Free Flight, Free Speech

Or did you deliberately choose not to answer that because you'd rather this doesn't happen so you can continue to rant how your stuff doesn't make it on FGAddon?

frankly I'm not familiar with it myself..... I'll get Israel to post me a link and I'll quote it here....

it would be a little far-fetched to expect a maintainer to navigate all of fgmembers just to locate a single aircraft

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=30362&p=294470&sid=29ab2643003deea151e870c900d10131#p294482

So, that's interesting after all, despite the controversial history behind the removal of the honda jet, and even Curt's comments regarding this incident, fgmembers must have consciously decided not to include it, despite the jet being GPL'ed

bomber wrote:Hoorays up to something... and it won't be good

So, that's interesting after all, despite the controversial history behind the removal of the honda jet, and even Curt's comments regarding this incident, fgmembers must have consciously decided not to include it, despite the jet being GPL'ed

Hooray wrote
Sorry to say Bomber, but -this time- Thorsten got a point, first he's right about the exemption clause [*] (we previously covered this in great detail in this very thread), and 2nd, it would make sense to follow up on his offer or decline it once and for all, so that the ASK13 doesn't get abused whenever there's a misunderstanding between the two of you.

Bomber wrote
It was released 'to the public'..... not internally at all

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25747&start=60#p237249

So lets just not forget that this shuttle conversation is about Thorstens right to call people thieves.... and he's had the nerve to call me and others untrustworthy based our association with FGMEMBERS

Hooray wrote
I am not "fishing" at all - my questions are absolutely in line with your own postings, and my comments regarding the "spirit" of the GPL.
If you are even just a little familiar with the history of the mentioned contributions, and contributors - you should actually find my question very enlightening - especially in the context of how fgmembers and the fgaddon repositories relate to one another.

That being said, like I said roughly dozen times in this thread: I am not familiar with the history of the shuttle or any materials posted (publicly or in private) - thus, you really have to look up Thorsten's comments. The heuristics that I mentioned should cover your question though, once you are able to apply them to the case at hand.

But it's not like it really matters actually - I absolutely share the view that even preliminary modifications that are -by nature- intended to be "publicly released" under the GPL eventually (as in sooner or later), would inevitably be treated as per the GPL by anybody reviewing a DMCA and/or trial in court. Thus, even if someone (say Thorsten) were to spend $10 million US on a team of lawyers, the case would be on shaky ground - especially if the history/events unfolding subsequently underline that the corresponding work was indeed to become GPL'ed anyway.

Thus, I find this whole debate highly academic, because it's not like FlightGear as a project or any of its group of contributors is likely to be legally considered a closed organization/entity (and treated accordingly), which is what the "internal-use-only" is definitely hinting at, and trying to cover legally.

Anyway, this is not the first time that our contributors are ill-informed when it comes to the GPL and the rights, and duties, it brings with it - and the repercussions all that causes - which is why it really is a good idea to refer back to the legal texts and/or FAQs provided by the FSF, without looking just at the shuttle or Thorsten's example.