Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organisati

[Bomber]

So is it your opinion that non-GPL fg content should be spread out all over the Web?

Or should we at least accept the offer of collating said content into a single place, with the understanding that you could always follow any text links within the files back to the original repository?

OK. ... could it be we're arguing the same thing... ?

Who actually are Fgmembers harming by having a duplicate of your work available to the community?

[skyop]

but what is really irritating is the argument that fgmembers somehow solves that issue.

I'd say it makes things worse. Remember that FGMEMBERS sometimes plays fast and loose with licensing.

For example, take a look at their T-50 and MB236 repositories.

Undeclared License. Temporary Restriction: Creative Commons "BY-NC-SA"

Have you ever heard of such a thing? If a file does not have a license, you can't redistribute it, much less slap a CC license on it.

If FG somehow suppresses content creation by using the GPL license, the answer is not FGMEMBERS and anarchy.

Who actually are Fgmembers harming by having a duplicate of your work available to the community?

Sometimes, for various reasons, the author simply doesn't want his work redistributed. Or doesn't like forks, which potentially mean more work when merging content upstream.

[Bomber]

So let me get this correct....

Fgmembers locates a plane built for FG on the Web..... a plane that's free to download from said location....

Upon downloading it, it's discovered that there's no licence with it.... it's in fact free for all to use, modify and distribute...

But to ensure that no misunderstanding has occurred and that the author hasn't simply forgotten to apply a licence, a temporary CC licence is applied with an explanation so as to 'cover' Fgmembers from doing any wrong.

This temporary CC licence being modified upon request...

What problem do you have with treating people honestly and fairly as in the above do you have again ?

[Bomber]

Sometimes, for various reasons, the author simply doesn't want his work redistributed. Or doesn't like forks, which potentially mean more work when merging content upstream.

If he's released it GPL he doesn't have a choice about this.... all he's covered for is that any improvements to GPL content will be made available to him or anyone else.

Saying it's GPL but with caveats is simply not GPL... pick a different licence.

[skyop]

Upon downloading it, it's discovered that there's no licence with it.... it's in fact free for all to use, modify and distribute...

No license means no legal right to distribute. It happens anyway, especially if the original author is unavailable. But you can't just relicense something you don't own.

What problem do you have with treating people honestly and fairly as in the above do you have again ?

It's illegal. And while the original authors might not care, I personally know a few who wouldn't want their work publicly available and redistributed. We should respect their wishes.

If he's released it GPL he doesn't have a choice about this.... all he's covered for is that any improvements to GPL content will be made available to him or anyone else.

This is true, and I know it's legal. But is it treating people "honestly and fairly?"

[Bomber]

So the problem is that a persons work is by default copyrighted, adding a licence is a means by which a person waters down their default copyright in a controlled manner..

It's the adding of the licence where Fgmembers are at fault they should simply leave it as it was with full default copyright.

And if the original author then comes along and requests that their work be removed from Fgmembers, that this request is carried out.

Of course if an author uses explicit copyright it's another story.

Can I be fairer than that ?

If the Internet worked any other way there'd be 80% less content.

[Bomber]

What about making a new topic just about licensing issues?

There is no issue....

Fgaddon content has to be 100% GPL.

Anything else can be stored in any other repository.

[bugman]

So the problem is that a persons work is by default copyrighted, adding a licence is a means by which a person waters down their default copyright in a controlled manner..

It's the adding of the licence where Fgmembers are at fault they should simply leave it as it was with full default copyright.

It's not a watering down - the full weight of copyright law always applies. The licence simply dictates what anyone can do with a copyrighted work. For the FGMEMBERS issue that skyop found, the problem is in the distribution of those aircraft. Without a licence, it is illegal under copyright law to distribute such a work. Copyright law states that you simply cannot do it. You need the author of that copyright to agree - this is the definition of a licence. The statement "Undeclared License. Temporary Restriction: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA" is also illegal, as this essentially a copyrighted work licensed by someone who does not own the copyright. This is about as clear cut as it gets for copyright violation - in this case there are no shades of grey, this is black and white.

Regards,
Edward

[Bomber]

Then the next thing to look at is whether or not the work was explicit copyright or default copyright.....

If it's explicit then we know the authors mind on the subject if however it's default then we're just guessing his mind, for he could just as much not care less.

As such Fgmembers distributing his work until he says otherwise is not unreasonable, considering the nature of this project.

However modifying the licence is a no no.

[bugman]

For copyright, you automatically receive this protection for your work. In the US, you can register your copyright, but this is just an extra protection that in most cases is unnecessary and over the top. There is no concept of "explicit copyright" or "default copyright" under copyright law. As for distributing a copyrighted work until the author says that it is illegal, that is not how copyright law works. It might be how the original napster, the pirate bay, and other file sharing sites work, but that does not make it legal. You cannot remove material you have distributed after the fact, as many, many people may have already acquired the illegally distributed content from you. Your legal liability is then very, very high.

Regards,
Edward

[Bomber]

Then the alternative is to provide a link to the original download button.... however if the original author isn't playing ball he could remove the download button but that would just demonstrate quite a lot of spite.

[Hooray]

yikes, another fgmembers debate ... there goes our weekend - might be best to just lock/delete this topic and move on, maybe in conjunction with discouraging fgmembers related discussions in general, just for the sake of ... getting something done.

Note that these licensing/legal threads are getting really old - if you don't understand these legal matters, there are much better sources to refer to than the FG forum.

I'd suggest to move on, and add "fgmembers" to the blacklist of words that cannot be used in postings and topics, that will turn out to be a real time-saver and maybe we can actually get something done in the meantime, just maybe

[skyop]

Thank you, Bugman, for splitting off this thread.

If it's explicit then we know the authors mind on the subject if however it's default then we're just guessing his mind, for he could just as much not care less.

As such Fgmembers distributing his work until he says otherwise is not unreasonable, considering the nature of this project.

Even though it's likely that the authors wouldn't care (being freeware), as I said it's also quite possible that they wouldn't want their work being changed and distributed. So, in addition to being illegal, it may go against the author's wishes. We just don't know.

I don't know about you, but I believe FG contributions should be both legal and respectful.

FGMEMBERS should take down those "unknown license" aircraft from Github. If they insist on redistributing those aircraft, it should be done over private channels or their own website.

maybe in conjunction with discouraging fgmembers related discussions in general, just for the sake of ... getting something done.

I regret that I/we hijacked an aircraft development thread to spawn yet another potential flame war, however do note that I brought that egregious license violation to light.

Edit:

Then the alternative is to provide a link to the original download button.... however if the original author isn't playing ball he could remove the download button but that would just demonstrate quite a lot of spite.

Yes. This is what you should do.

If the original author removes the link, that's his right, however unfortunate it may be. We are not entitled to anything, especially anything that's free.

[bugman]

No problems That's one of the fun jobs as a moderator. One point though:

I regret that I/we hijacked an aircraft development thread to spawn yet another potential flame war, however do note that I brought that egregious license violation to light.

I would not call this a "egregious license violation" but rather a "egregious copyright violation", as in this case there is no licence present.

Regards,
Edward

[skyop]

I would not call this a "egregious license violation" but rather a "egregious copyright violation", as in this case there is no licence present.

Of course, 100% agree.