by LoCall » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:27 pm
About Youtube.
It is a different story to not mistaken with FG creations.
The creation of the video about the B777 is a creation as a whole in itself.
As far as one can tell, no one have co created or co developed theses videos with Franck.
It is thus intended and expected Franck to write “on the Videos” the name of the creator of the Video, his name only.
If this lead then a viewer to download the plane, he will then find in the files the list of the creators of the **plane**.
This way no creator is eclipsed, occulted, removed, ...
- - - - -
We have to accept one may struggle to understand and thus accept this nuance.
Copyright question are crazy complex.
Lawyers choosing this carrier divert from criminal studies in 1st (or 2nd) year at Law School and will follow a special 3 to 5 years of special studies focussing onto copyright questions.
So, “yeah”, it is freejin’ complex !
There is no shame for us, “normal human” in misunderstanding any part of this.
But if one want to dig a bit in that direction ( youtube and creations using others creations ),
I would invite him/her to dig toward “Derivative Creations Works”.
(One would quickly understand how this is not a GPL question at all).
- - - - -
So to stop here this legal “bleeding”, allow me a pair of simplisms as a short final (less than 4 miles).
GPL and Authorship are not the same thing, nor the same law.
- GPL is about the commercial questions ;
- Authorship is about “paternity”, who created it, who is the pater “father”.
Our beloved FG is GPL because someone have been smart and have opted to keep “ugly money questions” away from it.
Thank you !
Lovely !
I subscribe to it 100 % !
Count on me !
This does mean we do not do “business” with FG.
However, in order FG to exist, as for its planes, and scenarios,
it still does need to have creators, is it not ?
Theses creators are the authors.
Authorship and GPL are very very often mistaken.
Authorship are defined not by the GPL texts but instead by the Bern Convention.
(another piece of wonder for whom love to read very heavy huge books).
(do not laugh too quickly, pilots have them too to read ICAO literature weight tens of thousands pages ... )
But that said,
if,
and I insist on “if”
if Franck would have broken some legal disposition, it would have been some article of the Bern Convention and not the GPL law,
contrarily to what was arguing some GPL “pro tips” giver.
(no shame to take, again it is a crazy confusing legal mosaic, it is more than understandable one would do this mistake).
Be what is definitely clear, Franck have done **nothing wrong** !
- - - - -
Last and closing :
For the sake of whatsoever you want, do not compare Franck’s doings to FGMembers doings ever again.
The goal of Franck always have been to provide the plane to FG official repository once terminated.
This is the absolute opposite of FGMembers ways !
But take special care to not be fooled by the enormous differences existing in between
- developing a plane in solo
and
- developing a plane as a team, collegially.
When one develop a plane in solo,
even if he do start from an existing GPLv2 plane,
he will benefit from an automatic protection given by the Laws
(all around the World except in N.Corea, Taipei and somehow the China ),
this protection is the so called copyright.
It is an automatic protection, nothing special is intended to be done in order to trigger it.
This protection is intended to protect some how more the creation while it is in “creation stage” then “directly the commercial rights of the artist).
It does belong to the artist to state, when his creation is terminated, when he decide his creation his ready for the public, to possibly change that copyright in any other legal form.
One of his choice could be to **remove** the copyright. This is where come from the name copy left (where left is left off and not “opposite of right”).
Once copylefted, the artiste may distribute it choosing a commercial protection scheme CC-... GPL, among others.
Even if an artist share his “non finished” work with people, as long he did not have officially removed the copyright, the protection stay.
When a plane is “collegially” developed by a group, sharing the intermediary result with the public intended to use it (by opposition to a selected public intended to test it before release), and stating from before the product is GPL, the whole creation become ipso facto GPL at all stages.
In the case of Franck, he have developed his “improvements” of the B77x in the very same way.
There is no brake of GPL dispositions at all !
In the future, when you have to make up your mind about if someone is using rightly or abusively the creations (GPL or not) of others, just have a look at the weight of the “additional work done”.
If this is clearly more than just a bunch of cosmetic superficial improvements, there no doubts a real creator artist work have been done and no abuse have been committed.
Now all that blah said, I am following FG from the BBS times and I am user and then active from the half of 2000 decade.
I rarely have seen an FG artist developing with that quality.
We had a few, NEMO, Laurent Berthe, among other.
I can list a small tens of them.
Many left due to some unsightly criticism, pressures, failures to be understood or to meet with some expected gratitude.
This is not about this being fair or not.
This about avoiding to reiterate the same errors that have driven away other valuable creators.
Please, regain gentleman manners and consider an apology to Franck.
The the Forum people
Thank you.
To Franck,
Merci pour tes créations.
LoCall