Board index FlightGear Development

FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

FlightGear is opensource, so you can be the developer. In the need for help on anything? We are here to help you.
Forum rules
Core development is discussed on the official FlightGear-Devel development mailing list.

Bugs can be reported in the bug tracker.

FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby Farmboy » Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:55 pm

This was started in Jack's AH-1 thread, and I am responding here to separate any discussion.



stuart wrote:(Going off topic slightly)

Farmboy wrote:If you look around, you'll find the best built and best flying aircraft are all going or have gone to a CC license.

This doesn't hurt any of the FG users, it just means that FG needs to recognize the contribution and encourage it, rather than put a wall up and endorse "official aircraft" only. There is very little value left in the GPL license, when you look at it's stance regarding theft of contributions for commercial gain.


I think there is a real danger here of people blowing the whole FPS thing out of proportion. They are an irritant, but it is important not to become allergic :). I think with the marketing work that FG people are doing, FPS and its ilk will wither and die. They are getting huge amounts of bad publicity on well know Flight Sim websites, which will affect Google et al.

FGs development has been a success due to its GPL license, and the commercial side of that is important. Many people have used FG for commercial purposes and the project has benefited as a result. I myself developed the tutorial system in part because of some paid work I was doing to use FG in a museum. A CC license would not allow that to happen. Many core developers, myself included, would not be contributing to FG if it wasn't GPL. There is a reason why GPL software is so successful, and partly that is the freedom it provides, and yes, that does allow it to be sold.

Therefore, I would encourage people to continue to release their stuff with a GPL license to git. Historically, this has been the best way to ensure that your creations are maintained, even if you yourself are unable to continue working on FG. You should be thinking about 5, 10 years in the future. I doubt I'll still be able to maintain some of the aircraft that I've created, but by having them in git, I'm confident that someone else will be able to maintain them easily.

As an aside, if you are creating an aircraft with a CC license you cannot easily use any parts from a GPL aircraft or other resource, even if you modify them. This is because your modifications would constitute a derivative work (see section 2 of the GPL). That certainly includes FDMs, graphics, models and Nasal scripts. You could go back to the author and ask them to release the same work under a different license, but for works with multiple authors, you'd need to get permission from all the authors. Don't let your distaste for what FPS are doing within the license cause you to break the license yourself. That certainly would be theft. :)

Coming back on topic - I think this aircraft would be a great addition to GIT. It's an old favourite of mine.

I'd also recommend using a bump map to add rivet lines and bolt effects. I did so for the c172p, and I really like the effect. It also makes it easier to create liveries for later.

-Stuart



Stuart, this brings up an interesting side of FG.

As a huge fan of business, and the ability to earn and income at something you love, I find it wonderful that some people are able to earn a living either doing their hobby, or in concert with it. That's as good as it gets.

That being said, your statements above offer a viewpoint that perhaps if aircraft were not _donated_ per say, using the GPL, then those that are earning a living in conjunction with this would stop, and FG would suffer from it. While in some respects that may not surprise me, that is not the feeling and promotion that has surrounded FG that I've been aware of, nor is projected in this statement on the FG homepage.
"FlightGear is a free flight simulator project. It is being developed through the gracious contributions of source code and spare time by many talented people from around the globe. Among the many goals of this project are the quest to minimize short cuts and "do things right", the quest to learn and advance knowledge, and the quest to have better toys to play with"

There are many users that alter, tweak, modify and more to the existing aircraft for their personal enjoyment, and the enjoyment of others. This is allowed by GPL of course, but it's also allowed by a CC license.
See CC-by-NC-SA :"This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature."

While I understand developers are dug in on GPL, I also see there is a place in a "Free Flight Simulator" for all aircraft contributions. FG does not acknowledge the aircraft outside of the "official list", and yet every FG user at some point will fly one. Let's not hinder that experience, let's embrace it. If you need aircraft for your commercial ventures, use the GPL aircraft or simply ask the author for permission to use it.

It's sheer numbers. The more that know, the more that fly. Those flying will start tweaking. Then they may enhance. This leads to creations. I don't see how good models from today have any chance of _not_ being maintained in the years to come. I may not be one of them, but the future of the core rests in these same people that were (are?) mere users. I've seen many real associations fail due to the us-vs-them philosophy, and sadly never even realized they were perceived that way. They just felt they were making the right decision.

Peter
Horsepower is just an illusion. Torque is the true answer.
User avatar
Farmboy
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: NorthEast New York State, and the rest of New England....

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby stuart » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:54 pm

Apologies for not replying sooner - only saw this just now.

Farmboy wrote:As a huge fan of business, and the ability to earn and income at something you love, I find it wonderful that some people are able to earn a living either doing their hobby, or in concert with it. That's as good as it gets.

The work I did with FG was fairly minimal, and was a once-off. I mainly did it as advertisement for FG. However, with a non-commercial license, they wouldn't have been able to pay me for the work, or (possibly) have people pay to use the software - the simulator is in a museum with an admission price.

Farmboy wrote:That being said, your statements above offer a viewpoint that perhaps if aircraft were not _donated_ per say, using the GPL, then those that are earning a living in conjunction with this would stop, and FG would suffer from it. While in some respects that may not surprise me, that is not the feeling and promotion that has surrounded FG that I've been aware of, nor is projected in this statement on the FG homepage.
"FlightGear is a free flight simulator project. It is being developed through the gracious contributions of source code and spare time by many talented people from around the globe. Among the many goals of this project are the quest to minimize short cuts and "do things right", the quest to learn and advance knowledge, and the quest to have better toys to play with"

There are many users that alter, tweak, modify and more to the existing aircraft for their personal enjoyment, and the enjoyment of others. This is allowed by GPL of course, but it's also allowed by a CC license.
See CC-by-NC-SA :"This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature."


That's not quite quite what I said, though I may not have been clear enough as I had two concepts in the same paragraph.

The project has benefited from developments done for commercial purposes.

Separately, a CC-by-NC-SA license more restrictive than a GPL license, as it doesn't allow commercial usage. As such, it is _less_ free (as in freedom) and some contributors would object to that restriction, irrespective of whether they have any commercial interest.

Does that make sense?

Farmboy wrote:While I understand developers are dug in on GPL, I also see there is a place in a "Free Flight Simulator" for all aircraft contributions. FG does not acknowledge the aircraft outside of the "official list", and yet every FG user at some point will fly one. Let's not hinder that experience, let's embrace it. If you need aircraft for your commercial ventures, use the GPL aircraft or simply ask the author for permission to use it. It's sheer numbers. The more that know, the more that fly. Those flying will start tweaking. Then they may enhance. This leads to creations. I don't see how good models from today have any chance of _not_ being maintained in the years to come. I may not be one of them, but the future of the core rests in these same people that were (are?) mere users. I've seen many real associations fail due to the us-vs-them philosophy, and sadly never even realized they were perceived that way. They just felt they were making the right decision.


Unfortunately the problem is that the various license we're talking about are incompatible, particularly on the specific issue of commercial use. At present, the GPL aircraft outnumber others. One of the great advantages of creating a GPL aircraft is that you can use bits and pieces (failure systems, instruments, Nasal code) from all the other aircraft in the GPL repository. That is a massive advantage that only gets stronger the more aircraft that are present. Therefore working within the GPL is more efficient.

I think the main reason people are wanting to have a non-commercial license is because they don't want their work ripped off by FPS. I don't see that as being more than a minor annoyance, and we should continue to have faith in the very successful license that created FG itself as well as many other pieces of fine software.

-Stuart

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby Farmboy » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:32 pm

Hey Stuart,

Yes, that makes more sense, thanks for breaking it down for me. I'm sure you are much more intimately familiar with the licenses, and so I will only hope in the future there can be some parameters that will allow a better collaboration between all and full featured package with all the aircraft linked to it.

Thanks again,
Peter
Horsepower is just an illusion. Torque is the true answer.
User avatar
Farmboy
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: NorthEast New York State, and the rest of New England....

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby richter » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:46 am

Stuart, there is much more to the Creative Commons licenses than you describe here.

In particular, you seem to be saying that all CC licenses disallow commercial usage, which is completely untrue. The non-commercial restriction is just one of several optional conditions (the others being Share Alike and No Derivatives) that may be applied to the basic "CC-BY" license, which allows copying and derivative works, and requires only attribution: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

Without those conditions, CC is every bit as free as GPL or GFDL. CC-BY-SA, which allows commercial use and derivatives, while requiring that derivative works be bound by the same license, is acknowledged as both "free" and "copyleft" by the FSF. (It is also incompatible with GPL, though I haven't found an explanation of how.)

Furthermore, CC even allows licensees to request from the licensor a waiver from any of the optional conditions, something not provided in any form in GNU licenses as they do not have such optional conditions.

So for your example of creating the tutorial system for the museum, assuming that you were the sole creator/copyright holder, you most certainly could have licensed it under a number of CC licenses which allow commercial usage. You could have even licensed in under a non-commercial CC and granted the museum a waiver which would allow them to use it commercially (while still forbidding commercial use to anyone they transfer it to). As for your being paid by the museum to develop the system, this is completely out of the purview of the CC license; the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you the licensor.

The ability to waive the Non-commercial condition also allows what it seems many FlightGear content creators would very much like to do: keep their works out of the hands of commercial repackagers like Flight Pro Sim while allowing themselves and others (like the FlightGear project itself) to distribute them, even for money.

I think that practically speaking, the "choice" of how to license works created for FlightGear isn't one that's made on the basis of the license terms, but rather on whatever license governs the existing materials that are re-used. Currently, most non-code FlightGear content is licensed under GPL, and as you state, that's its strength. But that's really just "legacy" (in the "bad", computer software sense ;). Yes, there is a lot of GPL material in the FlightGear project, as well as content designed for other flight simulators that can be converted to FG. But if you go beyond that to resources like photographs, drawings, and standalone 3-D models not specifically designed for flight simulators but extremely useful in creating aircraft models for FlightGear, the preferred open license is CC, not GPL -- just look at Wikimedia Commons and Flickr.

For newly created works, I think CC is a better choice than GPL, it's more flexible, just as free, and designed for stuff like data files, not program code. But you don't even have to choose one; the copyright holder can publish a single piece of work simultaneously under any number of licenses, even if they are incompatible (works under one license may not be transferred to the other license without permission), as long as none are exclusive (one license forbids the works from being distributed under some or any other licenses). So it's possible to dual-license a work under a CC license and GPL (though this can lead to confusing situations with derivate works).

I have contributed a number of models to the FG scenery database, and they are all dual-licensed under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA-2.5.
Aircraft: Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander
Airports: RJTT
richter
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Tokyo
Version: 2
OS: Slackware Linux 12.2

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby stuart » Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:18 pm

richter wrote:Stuart, there is much more to the Creative Commons licenses than you describe here.

In particular, you seem to be saying that all CC licenses disallow commercial usage, which is completely untrue.


The specific CC license that was being discussed for the AH-1 had the non-commercial clause, and indeed that was the main reason it was being considered by the authors. I'm very aware that there are a number of variations on the CC license, some with far fewer restrictions.

richter wrote:Furthermore, CC even allows licensees to request from the licensor a waiver from any of the optional conditions, something not provided in any form in GNU licenses as they do not have such optional conditions.

So for your example of creating the tutorial system for the museum, assuming that you were the sole creator/copyright holder, you most certainly could have licensed it under a number of CC licenses which allow commercial usage. You could have even licensed in under a non-commercial CC and granted the museum a waiver which would allow them to use it commercially (while still forbidding commercial use to anyone they transfer it to). As for your being paid by the museum to develop the system, this is completely out of the purview of the CC license; the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you the licensor.


I can always license my own work under whatever license I choose. This isn't specific to the CC license, just normal IP licensing. I don't see what the "waiver" provides, other than a different license.

In the museum example, the critical point is the other parts of the work (i.e. FG itself), which under a CC non-commercial license could not be used in the museum without having to back to ask permission of the original authors, something that isn't possible for a work such as FG which has so many authors.

richter wrote:The ability to waive the Non-commercial condition also allows what it seems many FlightGear content creators would very much like to do: keep their works out of the hands of commercial repackagers like Flight Pro Sim while allowing themselves and others (like the FlightGear project itself) to distribute them, even for money.


This very quickly becomes impossible to police, due to the cross-fertilization of derivative works and the many authors involved. If I want to use it in a commercial project, do I have to go back to the original authors for permission? What if they have died or cannot be contacted?

Any sensible free license needs to be able to stand on its own two feet for licensing without reference to the original authors.

richter wrote:I think that practically speaking, the "choice" of how to license works created for FlightGear isn't one that's made on the basis of the license terms, but rather on whatever license governs the existing materials that are re-used. Currently, most non-code FlightGear content is licensed under GPL, and as you state, that's its strength. But that's really just "legacy" (in the "bad", computer software sense ;). Yes, there is a lot of GPL material in the FlightGear project, as well as content designed for other flight simulators that can be converted to FG. But if you go beyond that to resources like photographs, drawings, and standalone 3-D models not specifically designed for flight simulators but extremely useful in creating aircraft models for FlightGear, the preferred open license is CC, not GPL -- just look at Wikimedia Commons and Flickr.


Yes, the FG data license is a legacy. However, we cannot turn back to the clock to change the license, and we have a huge body of GPL work.

richter wrote:For newly created works, I think CC is a better choice than GPL, it's more flexible, just as free, and designed for stuff like data files, not program code. But you don't even have to choose one; the copyright holder can publish a single piece of work simultaneously under any number of licenses, even if they are incompatible (works under one license may not be transferred to the other license without permission), as long as none are exclusive (one license forbids the works from being distributed under some or any other licenses). So it's possible to dual-license a work under a CC license and GPL (though this can lead to confusing situations with derivate works).

I have contributed a number of models to the FG scenery database, and they are all dual-licensed under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA-2.5.


For straightforward original works, that may be adequate, but the downside is that you cannot then make use of the huge body of GPL-licensed work without going back to the original author for a new license.

While the GPL license is slightly clumsy for data files, frankly I don't think that any CC license adds anything from the perspective of helping achieve the aims of the FG project. Presumably you've looked into it - what do you think the CC-BY-SA license provides that is better than the GPL?

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby richter » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:51 pm

stuart wrote:
richter wrote:So for your example of creating the tutorial system for the museum, assuming that you were the sole creator/copyright holder, you most certainly could have licensed it under a number of CC licenses which allow commercial usage. You could have even licensed in under a non-commercial CC and granted the museum a waiver which would allow them to use it commercially (while still forbidding commercial use to anyone they transfer it to). As for your being paid by the museum to develop the system, this is completely out of the purview of the CC license; the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you the licensor.


I can always license my own work under whatever license I choose. This isn't specific to the CC license, just normal IP licensing. I don't see what the "waiver" provides, other than a different license.

Yes, but negotiating a new license to use or create from scratch, which you'd have to do to remove or add conditions to a GPL work, is much more involved than being able to say "Can you waive the NC condition?" "Yes, here's my signed waiver", with the resulting license still being the same.

stuart wrote:
richter wrote:The ability to waive the Non-commercial condition also allows what it seems many FlightGear content creators would very much like to do: keep their works out of the hands of commercial repackagers like Flight Pro Sim while allowing themselves and others (like the FlightGear project itself) to distribute them, even for money.


This very quickly becomes impossible to police, due to the cross-fertilization of derivative works and the many authors involved. If I want to use it in a commercial project, do I have to go back to the original authors for permission? What if they have died or cannot be contacted?

Any sensible free license needs to be able to stand on its own two feet for licensing without reference to the original authors.

It's no more complicated than any other copyrighted work: a change in licensing terms, whether GPLing a traditionally copyrighted work, or getting a CC waiver, always requires the permission of all copyright holders. If you want to create a derivative of a GPL work and publish the result as closed-source, you need permission of all copyright holders, just like you would if you wanted to sell a CC-NC work. If any copyright holder doesn't want to deal with such issues, he doesn't have to. Copyright holders are under no obligation to grant licenses/waivers, be reachable, or be alive ;)

stuart wrote:
Yes, the FG data license is a legacy. However, we cannot turn back to the clock to change the license, and we have a huge body of GPL work.
...

For straightforward original works, that may be adequate, but the downside is that you cannot then make use of the huge body of GPL-licensed work without going back to the original author for a new license.

While the GPL license is slightly clumsy for data files, frankly I don't think that any CC license adds anything from the perspective of helping achieve the aims of the FG project. Presumably you've looked into it - what do you think the CC-BY-SA license provides that is better than the GPL?

-Stuart


I guess this is the main difference in our views. While I agree that the current body of GPL work within FG is considerable, maybe even huge, I think it will be eventually surpassed by the body of CC material outside FG, and not necessarily specific to flight simulators, that will nonetheless be useful. We're past the stage when the core developers who write the simulator code create full-package aircraft (FDM, 3D model, config files) to go along with it as part of the FlightGear distribution; now we have contributors who specialize in FDMs, 3D models, and liveries. Right now it's probably only liveries that are being published as standalone packages, (like at UnitedFreeWorld), but I could imagine "drop-in replacement" FDMs, instruments, and 3D models (full aircraft as well as weapons, pilot figures) as well. Such standalone works (for example, a livery) need not be bound by the GPL on a completely unrelated part (an FDM) as they would if packaged together, and thus will be able to use other CC works.

Currently everything in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is CC-BY-SA. Both Google and Flickr support searching by CC license. (Google 3D Warehouse doesn't support it yet, but I see no reason it won't eventually.) Yet not infrequently here on this forum I see cases like this where someone will find a useful resource, and upon learning that it's not GPL (often by being curtly advised by someone else that "If it's not GPL you/we can't use it."), just give up, instead of considering using it under whatever copyright scheme would allow it to be used. I think quality should be more important than which license, as long as it's a free license.

Yes, anything that is to be distributed as part of the official FlightGear package has to be GPL, but is that really so important for contributors? Anyone here on this forum can publicize his work; just yesterday I noticed someone created a webpage with a comprehensive directory of personal hangar sites. And which is closer to the goals of the FlightGear project: distributing as many add-on data packages as possible as part of the project, or having the best software ecosystem?

While I think GPL is a great thing, and is crucial to the success FlightGear has had so far, its usefulness for works created outside of the official project will eventually diminish. The advantages I see in Creative Commons are those I stated earlier: more appropriate for non-code data, more flexible options for the creator, and a greater body of existing work.
Aircraft: Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander
Airports: RJTT
richter
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: Tokyo
Version: 2
OS: Slackware Linux 12.2

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby stuart » Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:13 am

richter wrote:It's no more complicated than any other copyrighted work: a change in licensing terms, whether GPLing a traditionally copyrighted work, or getting a CC waiver, always requires the permission of all copyright holders. If you want to create a derivative of a GPL work and publish the result as closed-source, you need permission of all copyright holders, just like you would if you wanted to sell a CC-NC work. If any copyright holder doesn't want to deal with such issues, he doesn't have to. Copyright holders are under no obligation to grant licenses/waivers, be reachable, or be alive ;)


Right, but the point is that in the case of commercial use, you don't need to change the licensing terms for a GPL work, while you do for a CC-NC work. IMO it is better to put up with the annoyance of Flight Pro Sim to keep the simplicity and freedom to use FG commercially.

I guess this is the main difference in our views. While I agree that the current body of GPL work within FG is considerable, maybe even huge, I think it will be eventually surpassed by the body of CC material outside FG, and not necessarily specific to flight simulators, that will nonetheless be useful. We're past the stage when the core developers who write the simulator code create full-package aircraft (FDM, 3D model, config files) to go along with it as part of the FlightGear distribution; now we have contributors who specialize in FDMs, 3D models, and liveries. Right now it's probably only liveries that are being published as standalone packages, (like at UnitedFreeWorld), but I could imagine "drop-in replacement" FDMs, instruments, and 3D models (full aircraft as well as weapons, pilot figures) as well. Such standalone works (for example, a livery) need not be bound by the GPL on a completely unrelated part (an FDM) as they would if packaged together, and thus will be able to use other CC works.

Currently everything in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is CC-BY-SA. Both Google and Flickr support searching by CC license. (Google 3D Warehouse doesn't support it yet, but I see no reason it won't eventually.) Yet not infrequently here on this forum I see cases like this where someone will find a useful resource, and upon learning that it's not GPL (often by being curtly advised by someone else that "If it's not GPL you/we can't use it."), just give up, instead of considering using it under whatever copyright scheme would allow it to be used. I think quality should be more important than which license, as long as it's a free license.


You make a good point. It's much more important that we encourage contribution than get caught up on specific licenses. However, it is important that creators realize what they can and cannot do. The FG project simply doesn't have the monetary resources to deal with a licensing lawsuit. The next time it comes up, I'll remember to mention that GPL isnt' the only choice, and that the work might be able to be used elsewhere.

Putting aside my dislike of the CC-NC license (personally, I don't think it is "free" enough), and considering the CC-BY-SA and GPL licenses, which don't seem to significantly differ aim or execution, the underlying issue as I said before is that the licenses are incompatible, and a creator pretty much has to choose one license or the other, as it will determine what existing work they can use. IMO for the creator of a new aircraft, the value of the body of GPL work is greater than that of CC work. Given this, they are more likely than not to license under the GPL, which will perpetuate the GPL body of work.

As an example of this, see the AH-1 discussion. The developers there initially wanted to license under a CC-NC license, but changed to a GPL license later. I'm glad they did, but I think a strong driver for this was the amount of Nasal code etc. that they had taken from the F-14, which of course was licensed under the GPL. So I don't think that non-GPL work will overtake the GPL content in importance.

(Sorry - I realize we're going round in circles here)

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby MAKG » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:29 pm

Stuart, your museum example is an interesting one, but I think you've misunderstood something.

Most museums are nonprofit. This is not generally "commercial," but rather educational, much like a school. Even if they charge admission (as some schools do).

As a worker for a nonprofit (no, not a museum), the motivations, goals, culture, regulations and legal obligations are hugely different than a commercial operation.

Nonprofit does not mean the workers and contractors don't get paid. It means the purpose of the organization is something other than profit. In my case, enabling astronomical research.
MAKG
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:11 pm
Location: California Central Coast

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby El Flauta » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:10 pm

I'm curious... can someone to explain why "the value of the body of GPL work is greater than that of CC work"?

Like a starting aircraft developer (n00b), and little more experienced livery-scenery maker, i need a lot of resources of information, since model blueprints to hobbist YouTube videos. They are never GPL (Exists GPL videos in some place? I guess not). If i want to do a flight instrument version, most references never will be GPL... then, i don't think that "if it isn't GPL, don't use it" philosophy is a really good idea on time.

For me, an advantage of CC license, is that CC can allows people to share it with other licenses, too.

Maybe i'm wrong, because i really don't know so much about GPL licence; but it seems to be just for software. Then, my aircraft audio recordings for my model are a software? I don't think so. What if i want to use my audio sessions for another non-software purposes, like music?
Vive FlightGear! Have you a Ñ on your keyboard? Spain-LatinAmerica FlightGear community!
--
PZL M18B Dromader
CASA C-101 Aviojet
Cessna 337G Skymaster
User avatar
El Flauta
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:09 am
Location: SCVM, Chile
Callsign: CC-FLT
Version: 3
OS: Windows 7 SP1

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby HHS » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:29 pm

@El Flauta:

the sources for your own work don't need to be under GNU GPL. Not the blueprints, not the video, not the program with that you model, draw etc, etc...
Only things included in your own work (the 3d-model if taken somewhere else, sound...)later have to be under GNU GPL v2 if you want to have it included into offiical FGFS.

That's the main goal behind FlightGear: http://www.flightgear.org/introduction.html
Up, up and away
User avatar
HHS
Retired
 
Posts: 3624
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:09 am
Version: GIT

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby stuart » Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:50 am

@MAKG: I think the non-commercial limitation might still apply in _my_ commercial use of the flight simulator, by selling my time to provide some additional development. It may be the case that I'm wrong though - fortunately the GPL makes it very easy and I haven't had to take professional advice w.r.t. to the license ;)
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby Armchair Ace » Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:21 am

On a slightly different note, I still don't understand how the CC and GNU GPL licences are incompatible. For example, if I made a GPL aircraft, but used a CC texture, and mentioned the author of the texture where it is appropriate, and banned the commercial use of the aircraft, then surely the CC content could be used - or am I wrong?

~Tom
Member of the FlightGear Flying Club

Current Projects :
Miscellaneous texture and sound work
User avatar
Armchair Ace
 
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:48 pm
Location: EGP?
Callsign: G-ATPF
IRC name: ArmchairAce
OS: Mac OSX

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby MyName » Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:06 pm

Bingo, that is the problem. That particular CC license forbids commercial redistribution, which is permitted by the GPL.
MyName
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:57 am

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby MAKG » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:30 pm

stuart wrote:@MAKG: I think the non-commercial limitation might still apply in _my_ commercial use of the flight simulator, by selling my time to provide some additional development. It may be the case that I'm wrong though - fortunately the GPL makes it very easy and I haven't had to take professional advice w.r.t. to the license ;)


Did you sell the flight simulator, or your labor to configure it, including hardware?

A number of the users seem to like CC BY-NC-SA, but CC BY-SA would allow any commercial activity, not very different from how FG is now. I think CC BY may be more in tune with what you really intended. "SA" is a bit more onerous than some people think; it's very unusual for a developer in a larger organization to have control over licensing.

I think it's telling that a number of other software projects have found the need to modify GPL. For instance, read the Qt license. It's almost GPL, but has one extremely important exception. It was a massive blunder for even LGPL to include using header files as a "derivative work." That's BS, and it's why I don't support FSF anymore.
MAKG
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:11 pm
Location: California Central Coast

Re: FG Aircraft Licenses, continued

Postby stuart » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:22 pm

I was selling my labour to develop enhancements to FG, and to configure the platform.

CC BY would have been fine - as you've pointed out it is very similar to GPL. My concern is specifically with the "NC" part of CC-BY-NC-SA.
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Next

Return to Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest