No license can be downgraded (or upgraded in case of gpl). All rights reserved should have stayed and not downgraded to CC. Even though the good intentions are very understandable.
Kind regards, Vincent
Here we go again...
Re: Here we go again...
well.. the thing is knowing what is the license if there 's no note?
It does not mean instantly the work really was meant to be ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. and that's where the problem arises.
No work should be left doubtful
In any case, only the author can request me what to do on each particular -license undeclared- situation.
I am open to know what they intend, and make the move required.
It does not mean instantly the work really was meant to be ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. and that's where the problem arises.
No work should be left doubtful
In any case, only the author can request me what to do on each particular -license undeclared- situation.
I am open to know what they intend, and make the move required.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Here we go again...
KL-666 wrote:No license can be downgraded (or upgraded in case of gpl). All rights reserved should have stayed and not downgraded to CC. Even though the good intentions are very understandable.
Kind regards, Vincent
Exactly right.
And that's exactly the crime Thorsten commited when he deleted the GPL2+ copying file from the SpaceShutle repositories, and from FGADDon.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Here we go again...
And respect to what those guys are saying, that the lack of a license implicitly forbids redistribution?
Yes. As much as forbids downloading.
All rights reserved means you don't have right to copying, either. It does not only impact redistribution.
So, the fact that the author created download links in the internet, and promoted those to be used within FG clearly indicated that their intention was not: All right reserved. (but most likely GPL, as FG itself is/was)
Omission of the license file seems to me the most obvious case. (you won't be creating links to your ALL RIGHTS RESERVED work in http servers). That's that.
Deleting a license file (as in the space shuttle) is clearly an attempt to create all right reserved content where there is not. On in other terms, a blatant attempt to disregard copyleft, which would immediately cancel GPL licensing to you (read Thorsten)
Yes. As much as forbids downloading.
All rights reserved means you don't have right to copying, either. It does not only impact redistribution.
So, the fact that the author created download links in the internet, and promoted those to be used within FG clearly indicated that their intention was not: All right reserved. (but most likely GPL, as FG itself is/was)
Omission of the license file seems to me the most obvious case. (you won't be creating links to your ALL RIGHTS RESERVED work in http servers). That's that.
Deleting a license file (as in the space shuttle) is clearly an attempt to create all right reserved content where there is not. On in other terms, a blatant attempt to disregard copyleft, which would immediately cancel GPL licensing to you (read Thorsten)
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Here we go again...
Now. Let's say author X did make a plane for FG 6 years ago, and did not add any license at all.
It is correct that ALL RIGHTS RESERVE currently applies. And as such, Downloading the aircraft, which is an act of copying is illegal.
But now the author placed a link somewhere in Internet. Which implied he had will of allowing you to hit download, and thus copying.
Yes all rights reserved to the original author. ... one of those rights being to distribute it as he wishes...
Distributing it himself doesn't mean he's giving you permission to distribute it though...
I think you've over stepped there.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: Here we go again...
That's true.
But without a license, the clarity is:
Downloading it is also not authorized.
Not only distribution.
The only solution to the conundrum is the author telling me (us) what license applies.
All rights reserved is unlikely, because providing a download link implies relinquishing at least the rights to copy, and most likely also relinquish the rights to usage.
What I'll be needing is the author to tell me what it is.
But a non-author can't.
Example
Author A : makes a plane, offers the link. You donwload. there is no license
Author B: Says, this is illegal. You downloaded an all restricted material.
Point by Author B is kind of mute. so far
Author B: Says, the work is All rights reserved!!
The point is mute so far
Author A: Says, The work is GPL!
(now we know)
or
Author A: Says, the work is All rights reserved
(now we know)
Not before.
Only the copyright owner can clarify here.
___ Declaring a license ___
This is extremely important ever before you produce a download link.
You can produce a link, and add the text: All rights reserved
Which means, you are not authorized to either download and/or use. Let aside redistribute or modify.
Or you can produce a link, and say: I relinquish right to copy (download) and use.But nothing else
(see the MiG15 by Vitos)
But without a license, the download link creates a legal vacuum, where you are uncertain whether copying (aka download) is ever legal. And this drop down to the rest (redistribute and modify)
But without a license, the clarity is:
Downloading it is also not authorized.
Not only distribution.
The only solution to the conundrum is the author telling me (us) what license applies.
All rights reserved is unlikely, because providing a download link implies relinquishing at least the rights to copy, and most likely also relinquish the rights to usage.
What I'll be needing is the author to tell me what it is.
But a non-author can't.
Example
Author A : makes a plane, offers the link. You donwload. there is no license
Author B: Says, this is illegal. You downloaded an all restricted material.
Point by Author B is kind of mute. so far
Author B: Says, the work is All rights reserved!!
The point is mute so far
Author A: Says, The work is GPL!
(now we know)
or
Author A: Says, the work is All rights reserved
(now we know)
Not before.
Only the copyright owner can clarify here.
___ Declaring a license ___
This is extremely important ever before you produce a download link.
You can produce a link, and add the text: All rights reserved
Which means, you are not authorized to either download and/or use. Let aside redistribute or modify.
Or you can produce a link, and say: I relinquish right to copy (download) and use.But nothing else
(see the MiG15 by Vitos)
But without a license, the download link creates a legal vacuum, where you are uncertain whether copying (aka download) is ever legal. And this drop down to the rest (redistribute and modify)
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Here we go again...
No its not ..... the author has the right to distribute his work as he wishes. .... if he has a Web page with a download button then that's his wish. You can't transfer that wish to yourself. ..
Sorry I just don't buy it.
Sorry I just don't buy it.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: Here we go again...
That's correct.
He can create the link to the download. which does not make it legal for you to copy it.
(downloading creates a copy)
Your point being, creating a download link on All rights reserved work is an explicit relinquishing of copy rights. No. It is not, neither implicitly nor explicitly.
In other terms. The author can create the donwload link.
For anyone else without permission, to click it, is where creates the legal vacuum.
that's so awkward, that one would assume that was not the case.
Instaed, an omission of the license is more logical.
He can create the link to the download. which does not make it legal for you to copy it.
(downloading creates a copy)
Your point being, creating a download link on All rights reserved work is an explicit relinquishing of copy rights. No. It is not, neither implicitly nor explicitly.
In other terms. The author can create the donwload link.
For anyone else without permission, to click it, is where creates the legal vacuum.
that's so awkward, that one would assume that was not the case.
Instaed, an omission of the license is more logical.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: Here we go again...
Nah still not buying it...
An author who owns copyright on his work can do what he likes with it.... he has that right reserved to him.
You however only have the rights he bestows on you....
By placing a download link he's giving you the right to download it....that's his right to do so...
However by doing so he's in no way giving you the right to host his work and also create a download link... Unless he gives you a licence to do so...
In this case he hasn't. ... and you are making assumptions as to his wishes..
You overstepped.....
However there is nothing stopping you from creating a link to his download button.... therefore hosting no data.
An author who owns copyright on his work can do what he likes with it.... he has that right reserved to him.
You however only have the rights he bestows on you....
By placing a download link he's giving you the right to download it....that's his right to do so...
However by doing so he's in no way giving you the right to host his work and also create a download link... Unless he gives you a licence to do so...
In this case he hasn't. ... and you are making assumptions as to his wishes..
You overstepped.....
However there is nothing stopping you from creating a link to his download button.... therefore hosting no data.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: Here we go again...
Okay, not exactly the subject, but I have a question about this license thing. Lets say, a certain sometimes slightly senile plane tinkerer forgot to add his name to the authors list (lets say in some dozen planes O.O) because some things were only relative small fixes and expansions ... now this makes this part of the plane "undefined license", right? Which means, a source code stealing clown like Thorsten could come and say, said plane tinkerer didn't say explicitly so there is a non-GPL part in the plane ... maybe with a bit drooling and threatening the tinkerer to go to court if he ever says, it was supposed to be GPL. I mean, those guys over there are that crazy.
So, is there a thing like a blanket license. "If you see a plane in FG and I did work on it and forgot to write my name on it or explicit to write, my work is GPL, it is per definitionem GPL"? Because if I, for whatever reasons, want something else, I will write so explicitly.
So, is there a thing like a blanket license. "If you see a plane in FG and I did work on it and forgot to write my name on it or explicit to write, my work is GPL, it is per definitionem GPL"? Because if I, for whatever reasons, want something else, I will write so explicitly.
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!
Return to “Club of the Banned”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests