Re: Mumble Trolling
Posted: Thu May 05, 2016 3:19 am
3) implement serious GPL compatibility auditing.
Very important. GPL compliance.
I tell you every GPL aircraft in our collection is compliant. And off course, auditing is encouraged.
As an openSource project, all our code (line per line) and every file is visible. So, if you are particularly interested in this topic, or have a fear, I can't but encourage you to make an exhaustive revision of the concern on any particular plane you may have and let us know. Let's assume something had escaped us, and I will be happy to act promptly for a fixing.
Now, there are 3 cases Thorsten alleged they are GPL and/or copyright violation. He is lying on all. And I tell you, he will indeed need to get a court ruling to indicate the contrary. I see it hard to happen because his arguments endanger not FGMEMBERS but the stability and applicability of the GPL letter at a massive scale. (Read as in every GPL software out there)
His first argument is the Space Shuttle. Which is a GPL plane. He argues his version contains non-GPL code bundled. Well, he can't write new code, add new files, he writes from scratch and for which he owns copyright,... , but as he bundled them with the GPLed SpaceShuttle he is bound to the CopyLeft Clause. But if you doubt, not only study that clause, but also revise why is it sometimes necessary an special case of license known as the Library GPL (LGPL) and recognize the shuttle is not a LGPL, but a GPL software with full protection under the law to keep it free and opensourced. So, well, Thorsten is lying there because he wants priviledges of distribution, which he can't own on that particular piece of software. He can't have either priviledges of modification.
The second argument is with the CRJ700. He claimed I altered the license of the author (from CC to GPL) by removing a readme file. The author, indeed, recognized where the real situation lies. The fact is he double licensed the aircraft before to be able to bundle it with FGDATA. He kept his fork CC, but the aircraft in FGADDon was GPL. I did not overwrote the license, but I took the license as stated on FGADDon. The problem arose because I rebased future work from his CC copy, within the GPL version of FGADDon. Somehow unfortunate due to automatic rebasings, creating a potential problem of dissecting on the whole aircraft what content was licensed CC, not GPLed. Such mess, I did not created. The author created it by double licensing in such interesting manners. (which, as sole author he could anyways!). The consequence, and return to compliance was accepting the plane was a mixed license and relocating it to the proper collection at:
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/CRJ700-family
Which I feel very sorry about. One of the best aircrafts on FlightGear had been unvested of its GPL status, just for Thorsten to score a point.
The third argument is with the Omega's aircrafts. Omega included some Jeppensen charts within the sources. His planes were "license not specified" - "restricted distribution" for a good time, and thus this was not an issue. When he moved on, he agreed on re-releasing his planes on GPL, but he was not there to stay cleaning up work. The restricted sources were removed with a git commit from the planes required, and the planes returned to compliance.
As a note, the entry of this or other files is made in good faith and involuntarily, and as the group of FlightGear (either core or FGMEMBERS) detected these, they were cleaned.
I am certain the aircrafts are compliant as of now, but again, if this is something of your interest, I extend you an invitation to continue an exhaustive look.
Very important. GPL compliance.
I tell you every GPL aircraft in our collection is compliant. And off course, auditing is encouraged.
As an openSource project, all our code (line per line) and every file is visible. So, if you are particularly interested in this topic, or have a fear, I can't but encourage you to make an exhaustive revision of the concern on any particular plane you may have and let us know. Let's assume something had escaped us, and I will be happy to act promptly for a fixing.
Now, there are 3 cases Thorsten alleged they are GPL and/or copyright violation. He is lying on all. And I tell you, he will indeed need to get a court ruling to indicate the contrary. I see it hard to happen because his arguments endanger not FGMEMBERS but the stability and applicability of the GPL letter at a massive scale. (Read as in every GPL software out there)
His first argument is the Space Shuttle. Which is a GPL plane. He argues his version contains non-GPL code bundled. Well, he can't write new code, add new files, he writes from scratch and for which he owns copyright,... , but as he bundled them with the GPLed SpaceShuttle he is bound to the CopyLeft Clause. But if you doubt, not only study that clause, but also revise why is it sometimes necessary an special case of license known as the Library GPL (LGPL) and recognize the shuttle is not a LGPL, but a GPL software with full protection under the law to keep it free and opensourced. So, well, Thorsten is lying there because he wants priviledges of distribution, which he can't own on that particular piece of software. He can't have either priviledges of modification.
The second argument is with the CRJ700. He claimed I altered the license of the author (from CC to GPL) by removing a readme file. The author, indeed, recognized where the real situation lies. The fact is he double licensed the aircraft before to be able to bundle it with FGDATA. He kept his fork CC, but the aircraft in FGADDon was GPL. I did not overwrote the license, but I took the license as stated on FGADDon. The problem arose because I rebased future work from his CC copy, within the GPL version of FGADDon. Somehow unfortunate due to automatic rebasings, creating a potential problem of dissecting on the whole aircraft what content was licensed CC, not GPLed. Such mess, I did not created. The author created it by double licensing in such interesting manners. (which, as sole author he could anyways!). The consequence, and return to compliance was accepting the plane was a mixed license and relocating it to the proper collection at:
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS-NONGPL/CRJ700-family
Which I feel very sorry about. One of the best aircrafts on FlightGear had been unvested of its GPL status, just for Thorsten to score a point.
The third argument is with the Omega's aircrafts. Omega included some Jeppensen charts within the sources. His planes were "license not specified" - "restricted distribution" for a good time, and thus this was not an issue. When he moved on, he agreed on re-releasing his planes on GPL, but he was not there to stay cleaning up work. The restricted sources were removed with a git commit from the planes required, and the planes returned to compliance.
As a note, the entry of this or other files is made in good faith and involuntarily, and as the group of FlightGear (either core or FGMEMBERS) detected these, they were cleaned.
I am certain the aircrafts are compliant as of now, but again, if this is something of your interest, I extend you an invitation to continue an exhaustive look.