Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft

A380 omega95  Topic is solved

Questions and discussion about creating aircraft. Flight dynamics, 3d models, cockpits, systems, animation, textures.

A380 omega95

Postby DavidT. » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:01 pm

Hello,
I have a A380 made by omega95. But I can not find the project on Github. Can anybody tell me where this respo is ?
Thanks
DavidT.
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: A380 omega95  

Postby legoboyvdlp » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:55 pm

User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: A380 omega95

Postby DavidT. » Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:36 pm

Thank you :)
DavidT.
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: A380 omega95

Postby agough » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:55 pm

Hi lego - just checking, is Omega part of the MEMBERS team now? I know a few people were asking about his ATR-72, might be an idea to point them thataway if that's where he's doing his stuff now.
agough
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:54 am
Callsign: G-OUGH
Version: 3.7
OS: Windows

Re: A380 omega95

Postby legoboyvdlp » Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:58 pm

He isn't doing anything anywhere, except in the real world :P
That's just the only place I know of where it is, after Gotourious shut down
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: A380 omega95

Postby Thorsten » Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:02 am

Unless FGMembers does now content auditing for compliance with copyright and has dealt with the historic violations, no direct links from the forum to their repository please - it's legally equivalent to linking to a stash of pirated software and the forum admin is liable.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10587
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: A380 omega95

Postby Pakistan-1 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:27 pm

Omega said that he doesn't care about the licenses of his work anymore and many of us on the forum decided to make them GPL so hope that clears up everything with you guys
User avatar
Pakistan-1
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:49 am
Location: Hong Kong
Callsign: DocDMG,PK1,MIA2020
Version: 3.7
OS: Windows 10

Re: A380 omega95

Postby legoboyvdlp » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:03 pm

I am very sorry, but you are wrong Pakistan 1. If it were so, it would be illegal. Narendran re-released his aircraft under the GNU GPL licence.
Only the author of a work has the authority to relicence an object. It would be illegal for anyone else to make it GNU GPL.
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: A380 omega95

Postby sanhozay » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:21 pm

Thorsten wrote in Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:02 am:Unless FGMembers does now content auditing for compliance with copyright and has dealt with the historic violations, no direct links from the forum to their repository please - it's legally equivalent to linking to a stash of pirated software and the forum admin is liable.

Does FGADDON have comprehensive content auditing for copyright compliance?
sanhozay
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:57 am
Location: EGNM
Callsign: G-SHOZ
Version: Git
OS: Ubuntu 16.04

Re: A380 omega95

Postby Thorsten » Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:14 pm

Does FGADDON have comprehensive content auditing for copyright compliance?


It would depend on what exactly you mean by 'comprehensive', but yes, there is content auditing for copyright compliance and monitoring of what gets committed - quoting e.g. Edward from yesterday's post to the mailing list:

FGAddon is not that hard to monitor. For example I've been watching all changes via the flightgear-fgaddon-commitlogs mailing list [1].

Omega said that he doesn't care about the licenses of his work anymore and many of us on the forum decided to make them GPL


Thank you for illustrating the problem of giving open access to a repository quite drastically :-)
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10587
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: A380 omega95

Postby legoboyvdlp » Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:05 pm

Thorsten, that is not the case, but misinformation spread by a certain person.


I quote myself:
Code: Select all
Narendran re-released his aircraft under the GNU GPL licence.
Only the author of a work has the authority to relicence an object. It would be illegal for anyone else to make it GNU GPL.
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 6639
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: A380 omega95

Postby Thorsten » Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:39 am

It's not about any one particular case though - the point was that Pakistan-1 has demonstrated a genuine misunderstanding of how copyright and licensing works.

If you open a repository for access to literally everyone, you're bound to have people who don't understand how copyright and licensing works who also commit. It doesn't require any bad intention - just a misunderstanding such that you can discuss a license change in a forum without the copyright holder and do it if there's consensus will do. Also, if you have people who commit anything interesting posted in a forum without asking license information first (we've seen Israel do this a few times), this is bound to go wrong as well now and then.

If in addition you don't have gatekeepers monitoring the content that goes in, these cases will never be caught - your repository is bound to re-distribute material under invalid licenses because not all the contributors understand licensing, nobody makes sure they do before they get any access and nobody checks the material after it is committed.

You're trying to solve this case by case that's brought to your attention - but the truth is that the FG developers aren't interested in doing content auditing for FGMembers (and wouldn't have the resources anyway). I think even during the month or so people have been looking, there's been several copyright violations documented (and posted here in the forum). That's ample evidence that the access procedure is flawed and will continue to produce problems - I don't need to identify every problematic case to come to that conclusion.

So personally I think the train has passed - I don't think you'd find any distributor who takes licensing seriously who touches a repository with such a history (and I wouldn't hold my breath that FG ever allows access via something like the aircraft center - the legal liability question doesn't go away) - even if you'd do gatekeeping right now, you'd have to go back commit by commit and establish proper licensing in every case. That's very unfortunate for the large amount of honest and properly licensed work that's gone into the repository as well - but you've all been warned before.

Israel has told everyone that gatekeeping is just a plot for people to stay in power. It's not - it's for your protection, to make sure your legitimate work doesn't end up mixed with illegal material.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10587
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: A380 omega95

Postby sanhozay » Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:37 am

Thorsten wrote in Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:39 am:the point was that Pakistan-1 has demonstrated a genuine misunderstanding of how copyright and licensing works.

He made one post where he got his facts wrong. It's not really a hanging offence, especially as he is a young man who is learning about the project and, to his credit, is gradually becoming a contributor to it.

Thorsten wrote in Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:39 am:If you open a repository for access to literally everyone

FGMEMBERS is a series of GitHub repositories arranged using submodules. To access them one needs a GitHub account and a grant of commit access from the repository administrators. I have the former but not the latter. How is that open access to "literally everyone"?

Thorsten wrote in Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:39 am:the truth is that the FG developers aren't interested in doing content auditing for FGMembers

I suspect that FG developers in general are not interested in doing content auditing for FGADDON either; and rightly so. Development is more productive and rewarding than auditing.

Thorsten wrote in Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:39 am:even if you'd do gatekeeping right now, you'd have to go back commit by commit and establish proper licensing in every case.

This must also apply to FGADDON, perhaps more so, as it is the official repository. I suspect a retrospective audit of FGADDON has not been done, simply because of the time involved.
sanhozay
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:57 am
Location: EGNM
Callsign: G-SHOZ
Version: Git
OS: Ubuntu 16.04

Re: A380 omega95

Postby Thorsten » Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:51 am

I'm sorry, I fail to see your point. Israel made it very clear that FGMembers had a stated policy of providing access to everyone interested (as opposed to the gatekeeping done for FGAddon). Is that no longer the case - are committers now picked based on e.g. their knowledge of copyright law?

Are you seriously suggesting that the two procedures provide the same level of security?

He made one post where he got his facts wrong. It's not really a hanging offence, especially as he is a young man who is learning about the project and, to his credit, is gradually becoming a contributor to it.


That's my point - people who get their facts wrong should not get commit access till they get the facts right for the protection of everyone else's work.

This must also apply to FGADDON, perhaps more so, as it is the official repository. I suspect a retrospective audit of FGADDON has not been done, simply because of the time involved.


Why must this apply? I fail to see the logic as the standards of who gets to commit to FGData and now FGAddon have been quite different.

There has been a number of documented violations even when FGMembers was a few months old. I think you may be equating solid evidence on one side with your suspicions on the other side...

Anyway - I'm not interested in discussing this, as it's not going to be productive. The legal issue is there regardless of whether you believe it or not, it's not my job to sort it out, but FG has to avoid being dragged in. That's all.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10587
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: A380 omega95

Postby Thorsten » Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 pm

He made one post where he got his facts wrong. It's not really a hanging offence, especially as he is a young man who is learning about the project and, to his credit, is gradually becoming a contributor to it.


I'm not sure you grasp the potential seriousness. Making an ill-informed forum post is not an offense per se. Making a commit based on getting the facts wrong however is. If you commit copyrighted material (say by an aircraft manufacturer or a nav database provider) and re-label it as GPL, you've done something illegal. You won't be hanged, but you can be prosecuted, and so can the admin of the repository.

Saying that you are young and are only learning won't help you or make it legal. Underage users making copyrighted material available have been prosecuted just as well.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10587
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Next

Return to Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: YandexBot [Bot] and 1 guest