Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby bugman » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:27 am

IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:18 am:Ed. may bring you also the point that adding a license file is not necessarily fully legally binding.


It is not essential, but good to have to strengthen the case.

IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:18 am:That a registration with the patent offices or whatever may be required.


Thankfully there are not patents in the FlightGear project. In the US you can register your copyrights with the US Copyright Office, but I don't know what kind of additional advantages that gives you under US law. Well, apart from being a requirement for litigation:


Anyway, in case the link is broken in the future, they answer this question with:

Copyright.gov wrote:No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright Registration."


IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:18 am: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.


All SCM systems in existence do this.

IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:18 am: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.


Actually, the time stamps on the files in the ZIP file are pretty compelling evidence that would be accepted by a court of law. Lawyers will use all evidence that can get their hands on to prove copyright ownership.
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby bugman » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:30 am

ludomotico wrote in 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!


Got you there ;) This is not changing the text of the licence. Rather it is changing the text of the 'recommended' GPL licence header. This action is very much allowed.

Regards,

Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby ludomotico » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:42 am

I'm not sure if you can change the header notice, either: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licens ... itPreamble

I think the GPL is perfect for Nasal files/code inserted into XML files. I'm not sure if it can be easily applicable on XML files and the GPL is probably not the best license for artwork such as textures or liveries (i.e. "content")

In any case, I'm not going to discuss something I'm not familiar enough ;)
User avatar
ludomotico
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:01 pm
Version: git
OS: Debian GNU/Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby ludomotico » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:47 am

IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:18 am:Keep in mind that in git everything is time-stamped. (...). So I would say, a git repository is a good practice as well.


You have perfectly proved that history in a git repository can be forged, so I'm not sure if it could be used in an hypothetical trial.
User avatar
ludomotico
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:01 pm
Version: git
OS: Debian GNU/Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby bugman » Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:48 am

ludomotico wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:42 am:I'm not sure if you can change the header notice, either: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licens ... itPreamble


The Preamble of the GPL is part of the licence text itself. The preamble is the first part of the COPYING file. This is very different from a GPL licence notice included as a file header (which itself includes the copyright notice). Note that many files cannot have a GPL header - bitmap graphics being a prime example - so that the header is not important for licencing. There is no fixed standard, just the FSF recommendation, and you can have any header you wish. But you cannot modify the in-licence preamble, or the rest of the licence text, and use the modified legal documents for your own works - this is protected by the FSF by copyright law.

ludomotico wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:47 am:
IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:18 am:Keep in mind that in git everything is time-stamped. (...). So I would say, a git repository is a good practice as well.


You have perfectly proved that history in a git repository can be forged, so I'm not sure if it could be used in an hypothetical trial.


Pretty much everything can be forged. Nevertheless, all available information will still be accepted in court as evidence. There are some exceptions for not accepting evidence, but the fact that something can be forged is not one of those (the fact that something is forged probably would be). Note that if you can prove that some evidence has been forged, then that is very bad for the case of the other party :)
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby ludomotico » Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:08 pm

I'm extremely uncomfortable discussing this in English. I completely lack the vocabulary for this :)

One of the things I do for a living is reporting to a judge if digital evidence presented in court can be forged and if it was forged. Given the fact that IAHM-COL has being playing with the history of many repositories, I can assure you the history currently stored in these repositories would be a very weak evidence in a court and easily dismissed by the other party.
User avatar
ludomotico
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:01 pm
Version: git
OS: Debian GNU/Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby bugman » Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:32 pm

ludomotico wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:08 pm:I'm extremely uncomfortable discussing this in English. I completely lack the vocabulary for this :)


No problem, just keep it short.

ludomotico wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:08 pm:One of the things I do for a living is reporting to a judge if digital evidence presented in court can be forged and if it was forged. Given the fact that IAHM-COL has being playing with the history of many repositories, I can assure you the history currently stored in these repositories would be a very weak evidence in a court and easily dismissed by the other party.


That is why the commit logs mailing list archives for the official FlightGear repositories are very useful:


It is hard to forge so many sources of evidence for the same thing. It is a strong protection for the core FG team. Lots of people receive these emails, so that is additional evidence against forgery within the core infrastructure.

Edit: fixed the mailing list names.
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:26 pm

You have perfectly proved that history in a git repository can be forged, so I'm not sure if it could be used in an hypothetical trial.


eh?!
WOW!

Can you provide a link to a repository I have forged history, for evidence of such extreme claim, Ludomo?

I don't recall having even attempted this, not even only once.

keep in mind that

1. adding new commits under with my name/signature does not qualify as forging
2. adding merge commits apply under number one above

Examples of (not limited to) things that could qualify for forging the history are:

1. Try to supplant a commiter (commit as "someone else" )
2. Try to alter the time stamps of a commit --by any electronic means

Those things are potentially doable, but terrible misdemeanors, which I don't ever attempt.
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 ludomotico » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:44 pm

ludomotico wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:47 am:You have perfectly proved that history in a git repository can be forged, so I'm not sure if it could be used in an hypothetical trial.


IAHM-COL wrote in Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:26 pm:Can you provide a link to a repository I have forged history, for evidence of such extreme claim, Ludomo?


Please, read carefully.
User avatar
ludomotico
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:01 pm
Version: git
OS: Debian GNU/Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby IAHM-COL » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:48 pm

ok.
I guess the history of a git repository can be forged. It is technically challenging. And I definitely do not know how to do it exactly

Git are distributed systems, forging potentially thousands of clones becomes increasingly challenging.

Finally, what hypothetical court cases do are somewhat frequently wild of a nature.
What real court cases do are always wild of a nature.

So...
How would I know?

In any case.
Thanks for clarifying.

I feel better knowing that you had not even implied I did it. Just that in your opinion it seems it can be done.
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 Jabberwocky » Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:51 pm

@Dave Culp

I got the RA-5 sent by someone who wanted to fly it and couldn't the way he planned. Mostly because some little things in FG changed, the tank configuration, the aerodynamics in high altitude, some weights and so on.
So I suspected, it was one of yours, but I had no direct contact with you and when I touched her first, everybody told me "Dave retired". And you forgot to write your authorship in her. Now, after you officially said, it was your baby, I take the freedom to write that in the files, late next week, okay? I'm a bit under water here with other things. Unless you want her back completely, then just keep the migraine mode "alive" because this was to enable someone to fly that plane who actually got migraines from the stuttering afterburner ;-).
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: FGMEMBERS: NONGPL!!!

Postby daveculp » Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:15 pm

@jabberwockey

No problem. I had the license in the set file, but I never got around to adding a "license" file.

Once one of my models is being worked on by some other person or group I consider that a forked version. So feel free to do whatever you want with that version, as long as the license remains and is abided by. I'll always have my own version at my hangar.

One thing that may get difficult in maintaining a fork is that DavePack could get out of sync with other DavePack ' s in other hangars/repositories. I don't mind doing that work in my hangar, but other maintainers may find it a real pain.

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 Jabberwocky » Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:52 pm

@Dave Culp: I have the same problem with my JPack. I am seriously thinking to build something that if someone starts the plane and the pack is no there or a too old version to give a message and stop it somehow.
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Previous

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests