Board index FlightGear Development

The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

FlightGear is opensource, so you can be the developer. In the need for help on anything? We are here to help you.
Forum rules
Core development is discussed on the official FlightGear-Devel development mailing list.

Bugs can be reported in the bug tracker.

The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby abassign » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:01 pm

Split off from the topic Fiat G.91 - YASim.

@helijah,

The aircraft is released under the GNU, I think I read it in the Read-me.txt ... confirm it?

This is the place to insert the observation that can improve the quality of the model. I find no other place to put them in this forum, I deduce that if you presented your work in this forum is appropriate (of course with due fairness!) insert comments and suggestions in order that this model can become better. It is an advantage for all (remember we are the GNU environment) that everybody loses part of his time to help those who create something to ensure that it becomes better and better!
Otherwise attribute to your model a license "creative commons" and show it only in your blog and in this place you can do anything you want ...

If you just want to communicate to us all that your aircraft was built, there is the rule that claimed Hooray:
http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10233#p104021 :
If you know about any new or heavily updated aircraft models, please make sure to add a short note to the FlightGear newsletter, see the wiki for details: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Next_newsletter
This is important to spread news to FlightGear users who don't visit the forums regularly. Obviously, adding some screen shots to the newsletter is also a very good idea!


I summarize:
Check what you want to do, if you want our cooperation in full GNU philosophy must also accept any criticism that others will do, some will be right, others only partially right, others wrong. No problem is just that others are trying to give a hand to make this model (the model under GNU licensed is not your... is become property of the community... remember...) better and better. If you suspect this is not the appropriate place to receive criticism, then remove this post and put it in your blog.
Last edited by Johan G on Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Split off from Fiat G.91 - YASim
abassign
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: Italy (living 5 Km from airport LIME)
Callsign: I-BASSY
Version: 2018.3
OS: Linux Mint 19. x

Re: Fiat G.91 - YASim

Postby helijah » Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:26 pm

Only two things!

1 - The GPL highlights the authorship of the works and the respect of authors. This is not by publishing the criticals (which are not based mostly) in public it progresses.

For 10 years I created models and talented people and voluntary contact me in private or on my forum to improve models (DC3, DR400, A26 Invader, Socota ST10, YAK 18T, 50 Zlin Lx, Dornier Do X, Mirage 2000-5 etc ... I stop the list is too long.

Like any open source project imporant, it's respect for others which is imporant. And I do not see abolument respect in all this.

2 - I presented the G91 here because a discussion talking about a G91 was created. It was logical that I present my work to those who don't knew it.

The unhealthy reactions and filled with hatred Patrizio created unease there or there are none.

And you make a classic and monumental mistake. With GPL, the author remains the owner of the work first. And if he continues to maintain his works then everything should go through him; This is the foundation of any open source project.

What you describe has a name: Anarchy. And the GPL is absolutely not this

Reassure you you're not the first to make this mistake and believe that anything is possible with the GPL. But this is totally wrong, and that's why a lot of open source project continue to live and evolve.

Try to change the Blender sources, and even FlightGear without the agreement of the principal maintainers and you will understand that this is not possible.
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Fiat G.91 - YASim

Postby Johan G » Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:34 am

@abassign and helijah: You should both perhaps take some time to re-read the GNU GPLv2 license (and probably Philosophy of the GNU Project as well). :wink:

abassign wrote in Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:01 pm:... if you want our cooperation in full GNU philosophy must also accept any criticism that others will do, some will be right, others only partially right, others wrong. No problem is just that others are trying to give a hand to make this model (the model under GNU licensed is not your... is become property of the community... remember...) better and better.

helijah wrote in Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:26 pm:The GPL highlights the authorship of the works and the respect of authors.
...
With GPL, the author remains the owner of the work first.

The GPL license absolutely do not make what it is applied to into public property in any way, shape or form. Do note that the license is a license to use a copyrighted piece of work. Provided that you adhere to the limitations set by the license you are free to 0) use, 1) analyze and modify, 2) distribute modified copies, and 3) distribute exact copies.

In order to make sure that those four rights for the users can perpetuate, the work has to be copyrighted. The copyright holder (of an original work) is the author (in the very most jurisdictions automatically from the moment of creation of the work, no matter any license or not).

If it was not copyrighted (thus not having an owner) and the work indeed would be put into public domain, there would not be anything legally binding anyone to adhere to the license. That would make anyone entirely free to turn it proprietary and strip the users of most or all of those rights.

helijah wrote in Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:26 pm:With GPL, the author remains the owner of the work first. And if he continues to maintain his works then everything should go through him; This is the foundation of any open source project.

That is not something required by the GPL license (see the third freedom, to distribute modified copies). That being said, I still think this most probably is the better way to do things. I believe that one (or possibly a few) well maintained pieces of work is much more helpful to users than say 50 wildly differing variants no one can really tell apart.
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5529
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Fiat G.91 - YASim

Postby wkitty42 » Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:57 am

Johan G wrote in Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:34 am:
helijah wrote in Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:26 pm:With GPL, the author remains the owner of the work first. And if he continues to maintain his works then everything should go through him; This is the foundation of any open source project.

That is not something required by the GPL license (see the third freedom, to distribute modified copies). That being said, I still think this most probably is the better way to do things. I believe that one (or possibly a few) well maintained pieces of work is much more helpful to users than say 50 wildly differing variants no one can really tell apart.

absolutely agreed, johan... the quoted interpretation given above is very much not right in the spirit of GNU or open source... nothing has to go back to the original licensee for approval or anything else... in open source, everything is available to be forked and none of the forks has to be passed back to the original project but it is highly recommended that such is done even though all modifications of GNU licensed software have the be made available to those that use it... open source and GNU are not the same thing... someone has a major misunderstanding that they need to rethink and understand... sad to say...
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 5700
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: Fiat G.91 - YASim

Postby helijah » Sat Aug 01, 2015 1:58 am

I totally agree with you two (Johan G and wkitty42). That is why you will never see me write anything negative about the work of FGUK that broadcasts modified versions of my models. It is their right and they are quite right.

But when they feel that an improvement worth entering SVN, they have the courtesy to send me their work and a request. That I do in 99.99% of cases. (UH1, Jaguar etc ...)

The GPL, though you can say, respects the authorship of a project when the project is maintained. This is not an obligation in effect. But respectful attitudes strongly recommended for the well being of the whole project.

These free systems (GPL and other) haven't been created to encourage anarchy, but for facilitate trade and to avoid an economic system became totally crazy. :)

The first reflex to have is ALWAYS contact the author (if he maintained always his work) and to see with him what can be done.

Do you really think that people can changing the sources of KDE, LibreOffice, Blender, FlightGear etc ... without the prior approval of official maintainers ?

It is obviously possible to clone. OSGEARTH-Integration for example. But to alter the original, must have the permission of the original authors, or those who have taken their place. This is the minimum for a project to survive.

It's more a matter of respect, unwritten rules, that are never written as so obvious that it is not necessary.

Unfortunately it seems that the more time passes, the more rules are lost :(
Some planes (and other) for FlightGear
http://helijah.free.fr
and
http://embaranger.free.fr
User avatar
helijah
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Chartres (France)
Callsign: helijah
IRC name: helijah
Version: GIT
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Fiat G.91 - YASim

Postby clrCoda » Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:16 am

po·lite
adjective: polite; comparative adjective: politer; superlative adjective: politest
having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people.




Being polite, it's a trained skill. The best thing about the people that don't practice it is that they identify themselves. The polite thing to do is to be polite and remind a person that is not polite the skill of being polite, politely. hehe

--Ray
Ray St. Marie
clrCoda
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:04 am

Re: Fiat G.91 - YASim

Postby Thorsten » Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:49 am

The GPL, though you can say, respects the authorship of a project when the project is maintained. This is not an obligation in effect.


You are confusing legal mechanics and unwritten statements.

Original authorship gives you copyright, i.e. the right to license your work. Once you license it GPL, you're relinquishing a lot of your rights as author and make the work available under very few conditions.

It is not part of the GPL conditions that the original author needs to be contacted. Neither does anyone require approval of the original author for modifications. You relinquish these rights when publishing GPL. So anyone outside FG can do with your planes pretty much whatever he pleases provided he keeps sources open and adheres to the rest of GPL - including selling it without giving you a share of the profits.

Now, inside the project, an unwritten rule states that the aircraft maintainer should be contacted. That's neither required nor encouraged by GPL, it's a FG internal thing. The reason is first an expression of respect and politeness, and second a way to avoid double work if a modification does the same thing as the plan of the maintainer.

That however does not give you the right to veto a development (as you seem to believe based on past events). You may not like JSBSim FDMs and try to block any JSBSim developments loosely connected to your arsenal of planes, but that's neither backed up by GPL nor does it make any sense in the context of this project. Thus, if there is no agreement reached with the original author (you) but other people (for instance me) judge the work worth adding to the project, the modifier doesn't have to go through you - he'll get other people (me) to commit his JSBSim FDM ito the repo (in such a way that it doesn't infringe on your original work of course, i.e. using a different *-set file).

But to alter the original, must have the permission of the original authors, or those who have taken their place.


This is neither required by GPL nor by the customs of the FG project, nor is it reasonable to require. Translation - you don't automatically get to veto reasonable development based on your 3d models.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11106
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby lanbo64 » Sat Aug 01, 2015 9:35 pm

Hi *,

I just realized that this topic become very interesting and enlightening.

In this discussion, we all discuss about GPL and unwritten rule for respecting, but we ignore a very important thing -- the way we protect the entire project safe.

KDE, Blender, FlightGear, FFMPEG, and Linux Kernel always remain manageable because of the authority, password, signed keys of SVN, GIT, CVS, and many other stuffs. You don't set your repositories to be written or deleted. You only let the people you trusted in.

However, after people downloading the codes, and they will keep the codes open source (not required by BSD and LGPL), it is not in your hand... They don't write to your SVN, but they can build their own. This is called "Fork". After fork, they can outreach their fork. Some bigger projects can even adapt the fork but kick the original work out.

Let's see a very famous (or infamous?) example -- FFMPEG and LIBAV... FFMPEG removed an authors' right to modify the SVN, so the author downloaded the FFMPEG code, and modified, and uploaded to his own one. He names this project as LIBAV. The story was not ended here, but more interesting things happened. The LIBAV's author asked Debian to kick the FFMPEG out and the used LIBAV. This is why in current Debian Stable, there is not FFMPEG.

Now, after the all the basics in above paragraphs, this is the beginning of the unwritten rule... FlightGear doesn't do the same thing like what Debian do. FlightGear would not kick one aircraft out and adapt another. The project always asks the original authors.

Sincerely,
Bo
lanbo64
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:45 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Hooray » Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:29 am

Seriously, the term "CurtEsy" is just awesome (given this is the FlightGear forum ...), I suggest having a dedicated wiki article for formalizing what "CurtEsy" entails :D
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11354
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Thorsten » Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:55 am

FlightGear would not kick one aircraft out and adapt another. The project always asks the original authors.


As a matter of fact, FG has removed aircraft which have been considered obsolete and replaced by a better version in the past and is doing this now - chances are the YaSIm F-14b will be removed, the previous C-172p will share this fate,...
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11106
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Philosopher » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:56 pm

Yes, Thorsten, but it should be recognized that the author's permission was given for the former, and the latter was derived from the old C-172P, so hence I see the detailed version only as a different stage of the same development project.
Thanks,
Philosopher
(inactive but lurking occasionally...)
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1590
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:29 pm
Location: Stuck in my head...
Callsign: AFTI
Version: Git
OS: Mac OS X 10.7.5

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby gsagostinho » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:23 pm

Philosopher wrote in Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:56 pm:and the latter was derived from the old C-172P, so hence I see the detailed version only as a different stage of the same development project.

I don't think we had a single person from the original c172p in the team (although I may be mistaken here!), nor I think we did contact anyone about those modifications. It all started just with a bunch of us playing around with textures and applying them to the panel and ended up where it is now.
User avatar
gsagostinho
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby Philosopher » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:36 pm

Yeah, but my point was you did take all of the existing code, and only improved parts of it. I don't think that's the same thing as starting a new project/aircraft from scratch and proposing it replace an old one.
Thanks,
Philosopher
(inactive but lurking occasionally...)
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1590
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:29 pm
Location: Stuck in my head...
Callsign: AFTI
Version: Git
OS: Mac OS X 10.7.5

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby gsagostinho » Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:43 pm

Philosopher wrote in Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:36 pm:I don't think that's the same thing as starting a new project/aircraft from scratch and proposing it replace an old one.

But if we had done that and created a much more realistic Cessna 172 using also a GPL license, then wouldn't you think we should replace the old plane? I don't think the project should enter in this "honour" territory, I say simply pick the best available GPL material and that's all! If one day someone replaces some (or all) of my work with better things, I would be absolutely fine with that! What matter is the simulator and not one's feelings, particularly if this one has given away lots of his rights by using a GPL license.
User avatar
gsagostinho
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 6:27 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesy

Postby clrCoda » Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:13 am

No, there should be previous versions of replaced planes available somewhere, somehow. After all there are many people that use previous versions of the simulator and planes that match those versions should be available at least, even tho the newer plane might work, and in case it does not.

The project is only all about feelings. You do what you do because you feel the need.

--Ray

PS. Best is not always 'best'. It's subjective.

PPS: making decisions for yourself on your simulator ( for you in your world ) is one thing. Making decisions for the rest of the world that effect everyone in it unilaterally is dictatorship.
Ray St. Marie
clrCoda
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:04 am

Next

Return to Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest