Aircraft CC and GPL License and non-GPL FGAddon Question

[bomber]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=37472

Do a search of the forum Josh.... I think I was told where I could stick any idea like having a dual licence repository... and I think you'll find it's the reason for this place... amongst others.

Maybe now while you're all friendly friendly with folk they might change their stance.... doubt it mind.

Simon

[bomber]

Thorsten wrote

"From the developer side, there's also the disappointment theme - I can use XY with FG, but I may not actually work with it. So if it's not GPL, I simply never look further, no matter how good it may or may not be - because if it is good, I still can't really work with it, adapt things from it and so on."

This is absolute bollocks as a CC licence lets you distribute, copy, adapt all the work offered... it just doesn't let you sell it.

Now if you Josh or anyone else says, they're not interested in selling work... what then has been taken away from you by using a CC licence ?

Simon

[bomber]

Thorsten wrote

"Yeah, it's generally unfortunate that much really excellent 3d work is not GPL compatible..."

Yeah, it's generally unfortunate that people like you, who have so little tolerance for other peoples licence wishes, whilst spouting on about respecting the GPL licence holder, hold so much sway over the FG community.

[bomber]

In real life is a plane a whole ?

Does Boeing make the whole plane or do they assemble separate pieces of work, parts from the seat to the engines manufacturers ?

Does Rolls Royce see their work as less than a whole. Or do they see it as a whole which is separate from Boeing, capable of being installed on a variety of manufacturers planes.. not restricted to just one ?

Is a 3d modelers, 2d artists or flight modelers work any different ?

Simon.

[bomber]

I don't have a problem with "these are the rules of the club"

Where I have a problem is where people insist on making GPL a virus that forces a creator to licence their separate work as GPL

GPL does insist is that if you take someone elses GPL work and modify it, you must distribute this modified work as GPL... this makes common sense.

Taking someone elses work, not changing it one iota, taking another completely separate piece of work that has no resemblance, not in code or language type to this other GPL work and saying "You can't distribute these 2 together" is far against the intent of the GPL licence...

It's not meant to hog tie people, restrict them but instead allow collaboration...

It's a disgrace it's been hi-jacked in such a way by what can only be described as software zealots.

Simon

[IAHM-COL]

The whole-plane-split-plane talk!!

[bomber]

that is because it continually comes back around.... and why ? because the answer doesn't work.

How can it ?

How can the very thought that "well I created something and I've given it away free for all to use, modify and copy.... however and if you want to benefit from using it all your stuff has also got to be the same licence..... this is open source development !" be the basis of a collaborative environment ?7

Wouldn't it be better to say... "We've written GPL content, we'd like you also to do so, but we'll not hold it against you if you don't as long as your licence allows for FG use in perpetuity"

[bomber]

"but the point still is valid, as is exemplified by numerous discussions like this one, where contributors were surprised to learn that their work should be subject to the terms of the GPL due to their use of /some/ Nasal modules originating from fgdata or some GPL'ed aircraft."

I think what surprises people is that other people desire to have the right to sell others works overrides their desire to simply enjoy sharing, collaborating and working together.

That's what disappoints people...

And yes GPL has served Flightgear well in the past, but we can't keeping looking into the past we have to move forward, adapt or die.

Simon

[bomber]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 2&start=45

The constant prevarication and failure to answer a simple question is childish...

As a professional 3d modeller and amateur flight modeller I know first hand that's there's no connection, no relationship between these two skills or deliverables from these two skills.

The very idea that that anyone working on one and bringing it toether with the other to simulate a plane has to abide by the others licence is ludicrous..

Which of these works is an extension of the other ?

The one that's created first, regardless of its quality or accuracy ?
The one that's had more development time spent on it ?

It's a ludicrous argument.

[IAHM-COL]

Just regular folk talking with entitlement of thing they don't have mastery off. Reads to me.