Apologizing to the community.

hhaonn

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
20
Points
3
Dear Community:
I want to apologize for interpreting this message too literally.


And making a mistake with the conclusions, I created a thread "Release of Dan's Add-ons for Orbiter 2016 is actually cancelled." which is now removed.

It's my fault and I admit it.

In fact, there is no direct information of release cancellation now, there are only indirect ones.



And also, thanks to this discussion, I learned that I, as a user, have absolutley no rights in front of the add-on developer (that is, a "slave"). That the add-on developers have an absolute monopoly on their creations, which, of course, is logical, BUT ... if something happens to the developer and he does not have time to complete what he started, no one has the right to continue his work, since the absolute monopoly is sacred and inviolable.
But what is the practical benefit in this, I can not understand. After all, the projects are non-commercial.

And finally, add-on developers have absolutely no obligation to inform us, the users, about the current development status. No one has the right to complain about uncertainty.

Probably, I and you just have a very different mentality, which, in my case, cannot accept some states of affairs.

However, I want to apologize again.
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,292
Reaction score
1,478
Points
203
Location
between the planets
the absolute monopoly is sacred and inviolable.
But what is the practical benefit in this, I can not understand. After all, the projects are non-commercial.
It's the law, I'm afraid. None of us here wrote it. Any developer can change the terms to be more open, but if they don't, the default law of "all rights reserved" applies. That's just the way it is. If you want to change that, you'll have to take it up with the legislators...
And finally, add-on developers have absolutely no obligation to inform us, the users, about the current development status. No one has the right to complain about uncertainty.
Well, you can always complain. There's no law against that. But if as many people have already been complaining about it as in the case of Dan's add-ons, it becomes ye olde beating of a dead horse, and that tends to annoy people, and annoyed people tend to react more harshly...
 

llarian

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
534
Reaction score
113
Points
58
Location
Ottawa
It's not a monopoly. It's called copyright. Anyone who creates an intellectual asset has the right to the copyright on the material as per the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. If a copyright holder wants to relinquish his rights to his copyrighted material he is free to do so. He is under no obligation to anyone to do it.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,862
Reaction score
1,528
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
And finally, add-on developers have absolutely no obligation to inform us, the users, about the current development status. No one has the right to complain about uncertainty.

Probably, I and you just have a very different mentality, which, in my case, cannot accept some states of affairs.

You are sooooo close to understand it.

If I make an add-on for myself, without any intention of people using it.... why should I tell somebody?

Of course, from my heretical position, I will of course stop using an add-on, if the developer has no interest in maintaining it for others anymore. Thats annoying in case of middleware, but then I failed in the sourcing, not the developer. I didn't ask the question, if the other side is willed to continue its committment.

Yeah, with Dans great add-ons, the old drug dealer phrase still applies: "The first one is for free."

Now its our duty to get the next generation of add-ons done, do them better and make sure we never have to find a new dealer for our addiction in the future.

I personally would prefer a Boost++ like approach for all such important middleware in Orbiter. Join forces, do it open source, do it with some sort of scientific workflow behind to ensure even experimental features still get reviewed by others and improved. A Github like collaboration portal would also be perfect for it, just like we already have for Orbiter. There should be a common, uniform code-style so there are no surprises in the gang.
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
4,525
Reaction score
578
Points
138
Location
Dallas, TX
And also, thanks to this discussion, I learned that I, as a user, have absolutley no rights in front of the add-on developer (that is, a "slave").

No, the point is not that you're the addon developer's slave: Whatever he does with his addons, he can't force you to do anything.

The point is, he is not your slave. You don't get to force him to keep working on something he doesn't want to work on until you get tired of it.

That the add-on developers have an absolute monopoly on their creations, which, of course, is logical, BUT ... if something happens to the developer and he does not have time to complete what he started, no one has the right to continue his work, since the absolute monopoly is sacred and inviolable.

The monopoly is a legal reality, not anything that's sacred and inviolable, but it's what we have to deal with. It's not necessarily ideal, but even if it didn't exist, and anybody with a copy of his addons could legally distribute them, nobody could force him to release the source code for his addons, and continuing his work directly would be very difficult, if not impossible, without the source code.

Making a work-alike addon is perfectly fine even under the law as it is, but it does involve starting from scratch.

But what is the practical benefit in this, I can not understand. After all, the projects are non-commercial.

Commercial or not, even in an ideal world, a developer is under no obligation to release his source code.

And finally, add-on developers have absolutely no obligation to inform us, the users, about the current development status.

Correct.

No one has the right to complain about uncertainty.

You have the right to complain about anything you want, but in many cases it is rude to exercise that right, and people have a right to complain about you complaining.
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
4,525
Reaction score
578
Points
138
Location
Dallas, TX
It's not a monopoly. It's called copyright. Anyone who creates an intellectual asset has the right to the copyright on the material as per the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. If a copyright holder wants to relinquish his rights to his copyrighted material he is free to do so. He is under no obligation to anyone to do it.

It is a monopoly, government-enforced and codified in treaty, but as I pointed out to the OP, even if it didn't exist, only what a developer released (for example, binaries) would be freely available to the public. If the developer withholds source code from public release, significant additional development becomes much more difficult, even in the ideal world where the Berne convention was burned (pun intended), so the existence of the monopoly is largely irrelevant to the OP's complaint.
 

WolfAngriff

The NSEU (Never Satisfied End User)
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
118
Reaction score
86
Points
43
Location
Brest
Well, Dan's decision (back to the topic) to not let his addons open source is obviously arguable. But, even if he lets it free to use, and a developer wants to update it, he would have to get the author's authorization to do so. Even if i'm not (by far) the most active member of this community, i know that the admins will ask about the authorization. And they would be right ! Without any contact with Dan, the problem is the same : no authorization. Be sure that if those rules were not strictly followed by everyone of us, we would have had an updated UCGO/uMMU since several years now. The lack of these addons (and other things) almost killed Orbiter 2016 ! But, because this community is fair, ethical and respectful for anyone's work, Orbiter's still alive, and fresh addons and other developments are coming. We've lost on some points, but gained more on other points. If we look objectively at this situation, all the Orbiter community trusted on one single person about one of the most important addon. Where's the mistake ? Only one person, with only one addon, not open source. No redundance in a spaceflight simulator, it violates Murphy's law ! I'm not saying anyone was guilty, a mistake is not a fault. But it would have taken 5 mn to see the danger. We just enjoyed, me first. If a monopoly exists, it's because society lets it be. But look : an alternative solution is coming, open source, without Dan. Period. In a few months (maybe) we'll have a new Orbiter, with useful addons preinstalled, supported by a reinforced community which learns from its mistakes. I understand you're upset, i was very disapointed too. I've spent hours speaking with Dan, we shared about our families, lives, projects. And he quited suddenly, without any explanation. You know what ? Farewell Dan, i hope everything's well with him, all the best for him and his beloved ones. I'm really speaking with my heart. So, all in all, the only sad thing is that he'll never enjoy what's going on with Orbiter. We'll do ! ;)
 

Arvil

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
257
Reaction score
173
Points
58
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Preferred Pronouns
he/him
This is like a computer-age version of the older copyright and patent laws. If someone builds a widget, writes a book, song or other product, someone else was permitted to build another widget with the same function, but not to duplicate it exactly, the same with books, songs, movies, and other stuff. This was to protect the originator to his/her intellectual property. Otherwise, there is no use for someone to waste time and expenses to invent anything. One can write to an author and complain that the song was stupid and should be rewritten, but the originator has no obligation to change it. You, the user, have the right to not listen or sing it, or not. Unfortunately, if the developer is happy with what it is, or no longer cares, well it sucks to be the user. Maybe someone else can, as noted above, can develop something that does the same or similar. And also as noted elsewhere, these folks are doing this for free, it’s a hobby, we didn’t pay for something we don’t like, and it’s the best and most real above-the-earth simulator out there.
So, let’s enjoy the best product of its kind out there, thank and encourage the hobbyists to continue to improve wherever it goes, and if we can help, help on agreed terms. If we can’t, keep giving them attaboys and attagirls and enjoy what they provide.
 

4throck

Enthusiast !
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,502
Reaction score
985
Points
153
Location
Lisbon
Website
orbiterspaceport.blogspot.com
if something happens to the developer and he does not have time to complete what he started, no one has the right to continue his work, since the absolute monopoly is sacred and inviolable.
But what is the practical benefit in this, I can not understand. After all, the projects are non-commercial.
You are imagining that there's a community working for the "greater good" - the benefit you mention. It was a bit like that in the past (from 2006/16) but not right now.

For many reasons, what you have now are individuals that share their personal work with others. This work is mostly scientific or hard simulation. So while valid and impressive (ex: NASSP) it might not bring "benefit" outside of its core group of users. Even more broadly appealing add-ons like AMSO have code that prevents improvements made by others.

So it's a matter of expectations really... If you wish for such a community, you need to build it (and perhaps fund it somehow).
 

Sbb1413

Add-on developer and tester
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
947
Reaction score
367
Points
78
Location
India
Preferred Pronouns
he/his/him
Although I have not yet added any copyright disclaimer in any of my add-ons, unless otherwise noted, all my add-ons are in CC-BY-NC 4.0 license.
 

WolfAngriff

The NSEU (Never Satisfied End User)
Joined
Nov 9, 2013
Messages
118
Reaction score
86
Points
43
Location
Brest
Hello 4throck.

I agree with you. But in the "good ol' past" there was a bigger feed-back from random users like me. From my point of view, today, this feed-back has almost disapeared. When i read the forum's topics, i see developers speaking to developers about developing, and the feed-back comes from testing. It's not a reproach, things went "naturaly" like that. Orbiter is a niche, and i'm afraid it becomes a niche in the niche, because it will become more and more scientific and hard simulation. It's interesting, of course, but how will Orbiter grow without anything apealing to newcomers ? I've begun in Orbiter with DG4, Themis launcher and CSSC, Hyperion heavy launcher, Kulch's addons, etc. They were easy to use by scenario editor, so i was able to focus on navigation, space travel, MFDs, etc. If, at this time, Orbiter only provided NASSP, SSU and things like that, i would have let it down. There's a lot to learn in Orbiter, it's a hard core simulation, and it must stay the same, but if the beginning is too high, it would become impossible to attract new people, especialy the young ones. And so, Orbiter will loose one of it's most important goal : educational. If the first step is : "open a file with notepad and write lines", i think it's not the good way. "Easy to use, hard to master" is the good way. That's why i hope (but not that much) that an addon like the Themis A and its dependencies (https://www.orbiter-forum.com/threads/themis-a-launch-vehicle-1-0.28093/) will be provided in the future versions of Orbiter, using scenario editor, an autopilot and a payload manager. Less realistic, i agree, but more user friendly. The frist step ! As i don't use automated translator, i hope (very much) that it's clear this is not bad criticism.

Oh, and thanx again for all the good times i've spent with your addons ! :cheers:
 

4throck

Enthusiast !
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,502
Reaction score
985
Points
153
Location
Lisbon
Website
orbiterspaceport.blogspot.com
Oh, and thanx again for all the good times i've spent with your addons ! :cheers:
Thanks! I stopped creating addons because without universal crew and cargo flying is boring. I realized that when I adapted Constellation to 2016 - I had to remove crew and cargo, ending up with a lifeless addon.
I tried to program some astronauts myself, but soon realized that it would take too much time on top of what I already spent. I guess it's the same with other developers.
 

gattispilot

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
1,547
Points
203
Location
Dallas, TX
The STS 2016 has got animated crew. As a vessel they(EVA) can be added.

But all this licensing stuff makes me weary of publishing
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,292
Reaction score
1,478
Points
203
Location
between the planets
But all this licensing stuff makes me weary of publishing
You can always do it like me: Shove the stuff to github, slap an MIT license on it, and just don't worry. If you're tired of maintaining it, just let somebody else carry the torch. If noone steps up, it's probably not that important.
 

4throck

Enthusiast !
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
3,502
Reaction score
985
Points
153
Location
Lisbon
Website
orbiterspaceport.blogspot.com
But all this licensing stuff makes me weary of publishing
Why? Unless you want to specifically control how things are used, or want to give particular rights to others, it doesn't matter.
Just try to give proper attribution and explain what you have done on the readme file.

I had an instance where someone complained that I had rotated their mesh (for Multistage compatibility). Fair enough, I simply replaced the "offending" mesh with one I modeled. Only took a few hours and problem solved.
 

Xyon

Puts the Fun in Dysfunctional
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
GFX Staff
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
6,870
Reaction score
668
Points
203
Location
10.0.0.1
Website
www.orbiter-radio.co.uk
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
The STS 2016 has got animated crew. As a vessel they(EVA) can be added.

But all this licensing stuff makes me weary of publishing

Perhaps we can offer some standard license types you can select for your add-on when it's uploaded, if you wanted to go down the route of being covered by a standard license.

As we note in the ToS, for all add-ons we hold whose author didn't specify, we assume an "all rights reserved" kind of license (we kind of have to, unfortunately), but we could present that choice to uploaders of add-ons at creation time, and let the UI show if their work should be covered by a different one.

Licensing is, unfortunately, always a bit of a Topic here ever since the Great GPL Wars, but we do want to make publishing things to the system as painless as possible even so.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
36,862
Reaction score
1,528
Points
203
Location
Langendernbach
Of course, if you want to do licensing right, it can be quite complicated. (Don't get me started on the German law there, which makes it even more complicated to get it conform to civil law here). But generally, the less you care about it, easier it is.
 

gattispilot

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
7,308
Reaction score
1,547
Points
203
Location
Dallas, TX
Of course, if you want to do licensing right, it can be quite complicated. (Don't get me started on the German law there, which makes it even more complicated to get it conform to civil law here). But generally, the less you care about it, easier it is.
Then for me it would be easy as I care little about it. My goal is for people to use/abuse it. :)
 
Top