License question concerning non-GPL aircraft.

[bomber]

I understand and accept that everyone don't always agree with me.

What concerns me with your line of thought is that as an author of dual licence planes, in that I create new CC licenced flight models for existing GPL planes. I'm constantly threatened by people (who's opinion about FGmembers is the same as yours) who say my work, the licence for it can be changed to GPL without my consent.

Not one person from your opinion of FGmembers stands up and says "wow, you can't do that. GPL is not a virus, they actually make that quite clear"

Here's an example recently.
"in the case canvas is used for the displays, it also enters the interesting realm of whether using the canvas libs would actually trigger the GPL for the rest of the plane, making it de-facto impossible to license correctly."

So to post on FGmembers criticising actions that you fail to object too when states by 'respected member's ' over on FG forum..... I think is a bit rich.

My point is and always will be that separate works within a plane as long as this work is not a modification of an existing GPL work can be licenced as the author wishes. In the case of the Tornado, this is a brand new 3d model, from a completely different source, it's clearly a separate piece of work and threatening to trigger any GPL re-licence is very disingenuous.

It's the failing to stand up to this that I most strongly object too.

Simon.

[IAHM-COL]

D-ECHO is arguing that my response is toxic? All I'm saying is that his attitude of alleging crime should follow (not precede) proper acquaintance with both the law and the facts. Doing it the other way around, could be more dangerous of a proceed, specially if you use too much spelling power, and risk falling into the trap of committing slandering (an actual crime).

Consequently I could use the same attitude and cry here that his post is purely made for shock value, and intently toxic. (and I don't mean his original post where he places questions, but instead later posts where he categorically charged that my behavior is ``illegal'').

[IAHM-COL]

Here's an example recently.
"in the case canvas is used for the displays, it also enters the interesting realm of whether using the canvas libs would actually trigger the GPL for the rest of the plane, making it de-facto impossible to license correctly."

I've read this nonsense too.
I have never been informed that an author can be forced into GPL if he/she chooses to stand in violation of the license.

My interpretation of the letter is that if someone is demonstrably in violation of GPL, then the course of action could be revoking of the license, which then full copyright protection would apply. This can limit the person(s)' ability to use, modify and redistribute derivative work, under a legal umbrella.

The argument that GPL will in turn force itself into the work of an unwilling participant, or making a license issue impossible is far fetched.

On the other hand, is Canvas licensed under GPL or LGPL? I thought it was the former, and LGPL will be totally non applicable.

IH-COL

[bomber]

As I understand it a plaintiff, be it an individual or group (FG) would apply to the courts to rule on any licence violation. It was made clear above by Decho ( before deleting) that every file header should have a licence statement so as to prevent any separation of the licence from the work. So in substituting a non GPL 3d model for the original whilst still distributing the original 3d under GPL, proof that a piece of work by a GPL author was being used in contradiction to its licence would need to be shown.
Having GPL canvas modules using GPL libraries wouldn't be showing any violation. If it was a non GPL canvas module, then using GPL libraries could be a violation.

Mixed licence just adds complexity.... I've just bought an LG 55" OLED TV. It comes with a GPL licence yet that doesn't give me access to the TV's bios which is propriety to LG.
SIEMENS solid edge 3d modelling comes with a GPL licence and I don't have access to its program code either.

This ain't rocket science.

Simon.

[IAHM-COL]

This ain't rocket science.

Simon.

Rocket science is physics. Easy. It can be understood. It can be simplified for ballpark predictions, or complicated for improved predictions ad hoc.

License mayhem is legality. Bollocks stuff. It can't be understood from logic by itself. Instead, follow the Sterlings. In legal matters, where the money goes, the logic follows.

PS: What you say about mixed licenses in commercial products is 100 percent. But my intuition indicates that it all goes with commercial interests subverting the spirit (of the GPL).
Why? Because as an end-user you are allowed to modify and redistribute your GPL product; but if your product is not fully GPL then you can only apply the GPL to those parts that are such. Those that aren't, frequently come with further limitations, included but not limited to the restriction of back-engineering.
Can, you, then as an end user really benefit from the GPL in this context?
Or only the commercial manufacturer benefit from the GPL while chockholding you, the end user, to their agreements, on the product as a whole?

This is a clear example where I find the GPL should apply its equalizing effects and simply forbid its usage on these products.

[bomber]

Well if a commercial manufacturer distributes GPL software for me to use, modify and distribute then where's the harm ?

Remember this is what the original author wanted.

[IAHM-COL]

I dont think your summary matches what I wrote, Bomber.

[bomber]

”Because as an end-user you are allowed to modify and redistribute your GPL product; but if your product is not fully GPL then you can only apply the GPL to those parts that are such. Those that aren't, frequently come with further limitations, included but not limited to the restriction of back-engineering.
Can, you, then as an end user really benefit from the GPL in this context? "

The but this is just so much flannel.... And I could use a stronger word here.

Seems to me you're bringing something extra to the debate wanting GPL to be a virus or should I see equalizing .

"
This is a clear example where I find the GPL should apply its equalizing effects and simply forbid its usage on these products"

So because LG uses an app for video or sound that's GPL, and because the bios of the TV isn't GPL , they shouldn't be able to use it.... How does that benefit me a simple end user or respect the wishes of the original GPL app author ?

That's who's wishes WE should respect, not some mythical end user with a barack room lawyer complex.

[123apple]

(3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication.

(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.

(3) In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection granted by this Convention shall expire fifty years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public.

(1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

It is clear that
a) Copyright protection is complete and automatic for any work that has not been designated as released under a particular license
b) An unlicensed piece of code has full copyright protection
c) only the author has the right to assign any copyright license.