus it is distributing, no matter what note accompanies it.

[edit]
Just to avoid any new confusion, an internet tunnel may be used as medium to share between employees of the same corporation, without it becoming distributing. Then it should be in a "closed envelope", e.g. VPN or encrypted behind a password.
[/edit]

Anyone who can show me different in the gpl text itself, gets a kiss.

I believe Hooray perfectly understands this. So i find it quite odd that he leaves his friend to drown in his misconceptions. Not really friend-like. Come on Hooray, enlighten the man. (He is not going to believe any of us for sure).

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

If I'm honest I've never understood why they just don't write their own license...

The only reason I can see for not doing so is to ensure you have the 'weight' of legal might that you could call on by using GPL.
And a deterrent is only any good if your opponent knows for certain that you're going to use it.

But if you are going to use GPL, then there can't be this ambiguity about words and actions that are used when licensing a plane.

The confusion stems from this and if Flightgear aren't going to communicate with FSF then I think FGMEMBERS ought to, as I for one would very much like to see the definition 'whole' as described to a plane or separate works within a plane clearly understood and not just our own personal interpretation.

[Richard]

If I'm honest I've never understood why they just don't write their own license...

Maybe because we should all be writing code and modelling rather than writing licences and arguing about them.

[KL-666]

That is not really going to work, if someone persistently calls you a thief and doer of illegal acts, is it? If you suspect it is based on low understanding of the law, i find one is obliged to try to correct him, instead of dragging him to court immediately.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

If I'm honest I've never understood why they just don't write their own license...

Maybe because we should all be writing code and modelling rather than writing licences and arguing about them.

Sure, and as long as no one's calling you a thief it's alright because you're not really interested in getting into arguments preferring to code and model.

Sorry Richard I can't stand by and be bullied or watch others being bullied and say nothing safe in the knowledge that I'm modelling.