Tower stacking and the GRTux Boeing-Vertol H-21C.

[Thorsten]

However more of the 95% of material are originally from Gerard never committed and as long i can read the original documents, the NEW HANGAR related, those material are or Freeware or "nothing",

Please cut the bullshit.

1) It doesn't matter how much material is by Gerard vs. you vs. anyone else - if you edit and update a GPL work and release it, you have to abide by the terms of the GPL license. If you use any of my GPL material and re-distribute, you have to abide by the terms of the GPL license.


2) You confirmed yourself:

Yes that update is GPL .

3) As everyone can verify, this original GRTuxhangar aircraft bundle I downloaded from your site before it went down contains COPYING notices for every aircraft which clearly spell out the terms of the GPL v2 license.

4) In addition, the README-FIRST files e.g. listing the updates contain a GPL license statement, to quote e.g. from the SR-71

Code: Select all

#===================================================================
Property of Gerard Robin  01-04-2006

 the Model is under Copyright GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENCE
see GPL COPYING  file attached to this package.



Thanks for using that Aircraft.

#===================================================================

====================================================================
Here is the basic flyable models.
Both variants are available

BlackBird-SR71-A was the usual  Aircraft, with Pilot and RSO, you can launch it with:      fg --aircraft=Blackbird-A
BlackBird-SR71-B was the training  Aircrfat, with Instructor Pilot and Student Pilot,  you can launch it with:      fg --aircraft=Blackbird-B

Permanent updates==========================================================================

> Better shape and arrangement  of the cockpits.
> Redesign of the canopy and fuse adaptation.
> Better rendering effect.
> We also added the new haze gl feature, noticing it can work against any FG
> rendering condition , with/without ALS , even working with Rembrandt  ( we
> just had to unlock the ALS constraint).
>
> Panels and cockpit board are populated with instruments (with regard of the
> SR71 Manual) , some are functional, the others want development ( we are
> working on it ) .
> A specific menu , with dialog-box(s), have been improved.
>Refuel options:
>dialog box refuel on ground
>generic air refueling AAR
>dialog box customized air refueling with autopilot
>dialog box fake air refueling with high flow rate




Last updates=====September -2016===============================================================
>Some instruments and equipments which are done by Justin (Pinto)  have been
> included ,Sensors,  Nav-dispalay, Throttle, Teb-shot, ENP, CIT, and the
> related engine failure. We copied it from his own fork
> Those addon related we just arrange the compatibility with our system frame.
>
> Also taken in account the major Engine and Tanks updates which were outdated
> since done 10 yeas ago, guessing Gerard could not get  the right
> documentation, and the jsbsim  tank management was not that powerful level.
> Those majors updates were done by Justin. We copied it from his own fork
> (github).
> We did  also  took  in account an FDM addon (also by Justin ) , we included it
> as a switched option.
> It reduce the tolerance  at flight ,  making  the flight control very accurate
> and sometime difficult, but more realistic.


This file clearly refers to updates Sep 2016 - and yet clearly spells out that it is distributed under the terms of the GPL.

5) In case that isn't sufficient, also the aircraft *-set.xml files contain GPL licensing statements.

So I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the licensing statements you have done throughout this package are rather thoroughly done and allow modification and / or re-distribution under the terms of the GPL while they do not allow you to place any restrictions on that.

Are you sure you want to put FlighGear community in a very bad position regarding the Law ?

Kindly make sure you understand how licensing works before making empty statements.

So, since we've covered the legalities, would you mind picking an option a) b) or c)?

[curt]

The author/owner of some material is free to change the licensing terms whenever they want. However, it seems like it is not possible to go back in time and change a license retroactively, even if a mistake was made. In a court case you can make any argument you like, and if the judge likes what they hear, maybe you will prevail. But if some material was posted with a clear GPL license and someone downloaded that material with that license, then I can't see how they are in any legal jeapardy (unless the person posting the material had no right to set the license to GPL in the first place.)

In this case it seems like a big mess of confusion where the material was posted with the GPL license, but then later the new authors/owners/inheriters decided to back away from the GPL. In this case it's messy and I can understand why people might argue over it.

That said, Thorsten, if we all insist on every last right we might have, even when it goes against the spirit of the author's wishes, then we will always have a lot to argue about. It is always important to consider intent. And Josh, I think you are on shaky grounds trying to retroactively change a license from posted material. If it was a mistake or unintentional or you didn't realize all the consequences at the time, that is unfortunate. You could explain that the gpl release was a mistake and ask people to not distribute that material under the gpl and apply the new license even to the older release ... but I don't think you can require it. If you and Thorsten insist on being argumentative over it and both sides insist on pushing their rights to the full extent, then good luck in court to both of you.

I feel like we've heard this all before Thorsten and I'm not sure why you feel the need to get into an aggressive argument over this. To me it sounds like Josh is moving in the direction of maintaining his own independent hangar to preserve and extend Gerard's original work. What's wrong with that?

[Thorsten]

The author/owner of some material is free to change the licensing terms whenever they want.

Actually, you need all authors/copyright holders to pull that off. Which in case of Gerard having passed away would seem difficult, in the case of my code that's a no for Josh,...

To me it sounds like Josh is moving in the direction of maintaining his own independent hangar to preserve and extend Gerard's original work. What's wrong with that?

Nothing - that's option b) I outlined in the choice list - he just needs to pick it.

I feel like we've heard this all before Thorsten and I'm not sure why you feel the need to get into an aggressive argument over this.

Because we now have a situation where people are interested in developing one of the aircraft further, and we need a clarification how to proceed - based on the facts, not on a piece of fiction.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether someone wants to act as maintainer or not and to expect that if the answer is no, FG development of the same plane under GPL is not actively hindered (I do think the agression is rather unevenly distributed, my part of the argument was, I believe, rather polite...)

[Josh_grtuxteam]

..............
then I can't see how they are in any legal jeapardy (unless the person posting the material had no right to set the license to GPL in the first place.)

Unfortunately that's the point.

To me it sounds like Josh is moving in the direction of maintaining his own independent hangar to preserve and extend Gerard's original work. What's wrong with that?

No way to talk seriously with Thorsten

@Curt we do confirm, yes was my (team) answer. to you

Independent hangar , there are only advantages and Gerard' family agree with it, supervising , controlling it.
Other advantage we will be able to include some others original models - Fouga Magister, RFN Zephyr - Lysander - and lot of others. interesting stuff ( ship , carrier )

Just noticing, but that should be an other topic, the catalog.xml won't work with Clouds , or Dropbox, or Google Drive, only working with ftp server.

Kind regards

josh_grtuxteam

[Thorsten]

Unfortunately that's the point.

Well, if that's really the case, you're unlikely to find yourself in a position to distribute at all... because there's definitely GPL material in there.

Tough luck...

But well, if you really made a honest licensing mistake over years, incorporating additional contributions, webpage statements and dozens of files, you could be expected next to make a clear and transparent statement here as to what material exactly was wrongly licensed and why.

(Actually, I don't really buy into you discovering yesterday you made a mistake - but well, convince me...)

Independent hangar , there are only advantages and Gerard' family agree with it, supervising , controlling it.

Thank you.

In this case, may I kindly ask you to refrain from posting further objections as soon as anyone makes a modification to Gerard's aircraft on FGAddon? Since you have your own fork of them, FGAddon is no longer your responsibility or concern.

[wlbragg]

I think Thorsten has clearly spelled out the why he is involved here and that is to preserve clearly stated GPL licensed work for others to continue to improve.

I am involved because I see a version of an aircraft that is clearly stated GPL that was an improvement of a version that was unequivocally GPL licensed. I want to use and potentially improve upon that work.

While I will always try to consider the original authors wishes, if the material is truly GPL, then my feelings are if I choose to go down my own path with the original material, I have every right to do so. Forget fgaddon, I may want to use it and distribute it in my own repo.

I think for both Thorsten and myself all we want is clarity.

What good is the GPL license if we can't count on it meaning what it means?

If josh_grtuxteam is going to continue to distribute this content in any form I may still be interested in improving it under that licensing. If not and we have a snapshot of the last known GPL licensed work, then why can't it be used anyway we want conditioned upon the GPL licensing?

One more thing, it is really hazy as to what portions of the clearly stated GPL licensed (last public version) is in contention. Does that include the FDM (jsbsim) or only modeling work, or something else?

I would really like clarification on that if possible as I am interested in the FDM if nothing else?

[Thorsten]

This places Flightgear in a delicate position because no physical person (*I do not exist, i am only virtual*) has explicitly taken the responsibility to place these models under GPL

Nice argument (though a bit confused) - yet... virtual people don't write GPL license notes. In your eagerness to convince everyone that you alone control the material you may have overlooked the fact that the files say quite clearly that it was Gerard Robin who placed the models under GPL (and naturally all additions had to be GPL as well, you can't re-license while building upon a GPL model). So thanks for your concern but it looks all fine.

(Note that this is in fact different from the commit access discussions where we can't investigate up-front what a committer will place).

[Thorsten]

Actually, Josh, I wonder whether in your desire to become a virtual person, you have thought of all the implications - which is that your backstory has become pretty irrelevant.

As far as the file history indicates, you're just some guy who took a GPL plane by Gerard Robin and made changes to it (you might not even be that guy Josh but someone else, but let's not go there right now) - which is no different than what Wayne aims to do. And since you took GPL licensed content to build on (which the files acknowledge) you're bound by the original license.

The rest of the story (what Gerard's family might want or not want, whether you are a friend, relative, whatever, whether you used unpublished material by Gerard, whether there is any sort of authorization...) is at this point just that - a story. It's unverifiable - it might be partially true, or it might not be true at all - but if you want to argue that the family wants this or that, someone who is identifiable as next of kin needs to show up and say so, a virtual person without identity obviously can't do that.

Legally this doesn't really matter, because also Gerard's family is bound by his decision to GPL license and can't unlicense (even Gerard himself could not revoke the license) - but as Curt has pointed out, we don't need to always exert the full range of rights the GPL gives us, and there are always things that can be worked out by asking nicely.

So I would suggest you change your tune and start discussing constructively - we have no interest to screw you over nor to offend anyone, but we are interested in pursuing development in the spirit of the GPL license.

[Josh_grtuxteam]

I

....................
One more thing, it is really hazy as to what portions of the clearly stated GPL licensed (last public version) is in contention. Does that include the FDM (jsbsim) or only modeling work, or something else?

I would really like clarification on that if possible as I am interested in the FDM if nothing else?

Hi Wayne,

I am rather surprised by your wish concerning the FDM, because I understood that you wanted the model for the detailed cockpit.
It's not the same thing.
Regarding JSBSim one must first know and understand the concept of the rotor in JSBSim.
I would not be able to explain because that's another member of the team who worked on it since he returned to his home in Israel, at the moment i cannot get in touch with him.
At that time Gérard was no longer able to work on a computer, but he wanted to experiment this new function with his models.
So, it was Josh (yes another the first who opened that account) who contacted the JSBSim team on their mailing list to understand the process and the concept that had been adopted, totally different from YASim.
You should search on jsbsim-devel lists the corresponding messages years probably 2013-2014.
What is important is to understand the original example model AH1S which is available on the site of Dave Culp, this model had served as template for the Alouette-III.
Regarding Flying Banana, I know that Josh had derived the "mono" rotor in "bi" rotor he had not followed the recommendations of the engineer who designed under JSBSim the FDM source.
There were several reasons for this, for instance to include animation functions which are necessary for use on carriers.
This means above all that this current version is monolithic, it mixes several needs, some useless in that specific case of the simplified version that we presented.

As part of the provision of this model from the individual repository, we will not make the effort to remove the useless functions and not sure our actual team will be able to do without breakage.
However, as the creation of the repository will take several weeks, I advise you during this time to look at and understand how the model template AH1S works and to read the rotor documentation JSBSim FDM.
Good luck.

Kind regards

josh_grtuxteam

BTW:
Can you say to the big one, that I have nothing to do with his wrong analysis and arguments, I'm close to 85 years old I have passed the age of his kids.
The dialogue is broken for a long time at least with me and probably the next coming Josh

[wlbragg]

Hi Josh,

am rather surprised by your wish concerning the FDM, because I understood that you wanted the model for the detailed cockpit.
It's not the same thing.

The first criteria I was looking at is a heavy lift helicopter with a JSBSim FDM. Second was the detailed modeling of any part.

I have two questions I would really appreciate some clarity on.

the choice of GPL for these models was conditioned by Gerard's
heirs.

What does this mean. Does it mean that the condition for you getting access to this data that you continue to honor the GPL license attached to it, by request of the family?

Are you able to identify the specific model parts that are in contention, does that include the FDM?

Thanks for your continuing help.

[N-SCOT]

Interesting discussion. Would have never followed it except for my Aircrane interest...

Maybe an objective insight might help? I'm not sure if I understand some of the logic paths being employed here. I have no dog in this fight at all, I am happy for FG to have as many DLable options for everyone. Isn't that the point?

Seems to me that if the access to GR's original work is being hindered or removed, that needs to be fixed. The Q for the Josh / Thorsten tussle here is does "Josh" agree with this assertion, and intend to address it positively, or not? The answer will direct the FG project course thereafter.

The next part is are the newer model versions uniquely different than their original GR versions? This can only be determined by comparing the models' code. If this can be demonstrated, then the naming convention should be to call the newly derived work by a different FG name than the "originals". This can have whatever license the Josh group wish. Or do I misunderstand? My understanding of the licensing issue is that, if any part of the "new" models contains any graphical or coding element from the originals, no matter how small or trivial, then the previous license MUST be applied. If however "new" models were made with material not publicized by GR, or developed by Josh's group in totality (100%), then these are original and not derivative works and can have such license as decided by Josh's group (presumably as de facto representatives of any GR family having rights over his possessions with regard to FG).

The general community is, IMHO, best served by having free access to as many models for the sim as persons care to make. Indeed, I'd call this one of the major strengths of FG. There is little need for any community aggravation, nor drama (this is not a Drama sim ;D). With an effort to ensure that, for example, the GR F-8E Crusader and the new Crusader have different FG "names" then Josh's group can continue to develop and make available (as they see fit) their model, yet not impinge on prospective FG developers who would breathe life into the original FGAddon one. All in all, more models for everyone. Does this not sound like a win?

I understand that there's history and backstory to this licensing of Gerard Robin's work. It does seem to me that the emotion and opinion has done little for the memory of this man. Perhaps there can still be a way that the community will be served best by clarification and cooperation.

Best to all parties, but bend in the wind. Don't let your rigidity be your undoing. (and give us more models).

Gary

PS This is a great thread to understand / learn the meat and potatoes of licensing

[Thorsten]

Seems to me that if the access to GR's original work is being hindered or removed, that needs to be fixed.

Well, since I do have the last GPL snapshot that has been published, the material is now accessible for anyone interested.

The next part is are the newer model versions uniquely different than their original GR versions? This can only be determined by comparing the models' code.

If you compare aircraft in the GRTuxhangar aircraft bundle with their counterparts on FGAddon you notice that often files are verbatim copies with the odd line edited.

For instance in the Blackbird on FGAddon one can find

Code: Select all

<!--<number-views type="int" archive="y">7</number-views>-->
            <!--  z position long. val-faible=avance val-forte=recule -->
            <!--  y position haut. val-faible=descent val-forte=monte -->
        <view>
                    <internal archive="y">true</internal>
                    <config>
                            <!-- x/y/z == right/up/back -->
                            <x-offset-m archive="y">0</x-offset-m>
                            <y-offset-m archive="y">1.51</y-offset-m>
                            <z-offset-m archive="y">-13.4</z-offset-m>
                            <pitch-offset-deg archive="y">-22</pitch-offset-deg>
                            <default-field-of-view-deg type="double">77.0</default-field-of-view-deg>
                    </config>

(you'll note the somewhat characteristic presence of English and French comments interspersed). An identical version of this block is present in the later bundle and it seems exceedingly unlikely that this happened by accident when writing a new model from scratch. Also tellingly, a version number is incremented.

But you can also get it all in Josh's own words (before he decided that GPL doesn't mean GPL):

We are there to expose an update of the 10 years old SR71 Blackbird. NO, IT IS NOT A FORK. (...) We had only to adjust the spare parts (3d models) and to test and tweak the functons. (...) So we dared to copy it from the Pinto's fork.

You can go on like this and inspect the files yourself, but you'll convince yourself pretty quickly that the package contains an update of the FGAddon content, has the intact copyright and licensing notes of the older FGAddon version and is hence not a uniquely different version written from scratch.

My understanding of the licensing issue is that, if any part of the "new" models contains any graphical or coding element from the originals, no matter how small or trivial, then the previous license MUST be applied.

It does matter to an extent how small or trivial, the contribution must be substantial enough to warrant copyright protection (the man who fixed a typo in the manuscript of The Lord of the Rings isn't Tolkien's co-author) - however the amount of identical material by far exceeds that threshold.

So yes - in the case of the aircraft bundle, there's no real question that this is GPL material for more than one reason and that it can't be simply re-licensed by anyone (since contributions by myself and PINTO are in there, we're co-copyright holders and any license change needs our consent - which I'm not going to give).

PS This is a great thread to understand / learn the meat and potatoes of licensing

If you're looking for an even better thread, look here where there's a summary of the nuts and bolts of it with links to the GPL FAQ.

[Thorsten]

Can you say to the big one, that I have nothing to do with his wrong analysis and arguments, I'm close to 85 years old I have passed the age of his kids.
The dialogue is broken for a long time at least with me and probably the next coming Josh

As for the dialogue being broken, well, admittedly it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation with someone who first confirms that a model is GPL and on the next day vehemently denies it on the grounds that he's just a virtual person without identity - for the rest of us, this sounds more than a tad eccentric. Also, I don't like your habit of switching to insults when you run out of arguments.

But, luckily, it's not required that you have anything to do with the analysis or understand the arguments - it's sufficient if the rest of the world does. And I'm not that interested in talking to the coming Joshs anyway.

So (just for your information) - this is what happens next:

Since you declined to act as maintainer for the FGAddon versions of the listed aircraft and opted for your own 3rd party hangar instead, they're now unmaintained. We'll declare a fork here - your version is your version, will not be considered an upstream hangar for FGAddon and is under your exclusive control. The FGAddon version will be maintained and developed further by whoever cares for the aircraft without your involvement.

(You can expect some updates for the Alouette-III in the near future, I really like to fly it, and it deserves to get all the good stuff FG added of late)

We recognize the amount of work you've put into updates and we have no wish to compete with your new hangar by making the same material available on FGAddon - hence the material in the last GPL snapshot will not be automatically be committed to FGAddon - it should primarily be available via your hangar instead. It will however be available [1] for developers who want to work with the material - be it on FGAddon or in their own hangar - and use it together with their own work.

I have spent quite some time doing file comparisons, and I am convinced that the material of the bundle is properly licensed and GPL, you were so far unable to cite any evidence to the contrary, thus I believe this makes for a very strong legal position with tons of supporting digital evidence - but you're always free to take it up with the Free Software Foundation (provided you de-virtualize of course, people without identify can't try to exercise copyrights...).

Personally, I would warn you against trying to re-license any content in the bundle when you create your own hangar - it seems very unlikely that you in a legal position to do so (however, I have no interest in pursuing this further and making your life miserable, so this is just a piece of advice).

We wish you the best of luck with your own hangar and many fruitful conversations with users.

[1] This probably means based on past experience that FGMembers will re-distribute it all rather sooner than later, but you'll have to take it up with them, that's not something we can influence.

[N-SCOT]

If you're looking for an even better thread, look here where there's a summary of the nuts and bolts of it with links to the GPL FAQ.

I mention this thread as instructive for licensing learning as, at least for me, learning is best in a dynamic situation, where the cut and thrust of differing viewpoints is expressed and expressly visible. It's a bit harder to port information to the ol' grey matter when it's a textual description than to be an "observer" to an exchange.
IMHO. It's how I learn, and is the most successful as a technique in 30 years or more of training folk.

I'll hope that the resources mentioned in this thread are available to developers like Wayne, and call that a win for the FG community.

Best,

G