Thorsten Postures on GPL

[bomber]

Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick !

Wecsje is it deliberate or are you just plain obtuse ?

[jwocky]

@Wecsje:

FGMEMBERS has always and will always gather GPL content. If an author claims, his work is GPL, he can't go later and say "It is GPL for everyone only not for those, I don't like for political reasons".
I have yet to see any work from you, so I am not sure, how far you have personal experience with those problems. My own work in the FG World was always GPL, means EVERYBODY, tall, short, male, female, gay, straight, white, black, brown, green and whatnor can take it and do whatever he wants with it. And yes, also Thorsten can. But see, there is of course a variety of motives for people to do work without getting anything for it. I tinkered a lot on planes (I would still more if time would allow) because it was fun and people had fun with the end product. That was all. Others may do things to earn some reputation, even admiration. Joshua does things sometimes just to fly even cooler planes. Others do it to gain some space in an alleged meritocracy. And again others have the idea to make money out of it via some back doors. All is okay by me and all can be reason for different licenses. Fine.
The point is however, that Thorsten reasoned the existence of FGADDON back then as something with a different policy than FGMEMBERS has in this aspect. Now, he admitted finally, by his actions and arguments, it doesn't. Which makes his whole reasoning for the very existence of FGADDON obsolete.

[IAHM-COL]

What Thorsten is saying now is the stand I've always had towards GPL or any licence for that matter....

Not mine. Thorsten understanding of GPL is in my opinion still muddy and incorrect.

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 46#p322228

The GPL is designed to grant the freedom to developers to re-use, adapt and re-distribute material such that development does not rest on the goodwill of any single person.

I am quite sure this is not how it goes.

While software development at its craddle was a rather open enterprise, where no one concerned much about properties or ownerships or copyrights, at a given time a series of companies attempted to hold a monopoly over the industry of computing resources.

To accomplish this, in a blink of an eye, extremely restrictive EULAS were born. These EULAS evolved to the point where an split between who's who in computers was born. There were the developers, who owned everything and the users who were put in a market of renting time for usage. Those unaware of this live their lives mind-protected of the things that happen around them all the time, *and certainly had failed to read the contracts (EULA) that their MacOS or Windows Software* made them sign, and for which they must abide to. In these two examples, one, the user, has paid by actually large amounts of money the right of using for some time the software the developer's own. If you think this permission is timeless, think again. But anyhow, using means, to do the computing exactly (and not beyond) what this developer has intended. Access to source code is barred. Attempt of reverse-engineer this source code is in direct violation of the EULAS. Attempt at modifying (this is not related to superficial customizations, like adding a different desktop) is unallowed. Redistribution is the paramount violation: Per example, installing your own software in your own secondary computer, could be even in certain cases an EULA violation, and installing it on you Mom's computer an immediate clear EULA violation. Finally, redistributing a modified version of it, is actually a violation of every account of the EULAs, and therefore it is in fact what this are trying to prosecute. The goal, as I state, had always been the establishment of a monopoly of ownership.

When the free licenses (including early GPLs) were born, the goal was to give the users of software their freedom back. The users regaining the freedom to have access to the source code, to modify it to suit their computer needs, and to redistribute either verbatim or modified copies of the software was the ultimate revolution against such EULAS. It broke the wall that separated developers from users. It made every user owner of his computing, and therefore a developer of its own.

When thorsten says that GPL was then designed to grant the freedom to developers, he clearly speaks behind a clouded glass, and he is blind to see that nothing is GPL grants anything to "developers" in the way he perceives them. GPL frees the users. And therefore GPL frees the software from tyranny.

[IAHM-COL]

The GPL explicitly does not require consent of the original copyright holder.

This is either totally uninformed or twistedly deceitful.

The GPL is a license.
A license in the lawyer's lexicom translates to human talk as "permission", or "consent"

The GPL explicitly grants permission and, or consent.

GPLing any material also DOES REQUIRE the original copyright holder consent!


So in reality, that statement of Thorsten above is either totally uninformed or twistedly deceitful., and for all purposes of clarity it should be rephrased as:

The GPL is a license by which the original copyright holder grants consent to: 1) use in an unlimited manner 2) have access to the source code, 3) redistribute and 4) redistribute modified versions of this, with 5) the major limitation that the material and any derivative material will inherit the GPL license.

[Wecsje]

Right, I am not going to tell you all about my personal experiences with gpl and idk what else. Yes, I do have experience with it. Second, let me state clearly here, that I don't like: FGaddon, FGmembers, and probably the entire FG project, O, and not to forget, this forum, that forum, and everything that has to do with it.

I like the idea of having an open source flight sim, and that is free to use. BUT, IDK what we are trying to achieve with this "project", IMO, its a big shit hole. And thats also the reason why people go away from it, or don't want to try it out. The only people we seem to attract is guys that want to fly their little kill machine around, or people that weren't accepted in astronaut training.

C.

[IAHM-COL]

Somewhat in contrast, the FG policy is to respect creator's rights

Here, I agree with Thorsten, unfortunately.

I agree that FG policies sit afoul and against with GPL policy.

[IAHM-COL]

All these aircraft (in an earlier development stage) are found on FGAddon where Gerard placed them.

Again, this statement is twistedly deceitful. Basically an unexplainable lie!!

Thorsten is arguing that the late Gerard has placed his work in FGAddon!?
First off. Gerard never was granted FGAddon commit rights. Most people lost commit access to the FG aircrafts when FGAddon was initially made, and regains this commit access is given by a "my friend" category.

Who did put these planes in FGADDon? It was FGAddon developer, f-jjth

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/fgaddon/3/


Furthermore, one cannot explore the history of this planes previous to FGADDon in fgaddon, so it's difficult to follow if Gerard himself added these to FG. But luckily one can look at that history within FGMEMBERS:

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/PBY-Catali ... 8674c1f+69

There we can see gerard himself did commit changes to his aircraft when fgdata was a git repository; a permission that got lost when FGAddon was created. The GRTux team had seek regain access to fgaddon unsucesfully.

[IAHM-COL]

this setup requires that updates are made to the downstream hangar, i.e. FGAddon.

This here referring to the FG policies. This tries to explain that while the FGTeam does not abide, and runs afoul GPL policy, also all user developing GPL work taken from FGADDon is required to attempt merging their work back to the developer.

While GPL does grant you the right to modify content, it does not grant you the obligation of working for anyone for free.

[IAHM-COL]

My only post here: You guys do the same thing when putting work in FGmembers... IIRC, D-ECHO made some nice scenery addons, and specifically said in his repo (and is still there): "Please don't fork this scenery to FGMEMBERS or similar" (https://github.com/D-ECHO/SintMaartenAntigua). But it is all in FGmembers... (https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-SCENERY/SintMaartenAntigua). Now I know this is allowed, but please don't become hypocrites, and shout at other people who also do it.

Regards,

Charlie (Wecsje)

I decided to ignore D-ECHO's notation.

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-SCENERY/SintMaartenAntigua

He licensed work as GPL 2.0.
The GPL license granted me (and everyone else) his permission to copy, use, redistribute, modify and redistribute.
In other words his license was his authorizing me (and everyone else) to fork.

His note, on the contrary Is discriminatory



When I am subject to discrimination, what I have to do is make an evaluation of damages. If the damages are too large, then I proceed suing in court, but if the damages are just pettiness, I proceed with making a note of discrimination, and move forward with my life.

Best,
IH-COL