Free Flight, Free Speech

There is different types of CC license!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

This one doesn't allow modifying, copying: https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/Optica CC-BY-NC-ND
This one does: https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/MD-88 CC-BY-NC-SA

Compare this:


https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode # A CC license ND-NC 4.0

to this


https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

Or, also compare this:


https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
to the same GPL text above



****

If you can't see how such text are philosophically and diametrically opposed, then get a patent and intelectual property lawyer opinion about the interpretation of such texts.

GPL and CC licenses are not only not the same, but are also foes in much of their contexts.


I am GLAD FlightGear is a GPL software, and I fully disagree with any assesment that CC will better protect FG's interests.


Best,
IH-COL

Ok whatever again...

I'm not saying they're 100% identical.... I NEVER said that, or implied it... so showing how they're NOT the same isn't any help..

The facts are that a CC licence that allows copying, modifying and distribution CAN be ported to flightgear.... and still respects the original authors wishes for their work not to be sold commercially.

But if you want get into another License war, because GPL is sooooo much better then be my guest... I'm just correcting the above wrong statements

Simon

bomber wrote:GPL is sooooo much better

My favorite statement of the day! so I'll turn a blindeye to the rest of the post

IAHM-COL wrote:so I'll turn a blindeye to the rest of the post

Damn! I can't

bomber wrote:The facts are that a CC licence that allows copying, modifying and distribution CAN be ported to flightgear....

Simon

No. It cannot be ported to FlightGear. Only a CC license that 1) allows copying, 2) allows modification, 3) allows redistribution of verbatim and/or modified versions of the product /and/ source, 4) does not make provisions to limit commercial usage and 5) still very importantly permits the product to permute to GPL license, then yeah. (such license I fail to find, and only CC0 maybe come close, which is a technical naming of Public Domain)

FlightGear is (you may not be aware of the fact, which does not nullify it) used as a commercial enterprise.

Example,
The core devs, package it and commercialize it
(selling DVDs with the aircraft and scenerios)

If the Core devs can benefit financially, why would I want to create statements to prevent other to do likewise?

Also, by shutting off the Commercial provisions, per example you limit many Linux distros to pre-package and distribute along with their systems. It is not a secret that many Linux distros' companies such as RedHat or Novell do have financial interests behind their products.

So, I agree with you mainly in the premise of "let's not battle about this here" ....




Yours,
IAHM-COL

airzona, let's not cloud the issue with talk of linux but instead focus on the question you asked... for the betterment of the community.

Firstly understand that there are about 6 planes that are distributed with Flightgear, the vast majority of planes and objects are separate downloads, from either the official repository (which are all GPL), to unofficial repositories like this one where you can download GPL and non-GPL content separately, and private download links.

If it's your aim to have your work downloaded with flightgear (very unlikely to happen) or have it on the official repository then ALL content that you bring must be GPL.

If however you want to bring some material that's CC licensed to allow copying, modification and distribution and have it distributed from one of the many unofficial repositories or private links then you can do.

Anyone saying otherwise is telling fibs

Simon

I must say

+1

to bomber's last post


One quick correction:

bomber wrote:Firstly understand that there are about 6 only 2 planes that are distributed with Flightgear (ufo and c172p)...

Simon

It's been a while since I last did a download as I'm still on 3.4 as I think the new front end isn't plane developer friendly

3.4! Oh my!... then yeah ... like 6 planes or so.


Are FG201x versions developer friendly? Yes under Linux. Not elsewhere.

(And that QT5 launcher stinks skunk -- and like skunk, it maybe pretty on the surface)

That's wrong.

I use the --console command, and still use FGRUN on my Windows x64 box, and I use it for developing.

Works great, and fine.

I can quickly restart FGFS, have a console that never closes, and it works great. (2016.1.2 is my version, everyother is the same, except 2016.3, which is the WORST FGFS release EVER)