I agree with AndersG, as a matter of fact, even just using the GPL also for non-core assets, i.e. fgdata/fgaddon, has been considered controversial by many folks over the years, including very senior contributors, even causing some incidents that were in violation of the GPL.
Especially the question how this impacts GPL'ed Nasal code assets and other modules using such modules/libs, either via copy/paste & adapt or by "including" such modules (which is often done implicitly during load time, think geo.nas, props.nas)
FG Aircraft Licenses, continuedstuart wrote:As an example of this, see the AH-1 discussion. The developers there initially wanted to license under a CC-NC license, but changed to a GPL license later. I'm glad they did, but I think a strong driver for this was the amount of Nasal code etc. that they had taken from the F-14, which of course was licensed under the GPL. So I don't think that non-GPL work will overtake the GPL content in importance.
(Sorry - I realize we're going round in circles here)
-Stuart
Autonomous F-14b democurt wrote:Making a linkage based argument is interesting, but it appears that most people do draw a separation between the code that implements the script engine, and the actual scripts themselves. I have never thought otherwise, although perhaps this particular specific discussion has never come up before.
So just to summarize, I have always viewed the relationship between flightgear and the nasal interpreter versus nasal scripts in the same way that Larry Wall has viewed the relationship between the perl interpreter and people's perl scripts. The interpreter doesn't force it's license on the scripts and the script authors have the freedom to choose the license terms that work best for their situation. And again, for derivative works (i.e. modifying an existing gpl nasal script, the gpl license must be honored and maintained and not obfuscated.) But for original works, I continue to believe the author has discretion over how to license his/her own work.
Best regards,
Curt.
bundling GPL'ed contents with non-GPL materialsbugman wrote:This is a grey area - it definitely not black and white. Because this could be called linking, but it could also be seen as using the FG API. The first you are not allowed to do, the second you are.
Subject: The GNU GPL license and unwritten rules of curtesybugman wrote:But once bundled with other components, this has a legal effect. The bundling of aircraft components together (FDM, 3D, sound, Nasal) to create a whole aircraft which is distributed as a single unit is not much different from bundling the FG code components together (FG, simgear, all FDMs, Nasal, MP, etc.) to create a whole - licence compatibility issues must be considered.