hans05 wrote:
I think that he wants to provide the POSSIBILITY for content developers to use e.g. instruments as modules in their aircraft. IF the instrument is GPL AND the developer decides to take it, then of course the aircraft might also have to be GPL.
Mights, ifs and buts .... Don't cut it
Clarity is what matters.
Of course you are right. So far I am only providing options, and giving options is always mights, ifs and buts. Eventually you (us....or somebody) must make a final decision how to do it and that will be the end of mights, ifs and buts.
hans05 wrote:
But the developer can freely decide to make a proprietary and commercial aircraft, just that then he can not use the ready made GPL instruments (or what ever) but would have to program that herself.
So you add to the confusion by first saying 'might' and then follow it by being definitive and unequivocal.
Also that was supposed to be only a proposal how it could be done (but decision has to be done later and definitely not by me). Sorry that my English is not good enough to always be crystal clear. I guess I should have used the subjunctive also in that sentence....
Let me be clear, if I create a CC flight model and a person comes along with a proprietary 3D model and wishes to distribute the two. I'll tell him\her my work is not for sale but that it can be given away with the proprietary 3D model. With the understanding my work remains CC and thus anyone buying the packaged plane can modify and distribute my work. And that applies to a person with GPL model wishing to use my CC flight model.
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE LICENCE ON MY WORK OTHER THAN ME !
BINGO! That is exactly what I am proposing: No one is allowed to soften/change any license given to any already given module. If a developer wants to use a given module/component she also has to respect the license that was given to that module/component.
You could even be more strict then what you describe above: You could say that IF somebody wants to use your CC flight model, s/he has to CC the 3D model also. If somebody wants to do a non-CC 3D-model, s/he has to create a non-CC flight model herself OR find somebody else (than e.g. you) to provide a non-CC flight model.
The motto: Allow all licenses but have clear separations/interfaces between them. Is that like existing FG? No, I don't thinks so. To me existing FG seems to be very non-supportive towards development items that is not under their (GPL-) control (to say the least).
After thinking a bit on the issue: Would it be possible for you to create a flight model with a long armed interface so that a clear separation of your model and a possible commercial 3D-model is possible? That would be great! The seller of the 3D-model would maybe not even allowed to bundle the two, but maybe he could write an installation script that downloads your CC-model and her commercial model and installs the two so everything works.
In a similar way it would be possible to develop e.g. instruments with CC/GPL. Give the instruments a proper long armed interface and let users of the instruments take care to not violate the license by just using the interface but NOT tightly bundling the two.
You could e.g. have a repository for flight instruments each with a clear long armed I/F. A commercial model could use those instruments through I/F without having to loosen up or violating any license. If that is too dangerous for a commercial developer (he fears that I/F changes or the instrument might change/disappear) than he would have to disregard using it and make his own.
Well, again lots of might, ifs and buts because I am only brain storming and as said: I am not a great expert in any of these issues, I am just generally excited about the idea of a new flight simulator and try help by giving options that come to my mind. If you think that I am just adding confusion than just let me know and I will stay quiet.