Project genericvessel - spacecraft3 and multistage2 replacement project

[Donamy]

I knew 2016 was going to be a good year.

 

[Michael_Chr]

Gentlemen...
I do hope that GV will still go on. I can say that it most certainly will live on in my hangar. IMHO a lot of things has been gained for the community with the birth of GV and has also given rise to ideas (as well as some heated debate)
There are also some bugs in the SC3 code that has been eradicated with GV. So for me no point in leaving GV unless something better emerges - And having read the new feature list of SC4 I still think that GV is way ahead of even SC4 (perhaps some minor details apart). And then there is the whole Open source/GPL thing. Should we go back to "closed coding" where no one can pick up from others when they leave the community...(I'm almost attempted to say H... no - but good manners forbid this :-D)
So...I'm glad that you emailed Vinka and hope that he will reply positively to your suggestion. Else I have a lingering fear that are walking backwards instead of progressing.

 

[Face]

Gentlemen...
I do hope that GV will still go on. I can say that it most certainly will live on in my hangar. IMHO a lot of things has been gained for the community with the birth of GV and has also given rise to ideas (as well as some heated debate)
There are also some bugs in the SC3 code that has been eradicated with GV. So for me no point in leaving GV unless something better emerges - And having read the new feature list of SC4 I still think that GV is way ahead of even SC4 (perhaps some minor details apart).

For sure there won't be further work on it from my side. Orbiter is a hostile environment for GPL. Period.
You also have to realize that genericvessel was far from finished, even in its last version. Many things of SC3 were not present. If you proceed developing it, you have to play catch-up, because now you'd have to change the genericvessel features to mimic the changes in SC4, too. Otherwise you'd create a parallel framework, which would split the user-base.

And then there is the whole Open source/GPL thing. Should we go back to "closed coding" where no one can pick up from others when they leave the community...(I'm almost attempted to say H... no - but good manners forbid this :-D)

We already ARE back to closed coding. After the GPL discussion, you would be a fool to open your code. Either you give it up completely and don't care if people steal from you, or you risk your work being called illegal by trolls here. Better keep it as restricted as possible, less BS that way.

So...I'm glad that you emailed Vinka and hope that he will reply positively to your suggestion. Else I have a lingering fear that are walking backwards instead of progressing.

He already replied, but not exactly positive. He wants some time to think about it. I think it is well worth the wait, after all we've waited almost a decade already :lol: .

And for walking backwards: hey, I've tried my share. Now it is high time others pick up the flame and storm the wind-mills :rofl:.

 

[Michael_Chr]

Well...what to say???
Personally I'm very glad for all the effort that you have put into GV. At least you should be credited for the all the hard work and all the rights thoughts that you put into this. And we will have to see what the future brings.

 

[Urwumpe]

We already ARE back to closed coding. After the GPL discussion, you would be a fool to open your code. Either you give it up completely and don't care if people steal from you, or you risk your work being called illegal by trolls here. Better keep it as restricted as possible, less BS that way.

:facepalm:

Face, eat a Snickers (Disclaimer: unless you are allergic). You are not you, when you are hungry.

 

[Artlav]

After the GPL discussion, you would be a fool to open your code.

Huh.
Can someone give me a TL;DR on that discussion?
(Preferably longer than the above phrase.)

 

[Lisias]

Huh.
Can someone give me a TL;DR on that discussion?
(Preferably longer than the above phrase.)

Someone that I will not say it was me =P stated that GPL can be a problem to the end user when distributed mixed with artifacts that are licensed under a GPL incompatible terms in the same package. The GPL became void and null in such situations, and if another licensing (double license) is not applied, the end user will incur in copyright violation by the lack of licensing terms, when the "all rights reserved" is automatically applied.

In USA at least this is not a problem (private use, as it was said). However, USA is not the whole world, and besides being improbable that such would happen, the fact is that copyright infringement (being the infringer aware or not) can be a harsh legal issue on some countries (as Australia).

The problem I see is that the hammer will (potentially) fall on the head of the weaker side: the end user, that don't understand licensing. Neither the distributor neither the original author are risking legal trouble - just the end user.

The bottom line is that, in my not so humble opinion, GPL is OK to be used as long everying else being distributed together is also GPL. Anything else needs further considerations.

[edit]

PLEASE by all means, answer the guy with your view, but don't promote this thread hijacking with arguments. If you feel the need to further discuss the matter, please start a new one on the Basement.

 

[Face]

:facepalm:

Face, eat a Snickers (Disclaimer: unless you are allergic). You are not you, when you are hungry.

ARRRRRRGHRHRRR *bites in a pillow looking like a gremlin*

Hey, what do you want, I'm not coming up with it, I'm just responding to people bringing it up .

 

[Urwumpe]

Huh.
Can someone give me a TL;DR on that discussion?
(Preferably longer than the above phrase.)

I don't recommend it. It is a journey into the heart of darkness.

In short summary: Somebody without any legal qualification challenged the validity of the GPL for Orbiter add-ons, upsetting a few GPL supporters and making many open-source developers roll their eyes. I have lost track of the common thread somewhere in the discussion, somehow there appeared the assumption that a hypothetical invalidity of the GPL results in a default of the source-code license into public domain by publication.

In essence, the discussion ended with the agreement that nothing is wrong with the business as usual. But for Face there must have been a mortal insult contained somewhere there, as he goes Cato the Elder in any opportunity here.

 

[Donamy]

I hope this doesn't scare Vinka away !!! :facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

I hope this doesn't scare Vinka away !!! :facepalm:

CMM Level 1: "Unhappy is the land that needs a hero"

 

[Face]

But for Face there must have been a mortal insult contained somewhere there, as he goes Cato the Elder in any opportunity here.

Name calling. But no problem, Cato the Elder is cool with me. :lol:

There was no mortal insult, just the public accusation that my addons are somehow illegal just for the use of a specific license. You know, the thing that is explicitly forbidden in the guidelines? Somehow it is OK to do that for GPL here. It is discrimination of a specific license, plain and simple. And yes, that pisses me off to no end, thank you very much.

 

[Urwumpe]

Name calling. But no problem, Cato the Elder is cool with me. :lol:

Well, its hard to find a better description for the specific kind of cross-posting of yours. Carthago delenda est.

There was no mortal insult, just the public accusation that my addons are somehow illegal just for the use of a specific license. You know, the thing that is explicitly forbidden in the guidelines? Somehow it is OK to do that for GPL here. It is discrimination of a specific license, plain and simple. And yes, that pisses me off to no end, thank you very much.

Sure, it is pretty peeving, but it does not help to cross-post it in other threads.

After all, how long are you going to put our energy into this scorched earth tactic? I don't think it is a behaviour that contributes positively to the community. Sure, you can now go like "Why me?" on why I say this to you and not on the license trolls (or fools, I am not sure). I would answer "Why not?", just in case. You can do better, I expect less from the other side of the conflict.

 

[Loru]

O-F Staff note.

Please stay on topic on validity/need of GV here. Personal accusations move to private converstions or License Wars in the basement.

Thank you.

 

[Face]

Well, its hard to find a better description for the specific kind of cross-posting of yours. Carthago delenda est.

Uhm. You do realize that that very topic was one of the reasons why I said you can consider genericvessel dead, yes? Why is it cross-posting, if it contributed to the statement in a large part? It was also one of the major points in the later postings.

After all, how long are you going to put our energy into this scorched earth tactic? I don't think it is a behaviour that contributes positively to the community. Sure, you can now go like "Why me?" on why I say this to you and not on the license trolls (or fools, I am not sure). I would answer "Why not?", just in case. You can do better, I expect less from the other side of the conflict.

There is no tactic, there already IS scorched earth. I'm just explaining why things go the way they go from my point of view. If I start a thread on a project, announce that it is closed for this and that reason, and somebody asks me why "this" and "that" is, I explain it. That it is something you don't want to hear is not my problem. Feel free to ignore my posts if you are not happy with them.

 

[Urwumpe]

Uhm. You do realize that that very topic was one of the reasons why I said you can consider genericvessel dead, yes? Why is it cross-posting, if it contributed to the statement in a large part? It was also one of the major points in the later postings.

Did the existence of the GV project only depend on the license?

 

[Face]

Did the existence of the GV project only depend on the license?

Yes! Thank you. This was the whole point for me to start genericvessel: to start a replacement project with GPL, in order to prohibit all the drama about vinka not updating his framework back then. This specific license was (for me, at least back then) the best bet to guarantee that nobody comes along, hijacks it, makes it closed somehow (or dependent on closed parts), and furthermore pulls another vinka on the community.

Everything else makes zero sense to me. Now that Vinka is back and puts out version 4, of course all the users will use that. Keep in mind that they don't care a single bit about implications of licensing schemes, they just want to use it to bring out their addons. Of course that might be short-sighted, but you can't really blame them for it. Well, perhaps those who were bitten already once...

These things together make it a dead project for me.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes! Thank you. This was the whole point for me to start genericvessel: to start a replacement project with GPL, in order to prohibit all the drama about vinka not updating his framework back then. This specific license was (for me, at least back then) the best bet to guarantee that nobody comes along, hijacks it, makes it closed somehow (or dependent on closed parts), and furthermore pulls another vinka on the community.

Strange, I thought it was about keeping the source open, usable for others AND fix the many, many, maaany limitations of SCx that still prevail, as it seems. The license to achieve this was a means to that goal and not the goal itself.

Maybe I have really not understood OSS yet. :shrug:

Everything else makes zero sense to me. Now that Vinka is back and puts out version 4, of course all the users will use that. Keep in mind that they don't care a single bit about implications of licensing schemes, they just want to use it to bring out their addons. Of course that might be short-sighted, but you can't really blame them for it. Well, perhaps those who were bit already once...

You are right, it is not their damn problem. Their application life-cycle ends with the release of the software on OH, maybe with an early patch some weeks later.

Long-term support for add-ons is a problem for the users, not for the add-on developers. Are you disagreeing, that this attitude dominates in the community? That the strategy is to publish early and to publish often? Who cares about the second add-on implementing a spacecraft...

These things together make it a dead project for me.

It is your personal decision. Just don't blame others for "forcing" you to decide that way.

 

[Face]

Maybe I have really not understood OSS yet. :shrug:

Seems so.

It is your personal decision. Just don't blame others for "forcing" you to decide that way.

Others are saying that my use of license is making it illegal somehow. I react. Of course, you can label the mechanism between action and reaction as a... wait for it... "force".

---------- Post added 05-01-16 at 00:47 ---------- Previous post was 04-01-16 at 23:54 ----------

On a different note: of course the notion that genericvessel is dead is just my opinion. I'm just a bit tired of putting "IMHO" in every sentence, so bear with me.

I've tried to work with the admins here to get the repository online similar to what was done with D3D9Client. Idea was: a repo hosted by O-F itself would sure stop short most of the trolls, at least it gives some sort of legitimacy to it. That was last year in November. Unfortunately, up to this date it was not possible to bring that up, so since then the project (at least my fork of it, Artlav has another one) stagnated, anyway. With the recent development of Vinka returning, the need for this completely vanished for me, too.

Artlav's fork stagnates, too. I also think he don't really plan to work more on Orbiter, judging by his blog post.

And as I wrote, I'm in email contact with Vinka to get his source code, implement the few features that made genericvessel valuable, and hand it over to him. He can then do with it whatever he wants. If Vinka agrees, of course.

If anybody feels like he wants to proceed with it, please do so! As long as you stick to the terms of the license, at least for me that's totally fine.

 

[Donamy]

I think a Face and Vinka team up, would be the best news since the Beta.