Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby clrCoda » Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:20 am

Again, I'm not pointing any fingers or singling anyone out. I'm instead trying to show what is seen by an audience of this situation.

There is no wrong position in this argument. Everybody is right, or correct, more appropriately.

This is a case where two rights make a wrong. The wrong is in the fact that the two sides will never meet consensus.

Can't.
Repos can't. Their job is plainly to store everything and make it available for usage to as large an audience as possible.

Won't.
The artists against won't. Their motivation is to protect their work until they are ready for a proper release.

There is no wrong here.
--Ray
Ray St. Marie
clrCoda
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:04 am

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby daveculp » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:00 am

I agree with IH-COL that all he needs to know is what's in the license. In this case Buckaroo's argument should be: "I know I released it CC-BY-NC-SA, but I meant to release it with the "ND" qualifier." At this point IH-COL has a choice. He can keep the package in FGMEMBERS:NONGPL, as the license allows, or he can remove it. I think removing it would be the best policy.

At this point Buckaroo should then add the "ND" qualifier to the package to avoid future problems.

Actually, one of the benefits I see with the FGMEMBERS arrangement is that authors will have to re-evaluate whether the license they claim is really the one they want. It will also encourage authors to improve their license writeup, or in the case of knuckleheads like me, not forget to put it in the package.

My 2 cents,

Dave
User avatar
daveculp
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:50 am
Location: Las Vegas, USA
Callsign: DCulp
Version: 2017.3.1
OS: Ubuntu 17.10

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:08 am

Great points Dave

I would be less denying to accept a new ND re-release, that to get a "LICENSE REVOKED TO YOU" type of situation.

Likewise, I am yet to find a RA-5 zip file attributed to you. But I do not mind, for a second to correct the attributions.

The "forget to put it in the package" did happend. Your P-80 that I initially got came no license, but a file around stated GPL, so I added it GPL. Then I found the fguk release properly stating CC-BY-NC-SA, so I did move it to the proper license area, and clean up after my work.

Again, I don't mind accepting a license you/buck/others want to impose. But a previously SA work going "No Authorized to distribute" is a bit extreme in my book, and leave me with so few options that I have to grab myself by the book. If he wants to protect his work of unwanted modifications, I am all game:

FGMEMBERS-NONGPL already has like a few ND aircraft, and this only the admin account can modify. And it won't.

Best,
IH-COL
Last edited by IAHM-COL on Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby Buckaroo » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:10 am

daveculp wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:00 am:I agree with IH-COL that all he needs to know is what's in the license. In this case Buckaroo's argument should be: "I know I released it CC-BY-NC-SA, but I meant to release it with the "ND" qualifier." At this point IH-COL has a choice. He can keep the package in FGMEMBERS:NONGPL, as the license allows, or he can remove it. I think removing it would be the best policy.

At this point Buckaroo should then add the "ND" qualifier to the package to avoid future problems.


That's acceptable to me. If it works for Mr. Hernandez and he agrees to drop the models I indicated, then I think we're good.

-Buck
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Author: Lockheed 1049H Constellation, Grumman Goose, MD-81, Edgley Optica, Velocity XL RG, YASim Guide
User avatar
Buckaroo
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:45 am
Location: Bloomington IN USA
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Version: 2.10
OS: Windows & Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:13 am

Mr. Neely

We can definitely work an agreement there.

If you do not mind sending me a zip file (please), that is acceptable under BY-NC-SA-ND, and I will discard all previous "SA" content; by replacing it with the newest "ND" content.
Only you can modify it. But anyone can redistribute it; including me.

Would that be a middle ground?

[Keep in mind that if you join the FGMEMBERS-NONGPL organization I can give you 100 percent exclusive write access over your ND repos. Meaning only you can modify them. Accept/reject pull request on them. etc

The only other account's with that permission are admins, which currently is only FGDATA. My "root" account]
Last edited by IAHM-COL on Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby clrCoda » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:15 am

I really didn't want to go here but since you bring it up: ( or did I hehe )

"""
Finally, I think Lego path fix over the 737-CHT is correct and thus applicable.
It is a legitimate fix.

Long time ago I notified Charter with a pull request which remain unattended
https://github.com/CharterAdmin/737-300-CHT/pull/1 """


I don't blame you for thinking that lego's fix was appropriate, after all, it was you that broke history, broke the paths, broke the folders, broke the plane, making Lego's fix necessary.

This plane was branched by Soitenan for Soitenan's work. That is, Michael's plane is a derivation of this plane. We are either going to claim that we are interested in keeping history straight or we are going to instead claim that ease of inclusion into a repo is more important. We can see in this case the damage done, and the complete dismay of one of the participants for trying to be inclusive.

I really don't think there is an easy fix for this one situation, unfortunately, that meets with the expectations of all involved.

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

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:19 am

We are good to move on
It's just I dont get anything of what you are saying about history

See the histories:

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/737-300/commits/master

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/737-300-CHT/commits/master

They have nothing in common. AT ALL

The changes I made are the later 10 commits, which were accepted by CharterAdmin. The only goal here is that the aircraft can Co-exist with the 737-300 installed simultaneously. It has nothing to do with history at all.
Indeed. I left a broken path. Lego fixed it.

Charter has not come back to me with any comment of this at all. And definitely not about "histories" cause that will be unfounded.

Best,
IH-COL
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby clrCoda » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:38 am

Of course you don't understand. In this case you don't know that the one plane is a branch of the other.

You can't be interested in the "actual" history of the aircraft, because that is going to make an impossible situation worse. This same situation occurred when you made a plane I was working on a branch where it did not belong.

First there was the original version of the 737-300. Then epilot created the 737-300-classic. Michael Soitanen "branch" that ( dare I use the word as the classic was not in a repo but that is in effect what happened ). Then you added the 737-300-classic into the repo, and because it was named 737-300 and conflicted with Michael's work, you changed what ever you thought needing change in order to get it into the repo.

Instead, this plane should have been shoehorned into the repo in such a way that the actual history was preserved, and that Michael's version would show as a branch at the proper point.

With the B1900D as well. The work I did was a branch of an earlier version of the plane and should not appear branched where it does today. It's neither historically correct, nor a true branch of the work it branches currently.

Possibly it is impossible to correct these issues with today's technology.

And that's what I meant by the history. We can not claim we are interested in the history. We can claim that we are interested in the history of repositories.

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

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby Buckaroo » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:41 am

IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:13 am:Mr. Neely

We can definitely work an agreement there.

If you do not mind sending me a zip file (please), that is acceptable under BY-NC-SA-ND, and I will discard all previous "SA" content; by replacing it with the newest "ND" content.
Only you can modify it. But anyone can redistribute it; including me.

Would that be a middle ground?

[Keep in mind that if you join the FGMEMBERS-NONGPL organization I can give you 100 percent exclusive write access over your ND repos. Meaning only you can modify them. Accept/reject pull request on them. etc

The only other account's with that permission are admins, which currently is only FGDATA. My "root" account]



Sure, I can work with that. I might even be able to squeeze in a minor update if I can get a day or two.

I'd be willing to add my Velocity model if you'll drop that dang Goose. The Velocity is a MUCH better effort. I really rather that Goose not be in circulation as it very rough and has a poor flight model, being the first I ever did. It's something of an embarrassment. A new 3D model and FDM is in the works. And yes, I know, I've been promising that new Goose forever.

-Buck
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Author: Lockheed 1049H Constellation, Grumman Goose, MD-81, Edgley Optica, Velocity XL RG, YASim Guide
User avatar
Buckaroo
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:45 am
Location: Bloomington IN USA
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Version: 2.10
OS: Windows & Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby daveculp » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:54 am

IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:08 am:Likewise, I am yet to find a RA-5 zip file attributed to you. But I do not mind, for a second to correct the attributions.


The one in FGMEMBERS:NONGPL has my license specified at the top of the aircraft set file. At one time I considered this a sufficient place to declare the license, but perhaps this is no longer true (if it ever was)? That brings to mind maybe authors need to agree on a best practices for this. Do I need a separate license file? Maybe called "license"?

Dave
User avatar
daveculp
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:50 am
Location: Las Vegas, USA
Callsign: DCulp
Version: 2017.3.1
OS: Ubuntu 17.10

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:33 am

It sounds like we ve got a plan forward buck
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:31 am

@Buck

The Goose has been removed from the Repository Collection.
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/FG-Aircraft-nonGPL/commit/6b9be0bd66141a1a37263d2f2eb9fe47409edfed

I definitely can relate to your sentiment. I myself have this DFW development stalled that it is so mediocre at the moment I don't dare to even release.

I know you are working your way to make a nice one (promise made, man's word... I look forward to it!)

Keep in mind that there is nothing one can fully reassure that one's work -once released- will simply vanish.

You can replace it with a better one -thou...

There are zip files hanging around that are googleable and downloadable, for the all dreary sick goose.


On the other hand.

I changed the COPYING file of your optica for a more appropriate version of what you intend. https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/Optica/commit/a516e5a819a5dbb99b0b66bb2d0f98a7b7caad26

Also, I removed from the FG-AircraftDevelopers group, so no-one can push commits or pull requests to it (except FGDATA admin account -- or you if you join the FGMEMBERS-NONGPL team).

I look forward to get the zip files for the newest Optica and for a Velocity XL (I'd love to share it with the FGMEMBER users!)

Best,
IH-COL
Last edited by IAHM-COL on Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:18 am

@Dave

Yup.
I see your note on the -set.xml file :D

Thanks for pointing that out.

I already added you to the Repo summary author's list.

About "Best Practices". I really wonder too.

I guess Ed. d'Auvergne can enlighten us a bit here. He seems well versed in these topics.
My suggestions are: Keep a COPYING or LICENSE file with the unedited version of the LICENSE you are applying to your work: Be GPL, CC, or whatever. [Hopefully it is still free software, as in free speech --allowing copying and redistribution]
My second suggestion is keep an AUTHORS.txt file with all mentions (authors, and honorific mentions are OK -testers? acknowledgements, etc?)
and maybe add a COPYRIGHT file (or indicate this on AUTHORS txt) indicating who is the "copyright" owner(s) of the work.

In the devel list last 2 weeks an extensive argument about headers for individual files were mentioned.
Quite complicated, and extreme in my opinion, given that the license usually covers the whole work and not part of it.

It usually can be applied to all content of the repository (not the submodules, if any).

More complicated setups may be done editing a LICENSE file indicating what licenses cover particular files or so, and so.

The important thing I believe is make safe clarity of the author's intent with this license file, I believe.

Also, I preffer (1000times) GPL content. I use GPL content whenever possible. even if I am no-one to modify it myself. It's kind of a matter of principle now.

Ed. may bring you also the point that adding a license file is not necessarily fully legally binding. That a registration with the patent offices or whatever may be required. He may be right. Still, in my opinion, if real trouble were to arise, a git repository may be a great tool to demostrate innoncence --and even true originality/ownership. Keep in mind that in git everything is time-stamped. And the copy brings those time stamps too -- of, as an example, when did you make a commit. And who made the commit, and the exact content of the diff, to the semicolon at the end of lines precision. You can prove when/why/how/who a change was made with very little doubt left. A zip file on a mediafire link is useless for such purpose. So I would say, a git repository is a good practice as well.

Those are just loose thoughts,

Have fun developing
(and thanks for your hard works making nice thrustflames last weeks!)

Best,
IH-COL
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby bugman » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:00 am

daveculp wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:54 am:That brings to mind maybe authors need to agree on a best practices for this. Do I need a separate license file? Maybe called "license"?


Hi Dave,

Maybe my post on the devel list would help answer this:


In essence, just a COPYING file (that's the FSF recommended name) for the GPL v2 license, and a statement in a README file such as:

Copyright (C) 1998-2015 My name
Copyright (C) 2015 The other person's name

This content is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This content is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.


This statement is required to differentiate between GPL v2 and GPL v2+, something the COPYING file does not. Note the text "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version". I replaced the FSF recommended 'program' with 'content' to better suit aircraft data files.

Regards,

Edward


Admins: This new topic should probably be split out into a different thread under aircraft development.
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby ludomotico » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:24 am

bugman wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:00 am:I replaced the FSF recommended 'program' with 'content' to better suit aircraft data files.


I also sent this warning to the developer list. The GPL license is not GPL! If you change even a single world of the GPL license, you must (1) clearly state your new license is not the GPL; (2) since you are re-licensing the work, you need the consent of all previous contributors; (3) submit your modifications to the FSF for them to study if the new license is compatible with the GPL and content under both licenses can be used together.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licens ... #ModifyGPL

Legal discussions are tricky!
User avatar
ludomotico
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:01 pm
Version: git
OS: Debian GNU/Linux

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest