Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organisati

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby bugman » Sun May 29, 2016 2:14 pm

Bomber, if the original authors are reading this thread, or are aware of the deliberate aims of the FGMEMBERS organisation of minimising or completely cutting off contributions upstream to the core FlightGear infrastructure for the sole purpose of rendering it irrelevant, those authors may decide that they will not let Israel and those in the organisation off the hook by allowing the content to be open source licensed. That is totally up to the mood of the original authors.

They could, for example, decide to not play ball and instead sue Israel in a UK court of law (where one of the original authors resides, or at least used to). They may have plenty of time, patience, money, and determination. Or someone who does not like the FGMEMBERS organisation may decide to fund one of the original authors to take down the organisation. Their lawyer could possibly indite and extradite anyone considered to be part of the FGMEMBERS organisation. You are making the assumption that this won't happen, and that the illegal behaviour will be resolved amicably. Although likely, that may not necessarily happen.

For the core of the FlightGear project, such assumptions are never made. Strong legal policies, basic and low hurdles to obtaining commit access, and constant content checking are in place to ensure that illegal activities are avoided from the start. There is zero reliance on the mercy of the original content creator for legal protection. So you'll never see anything such as:

  1. "FG Aircraft | T-50 by Ummon Karpe and Peter Jedvaj [Undeclared License. Temporary Restriction: Creative Commons "BY-NC-SA" ]"
  2. "FG Aircraft | MB326 by Charles Ingels [License Undeclared. Temporary restrictions: Creative Commons "BY-NC-SA" ]"

Israel wishes that the FlightGear core drops their repositories and instead use his FGMEMBERS infrastructure. But the core group will never accept liability for such questionable legal nightmares.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Bomber » Sun May 29, 2016 2:36 pm

Yes, but they could be nice people.... you're just scare mongering.

And let's not forget that fgmembers are doing it with the best intentions are heart..

Yes, we've had some GPL violation incidents in fgdata/FGAddon too, but none involved something as blatant as making up licenses


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Seems you gloss over FGdata/addons past sins.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Thorsten » Sun May 29, 2016 2:52 pm

Strange you never mention any explicitly.

But yeah, take the guy who parked his car in the wrong spot and a terrorist - they both break the law. Still not the same thing.

A wide-spread invitation to copyright violations by wrongly educating contributors about licenses and dropping all content review isn't the same as something that slips through the cracks - let alone the making up of whole licenses.

So spare us the red herrings, we have so many from you, we can have a BBQ.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9802
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Bomber » Sun May 29, 2016 3:08 pm

As all ready said that situation is being looked at and there's movement towards resolving it....

It's old news.... as old as the fddata/FGAddon issues...

Move on.....

The bigger problem is the erroneous thinking of how GPL protects an idea/project as opposed to just the individuals files that make up the project...

It's just madness that if I offer up a NEWLY built from scratch as in not a copy of existing work and modified... piece of work and then attach it to a GPL plane as an alternative to use that people are screaming GPL violation.

I understand it won't be placed into FGAddon...but the rest is just your interpretation of how GPL effects the planes used in OUR community.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Hooray » Sun May 29, 2016 3:16 pm

Others, including some long-term contributors/core developers, have previously suggested that the GPL may not be the perfect license for some aircraft, and in particular some aircraft related assets (think scripts) - but as long as there is no other license being used, you gotta have to live with the way the whole thing works.
You won't change the license, or the law, by having these discussions around here.

If you want to be taken seriously, write up a letter presenting your use-case and questions and send it to the FSF, and repost their response here.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11120
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Bomber » Sun May 29, 2016 3:21 pm

No that does not answer the accusations leveled at me or others non GPL work..

I and others simply do not accept your interpretation of the word 'derived' as it applies to planes/objects/content addons within the FG community used on the Flightgear application.

Demanding I go cap in hand asking questions which should have been asked and answered years ago.... as this is being brought up time and time again is simply wrong..

It is up to the core devs, those that are making these rules based on their interpretation and casting asperations on other members of this community to ensure they have an official response on record... that will put the ball firmly back on my side of the net.

But by all means do open up a dialogue with this community here on this forum to discuss the content of any communication, so as it's not deemed biased or misleading in any way to favour a result . So as this can be resolved without any further bloodshed.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Bomber » Sun May 29, 2016 3:43 pm

Bomber wrote in Sun May 29, 2016 12:14 pm:Thorsten.... so you didn't do this then ?

And that's exactly the crime Thorsten commited when he deleted the GPL2+ copying file from the SpaceShutle repositories, and from FGADDon.



Thorsten wrote in Sun May 29, 2016 1:50 pm:Btw.: Must really gall you that Israel couldn't actually find any evidence for me changing a licensing header - because... I didn't do it! That comes from trusting the wrong sort of people who are too liberal with the truth.



There's no mention of header in the accusation, you're the only one repeatedly bringing this red herring to the bbq.

Did you delete the copying file ?
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby wkitty42 » Sun May 29, 2016 4:37 pm

Bomber wrote in Sun May 29, 2016 1:35 pm:So bugman.... you use his honesty against him ?

lawyers do this all the time...

Bomber wrote in Sun May 29, 2016 1:35 pm:And by the way that statement only applies for the moment he wrote it...... emails come in at any time of day and so he could subsequently have received an email from the author giving permission.... and might very well update the licence acordingly..

if that's the case then those documents giving permission would be included in the craft's directory in the repo... if they are emails, then the raw header information will also be in there with the permission statement...
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 4680
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Thorsten » Sun May 29, 2016 5:24 pm

Did you delete the copying file ?


It should be clear by now that Israel can't find the commit doing that, no? Because it doesn't exist. How often do you need to hear it - I didn't change the license. If someone on FGMembers deleted the file and now can't find it, that's not my repository and not my problem.

I and others simply do not accept your interpretation of the word 'derived' as it applies to planes/objects/content addons within the FG community used on the Flightgear application.


Yes, but since we've already established that your definition of 'perfectly legal' includes blatantly illegal practices, what you accept or not is pretty irrelevant for how the license works.

By the way: Did you or did you not throw a bunch of baseless accusations around without having any shred of evidence for anything you say?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9802
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby skyop » Sun May 29, 2016 6:19 pm



I'll add that these aren't the only examples - there are more. Like the Su-26M, which has a pretty explicit license and intent.

Copyright 2006 Enrique Laso Leon
Final releases will be released under GPL or LGPL but for the time being I
reserve the rights to release any modification on the model.
This is in order to get only one thread of development.
This will NEVER be a commercial product.


Yet

[Undeclared License. Temporary restriction: Creative Commons "BY-NC-SA"]
Aircraft: [ CRJ700-family | DC-10-30 ] Scenery: [ KBFL ]
skyop
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:40 am
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
IRC name: skyop
Version: next
OS: Fedora 23/Windows 10

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby bugman » Sun May 29, 2016 6:55 pm

That's a pretty clear case where Enrique specifically chose the licensing situation so that a FGMEMBERS-type situation could not occur. He has full rights to sue FGMEMBERS for illegal distribution of his work, if he so wishes.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Bomber » Sun May 29, 2016 7:21 pm

And not stand up in law..... you see the commercial statement invalidates it as it strictly against GPL..

And you do appreciate that by making it CC he's actually acting on the authors wishes of it never being a commercial product.

Who's side are you on....the authors or your own.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Hooray » Sun May 29, 2016 7:25 pm

Bomber is right, he posted while I was typing my response, anyway:

I haven't followed the development of that aircraft, but after 10 years, one could argue like Bomber that the developer's original "intent" may have been for the aircraft to be developed over the course of the next decade, if it hasn't, I would personally expect any resurrection attempts to be welcomed, but would definitely ask for clarification upfront - suing could be considered ridiculous depending on how much development/activity the aircraft has seen since then, i.e. the intent of the aircraft developer was definitely having a single development stream, but for that actual "development" could be considered the prerequisite - i.e. if its development has obviously stalled by all standards, any attempts at suing would be almost certainly rejected in the line of the communicated intent of the creator of the original work.

Equally, the statement itself is hugely contradictory, too - i.e. mentioning upfront that the work is intended to become GPL, and even LGPL, while excluding commercial use is symptomatic for a deep misunderstanding of the correspondign licenses in the first place; as all of us should know by now, there's no way for GPL'ed software to be excluded from being commercialized.

Thus, this case would stand on shaky grounds, if not even quicksand - at which point it ending up at fgmembers may not be the worst thing to happen ... :D
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11120
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby rominet » Sun May 29, 2016 7:39 pm

What has been posted here shows no license ("it will bla bla..." is not a license usable for existing content). IMHO, this means the work can only be legally distributed by its copyright holder(s) -> not by FGMEMBERS...
rominet
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:33 pm
Callsign: F-KATS
Version: Git next
OS: Debian GNU/Linux

Re: Distribution of unlicensed works by the FGMEMBERS organi

Postby Bomber » Sun May 29, 2016 7:43 pm

Or put another way distributed on fgmembers at their risk...

The risk being that an unrealistic law suit is attempted.....

Not really a risk then...
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest