License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[dseagrav]

But to infringe copyright, all you need is to use code without permission - you don't need the GPL for that.

Not. Freaking. True. Stop saying this. It is wrong.

The GPL does not cover usage. It is not a usage license. Unless you have a separate usage license for your GPL project, there is no usage license. Usage is free.

You cannot violate the GPL by using software. Full stop, end of sentence. This is stated IN THE LICENSE:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

 

[Lisias]

On the other hand, by simpling not using any licensing and sticking with the implicit authorization Orbiter Hangar demands on uploading, a lot of fuss can be avoided.

So, if you have any problems with... problems.. the less effort approach is not using the GPL (neither any other license)....

---------- Post added at 01:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------

Not. Freaking. True. Stop saying this. It is wrong.

The GPL does not cover usage. It is not a usage license. Unless you have a separate usage license for your GPL project, there is no usage license. Usage is free.

You cannot violate the GPL by using software. Full stop, end of sentence. This is stated IN THE LICENSE:

EXACTLY MY POINT. GPL does not covers usage.

But it doesn't overrides the Copyright Law Act, THAT DOES COVERS USAGE.

You must satisfy the Copyright Law Act in order to use the code!!!

Spelling it with all the letters: YOU CAN VIOLATE COPYRIGHT Law Act BY USING SOFTWARE, and the GPL will not help you if you don't fulfill its distributing terms.

 

[dseagrav]

The words "The act of running the Program is not restricted" in the GPL mean that even if you have such a default usage restriction the GPL just overrode it. Default protections are a non-issue.

You're grinding your axe so hard there's not much axe left.

 

[Lisias]

DURA LEX SED LEX

I think that we are living the illusion that what is being said here affects reality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Things are how they are, the conclusion of this discussion will not make the strongest, better said, funnier, whatever words valid.

This is not a competition, and the Truth is not a prize.

Doesn't matter at all if all what I managed to do here was making a fool of myself, or if by some means I managed to argue rationally and I'm successfully influencing the Orbiter Ecosystem's future: the reality remains the same, and the reality will be the one that will (or will not, as was already stated previously) bite our later.

The funny fact is that... nobody has to thrust me here, both FSF and EFF can answer your questions directly! You don't need to counter-argument me with rhetorics, just ask the guys, publish the answer here (with consent, please) and then shut me up - who can successfully counter argument the guys that wrote and now defend the license at first place?

The EFF email that receives consulting requests is [email protected] (source).

The FSF contact is [email protected] (source)

if you prefer to talk directly To The Guys, use [email protected] (source)

They are all fine guys (RMS is a bit harsh), they will not pursue you (neither Orbiter) because we like to use a closed source Software - but I think that they will not be pleased if we end up using the GPL license irregularly, as it would weaken the license and this is something that they would like to prevent.

If nobody else is willing to do that, I'll gladly do it myself - assuming that you guys would thrust me when I post the results - perhaps some forum moderator would like to participate in a CC?


"May the road rise with you"

 

[dseagrav]

Are you going to pay for the consultation? Last time I required FSF's legal opinion it was $10,000 USD per incident. (We ended up having our own lawyer answer the question simply because it was cheaper.)

 

[Lisias]

The words "The act of running the Program is not restricted" in the GPL mean that even if you have such a default usage restriction the GPL just overrode it.

Not really true.

The court held that the GPL's copyleft provision imposed an obligation over and above what the Copyright Act requires—an affirmative obligation to provide source, rather than simply an obligation not to copy the software without permission. Because the Copyright Act does not specifically protect the right of a software licensee to receive source code, the court ruled, it does not preempt a claim in state court to enforce that right.

Emphasis are mine.

Of course, I quoted a rule from an USA court - so this can be not valid in my country, or even yours - the court in question appears to be be a minor one (not sure how to express this in English), and it appears (but I don't know) the the matter can rise to superior instances and be overruled.

But be aware that the GPL is not all-mighty. What it says is not the Law.

---------- Post added at 02:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 AM ----------

Are you going to pay for the consultation? Last time I required FSF's legal opinion it was $10,000 USD per incident. (We ended up having our own lawyer answer the question simply because it was cheaper.)

As far as I read in that pages, at least EFF offers pro-bono advising. I think it worths at least a try.

 

[dseagrav]

Not really true

Not at all relevant to this scenario either. The case being argued revolves around whether or not tainting a closed-source program with GPL code causes the entire program to be "virally" infected with the GPL.

This has no bearing on whether or not a third-party copyright holder can sue Orbiter users for using a GPLed addon.

 

[Lisias]

Not at all relevant to this scenario either. The case being argued revolves around whether or not tainting a closed-source program with GPL code causes the entire program to be "virally" infected with the GPL.

This has no bearing on whether or not a third-party copyright holder can sue Orbiter users for using a GPLed addon.

Uh... I beg you pardon, but by some reason you are implying that Orbiter is Open Source? Or perhaps that Delta Glider source (that it is available, but not free as in freedom) can be freely used in derivatives being licensed under the GPL without the copyright holder consent ("All rights reserved") ?

Did you paid attention on the quote that I emphasized? That [Because the Copyright Act does not specifically protect the right of a software licensee to receive source code, the court ruled, it does not preempt a claim in state court to enforce that right.] thing, where the court said that copyleft is not above neither over the Copyright Act?

Are you aware that by simply claiming your code is licensed under the GPL, the code is not necessarily protected under the GPL (as GPL demand you to fulfill some terms, as getting explicit consent from all the copyright holders of the code that you don't write yourself)?

Saying better: The MS-DOS 6 source files (including QBasic) leaked and are available somehow (don't ask, forum rules). It would be ok to download QBasic source code and create a derivative to be used in Orbiter on the place of Lua, obviously released under the GPL?

I doubt you will answer "Yes".

However, this is the exact situation from many, many of our add-ons - a lot of vessels appears to be incepted from Delta Glider source code ("All rights reserved by Martin Schweiger").

If I cannot release a GPLed QBasic derivative without MS explicit consent, nobody can write a GPLed Delta Glider derivative without Mr Schweiger explicit consent, right?

The whole package would be a Copyright Violation, and the GPL nullifies itself unless all the copyright holders from all the code of your package consents into GPL licensing.

But even if the GPL tries to overrule previous (and righteous) Copyright claims, such a clause would be null and void, as GPL is not above neither over the Copyright Act.

So, and again, no one should be stating "Using GPL is totally fine" in Orbiter.

The mere resistance in recognizing the Copyright Act validity and abrangence is a risk, in my opinion.

How good is the lawyer from your company? How much he charges?

 

[Linguofreak]

But to infringe copyright, all you need is to use code without permission - you don't need the GPL for that.

If the GPL forbids further distribution of the code, anyone that get the code is not covered by the GPL use rights anymore.

Not true: see the second sentence of section 2 of the GPLv3, the last paragraph of section 8, and the first paragraph of section 10.

The bit from section 2 in question:

This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.

The last paragraph of section 8:

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

And the relevant paragraph of section 10 reads:

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

The GPL grants usage rights to covered software without any conditions. The usage and distribution rights granted by the GPL are explicitly granted to anyone who has a copy of the software in question, no matter how they obtained that copy, unless that person themself had those rights terminated because they themself violated the license.

 

[dseagrav]

by some reason you are implying that Orbiter is Open Source

No. Read it again. The case you cite is whether or not NON-GPL code containing GPL code becomes "virally" subject to the GPL.

[Because the Copyright Act does not specifically protect the right of a software licensee to receive source code, the court ruled, it does not preempt a claim in state court to enforce that right.]

Again, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not a third-party copyright holder can sue Orbiter users for using a GPLed addon.

Are you aware that by simply claiming your code is licensed under the GPL, the code is not necessarily protected under the GPL (as GPL demand you to fulfill some terms, as getting explicit consent from all the copyright holders of the code that you don't write yourself)?

This is not true, nothing in the GPL requires this. The closest thing I can find is terms and conditions item 10, which states:

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission.

But none of this applies end-users.

Saying better: The MS-DOS 6 source files...

None of this is relevant to the question of whether or not a third-party copyright holder can sue an Orbiter user for using a GPLed add-on.

virtually all vessels were incepted from Delta Glider source code ("All rights reserved by Martin Schweiger")

On what basis do you make this statement? In any event, all this would result in is Doc Martin being able to sue. The basis of his lawsuit would have nothing to do with the GPL - "all rights reserved" means you can't use that source code at all. Releasing it under ANY license is a violation of Doc Martin's license.

The whole package would be a Copyright Violation, and the GPL nullifies itself unless all the copyright holders from all the code of your package consents into GPL licensing.

The GPL does not nullify itself - The addon developer (and subsequent end users) didn't have the right to use the code. The GPL has no bearing in this case. The addon could be BSD licensed, or MIT licensed, or WTFPL licensed, and the case would be the same.

In any event, none of this has any bearing on whether or not a third-party copyright holder of a GPL project can sue Orbiter users for using a GPLed orbiter addon.

 

[Lisias]

Not true: see the second sentence of section 2 of the GPLv3, the last paragraph of section 8, and the first paragraph of section 10.

I beg your pardon, but are you stating that if I "leak" code that I don't have the right to license under the GPL (as the QBasic code I mentioned), what is a obvious GPL violation (not to mention a Copyright Act infringement), the GPL still guarantees the the people that downloaded the package have full usage rights?

See - if the GPL by some reason forbid the further distribution of the code, it's because I failed to comply with GPL terms. So, not all of the code is being covered by GPL (why other reason the GPL will forbid further distribution?).

Now, how GPL can guarantee the usage rights of the program, if I don't have the rights to license the whole package on GPL?

Using again my QBasic example: By adding some nice features and compiling QBasic (those sources leaked some years ago) and release the whole thing claiming it's GPL licensed, the people that download this (illegally distributed under the GPL and under the Copyright Act) are still entitled by the GPL to use the program?

---------- Post added at 04:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:25 AM ----------

In any event, none of this has any bearing on whether or not a third-party copyright holder of a GPL project can sue Orbiter users for using a GPLed orbiter addon.

So, if nobody is going to sue, we don't have to fulfill the GPL and/or Copyright Act terms?

---------- Post added at 04:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 AM ----------

The GPL does not nullify itself - The addon developer (and subsequent end users) didn't have the right to use the code. The GPL has no bearing in this case. The addon could be BSD licensed, or MIT licensed, or WTFPL licensed, and the case would be the same.

It's hard to correctly express myself about legalese in my own tongue, in English things are becoming worst. I'm sorry.

Allow me to try again.

When a contract clause is inapplicable here, we say "Esta cláusula é nula de direito". I have the understanding that the english equivalent is "This clause is null and void".

As you stated, the add-on developer (and subsequents end users) don't have the right to use, much less distribute the code - no matter what the GPL says, because the GPL don't cover this work.

The GPL, in such a case, is null and void.

Perhaps I should had stated "The claim about licensing under the GPL is null and void", or "the claim of being covered by GPL is nullified".

If you agree with me that the GPL doesn't cover the work, what would be the status of the code? It can be still be downloadable and the ending users are still entitled to use the program?

 

[dseagrav]

So, if nobody is going to sue, we don't have to fulfill the GPL and/or Copyright Act terms?

How exactly did I say nobody would sue? I understand English is not your first language but this is an absurd way to read it. (I could argue that this makes you unqualified to interpret an English legal document to us, but that would be unfair.)

Unauthorized use is unauthorized use. There is no license that can magically make unauthorized copies of code legal to distribute.

What is your argument at this point anyway, that the GPL is dangerous because if someone GPLs unauthorized code the user can be liable? That happens regardless of license. If Doc Martin put "all rights reserved" in the SDK examples then you can't base your addon on that, period. If "many, many" addons do this, then many, many addons are in violation of Doc Martin's license. Whether or not they are GPL projects is irrelevant.

You have yet to prove that the GPL is any more dangerous than any other license in the Orbiter addon scenario.

---------- Post added at 11:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

When a contract clause is inapplicable here, we say "Esta cláusula é nula de direito". I have the understanding that the english equivalent is "This clause is null and void".

As you stated, the add-on developer (and subsequents end users) don't have the right to use, much less distribute the code - no matter what the GPL says, because the GPL don't cover this work.

The GPL, in such a case, is null and void.

The GPL doesn't magically become void and disappear, it just isn't relevant anymore. Think of it this way - If the speed limit on elm street is 25 MPH and I get stopped by the police doing 45 MPH, I can't say "But the speed limit is 55 MPH on the highway!" The speed limit on the highway isn't magically invalid just because I wasn't there, it's just not relevant.

In the case you are describing, the parts which are GPLed are still under the GPL, and the GPL remains in force for those. The parts which are unauthorized copies retain the license they had originally.

The case you linked earlier was the reverse - A closed-source project appropriated GPL code and used it. The lawsuit alleged that this meant the entirety of the closed-source project was "virally" infected by the GPL and became subject to the GPL.

The only way this could become relevant to Orbiter is if an Orbiter addon project copied code for which they didn't have authorization (which is bad no matter what the license is) and distributed it.

 

[Lisias]

On what basis do you make this statement? In any event, all this would result in is Doc Martin being able to sue. The basis of his lawsuit would have nothing to do with the GPL - "all rights reserved" means you can't use that source code at all. Releasing it under ANY license is a violation of Doc Martin's license.

I stand corrected. I had no right to make such affirmation (that virtually all vessels came from Delta Glider).

You had already read and replied to my (involuntary, i swear) fallacy at the time I realized my bad rhetoric. My apologies - and I already corrected myself on the original post (the editing reason explained the editing reason also).

Allow me (again) to try again.

Virtually all the vessel's source code that I got in touch somehow (and I don't intent to disclose who neither how - but I claim that in all cases, the source was sent to me or I downloaded it in good faith) appears to have code that came from Delta Glider (or perhaps DragonFly - but this vessel I didn't scrutinized yet)

Sometimes, the order of the some class methods is the same. In another, the order in which the methods are declared in the CPP files are similar. On some of them, i even found a variable named "dg" on the Dialog's callbacks.

These vessels are on the wild, and I will have a hard time in believing that I'm saying anything new here - it's hard to believe that one would believe that every single vessel was born from scratch, without using the sources from the reference vessels as a scratchpad.

I have no reason to believe that i dealt only to exceptions to the rule.

I have no reason to believe that stating "GPL is totally fine" will do any benefit to the Common Joe that are still learning programming by doing copy & paste from the Delta Glider vessel. Their work are not GPLabled.

 

[dseagrav]

I have no reason to believe that stating "GPL is totally fine" will do any benefit to the Common Joe that are still learning programming doing copy & paste from the Delta Glider vessel. Their work is not GPLable

This is because Doc Martin does not grant permission to use the samples in this manner, not because of the GPL. There is no license that will make taking Doc Martin's "All Rights Reserved" example source code and releasing it OK.

The GPL has no bearing on this. What they are doing is illegal no matter what.

This absolutely has no effect on whether or not I can release a properly GPLed addon. You are trying to say that I should get a speeding ticket because someone else is driving too fast.

Edit: And even then, the only person who can sue anyone for this is Doc Martin, and it's highly unlikely that he will sue his own users.

 

[Lisias]

The GPL doesn't magically become void and disappear, it just isn't relevant anymore. Think of it this way - If the speed limit on elm street is 25 MPH and I get stopped by the police doing 45 MPH, I can't say "But the speed limit is 55 MPH on the highway!" The speed limit on the highway isn't magically invalid just because I wasn't there, it's just not relevant.

Sorry by not being able to make myself clear.

In the case you are describing, the parts which are GPLed are still under the GPL, and the GPL remains in force for those. The parts which are unauthorized copies retain the license they had originally.

Thank you for the effort on understanding me.

It' my understanding that in such cases, the code not belonging to you retains its original license (no matter what license), and the GPL is null and void about your package. The part of the code that ir really yours was not GPLed, as GPL demands that you fully satisfy its terms, or don't use it at all.

That part of the code that is really yours, so, is not licensed and should not be used either.

(but this is just my interpretation).

Anyway, the binary distributed is not usable, as not all of the code that was used are covered by the GPL.

The case you linked earlier was the reverse - A closed-source project appropriated GPL code and used it. The lawsuit alleged that this meant the entirety of the closed-source project was "virally" infected by the GPL and became subject to the GPL.

The case I linked aimed to clarify that GPL claimings are not automatically accepted in a court of law.

I was also aiming to clarify that the "virality" of the GPL is a oath (or a myth at best), and that by linking GPL code into non GPL code, your package will not be magically lawfully distributed - such packages will not be GPLed at all, to say the truth.

The only way this could become relevant to Orbiter is if an Orbiter addon project copied code for which they didn't have authorization (which is bad no matter what the license is) and distributed it.

I totally convinced that in 90% (I pulled that number from my hat) of the add-ons that used somehow code or resources from other add-ons the authorization was given implicitly, informally or erroneously interpreted as an authorization in good faith.

Unfortunately, this is not good enough to GPL, since my claim that you *can not* state to these guys that "GPL is totally fine". Most of our add-ons developers just can't understand the copyleft concept (some of them don't even know about copyright at all - they are amateurs, not professional developers)!

Moreover, our add-ons are not just code. There're meshes, there're textures, there're configuration files and sounds and PDFs. GPL doesn't covers all (or any) of that, and by releasing your code under the GPL, the mesh, the PDF, the texture et all are not automatically protected nor has usage rights guaranteed.

So, using GPL is not totally fine, and not sufficient neither.

---------- Post added at 05:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 AM ----------

This is because Doc Martin does not grant permission to use the samples in this manner, not because of the GPL. There is no license that will make taking Doc Martin's "All Rights Reserved" example source code and releasing it OK.

I could not agree more - GPL is totally "innocent" here. But still, not "totally fine".

I never claimed that GPL is intrinsically a bad idea, or that GPL will hurt Orbiter.

May claims is that GPL will not solve all the problems, and can potentially create others even worse if not correctly used.

By quoting myself:

GPL is fine, but can backfire on you if you don't know what you are doing.

Edit: And even then, the only person who can sue anyone for this is Doc Martin, and it's highly unlikely that he will sue his own users.

I totally convinced that no, Mr Schweiger will not sue Orbiter users neither demand add-on take downs.

But the fact that he could sue if he want should be seen as a yellow alert, and the guarantee of not being sued should not be seen as a green light to (un)licensing under the GPL Delta Glider derivatives (or similar offenses to the GPL), do you agree?

 

[dseagrav]

It' my understanding that in such cases, the code not belonging to you retains its original license (no matter what license), and the GPL is null and void about your package.

Right. You have to GPL the whole package. If you cannot GPL a part of it, you cannot GPL it. This does not mean that your code goes into the public domain, or that the GPL is suddenly invalid, it just does not apply. Your work goes back to the default "all rights reserved".

In the case you linked it works the other direction, the GPL package doesn't lose its GPL-ness because it was copied in contravention of the GPL.

That part of the code that ir really yours, so, is not licensed and should not be used either.

It still has a license, in Berne Convention countries at least. "All Rights Reserved".

Anyway, the binary distributed is not usable, as not all of the code that was used are covered by the GPL.

More than that - The binary is not distributable to begin with. You don't have the right to the unauthorized parts, you can't distribute it.

I totally convinced that in 90% (I pulled that number from my hat) of the add-ons that used somehow code or resources from other add-ons the authorization was given implicitly, informally or erroneously interpreted as an authorization in good faith.

This is a fault of the developers in question, not the license. The license is fine, they are not.

Unfortunately, this is not good enough to GPL...

It's not good enough to -anything-. If you do not have permission to use something, you cannot use it. Your intentions are irrelevant. There is no license under which you can legally release code you do not have permission to release.

Moreover, our add-ons are not just code. There're meshes, there're textures, there're configuration files and sounds and PDFs. GPL doesn't covers all (or any) of that, and by releasing your code under the GPL, the mesh, the PDF, the texture are not automatically protected either has usage rights guaranteed.

This is not true. You can GPL anything. The GPL FAQ again:

You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

Meshes and assets are binary files edited as-is, so they are their own source code. It's just like a text file, there is no separate "source code" for a text file, the text is the text.

So the GPL is totally fine, as long as you are not using someone else's work without their permission, which is never OK no matter what.

---------- Post added at 12:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ----------

May claims is that GPL will not solve all the problems, and can potentially create others even worse if not correctly used.

This can be said about nearly any kind of tool. The GPL is hardly unique in this regard.

But the fact that he could sue if he want should be seen as a yellow alert, and the guarantee of not being sued should not be seen as a green light to (un)licensing under the GPL Delta Glider derivatives (or similar offenses to the GPL), do you agree?

No. You can't un-license what you don't own any more than you can license it.

If you are that worried about it, cease distribution of these add-ons until Doc Martin addresses the legal issues. You can't just magically un-GPL them, that solves nothing.

 

[Lisias]

How exactly did I say nobody would sue?

You didn't. But you are not my only interlocutor.

Some other guys stated before that just the add-on developer could sue himself , some other argued that nobody would waste time reporting such violations (and then this doesn't matter), etc, etc.

So I give up talking about being sued, and tried to stick on respecting the license.

I will not list such claims, they're all in this Thread's posts if you are curious and willing to search.

---------- Post added at 06:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 AM ----------

No. You can't un-license what you don't own any more than you can license it.

Damn. This time the fault in on the autocorrector. I was intending to write "(not)licensing", I didn't realized that somehow was typed "(un)licensing". :facepalm:

---------- Post added at 07:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 AM ----------

Right. You have to GPL the whole package. If you cannot GPL a part of it, you cannot GPL it. This does not mean that your code goes into the public domain, or that the GPL is suddenly invalid, it just does not apply. Your work goes back to the default "all rights reserved".

I think I should wrote "not licensed to you".

In the case you linked it works the other direction, the GPL package doesn't lose its GPL-ness because it was copied in contravention of the GPL.

In my perception, I see both cases as "The GPL does not cover non GPL code" - the direction of the violation just doesn't matter - are both the same violation.

But granted, you don't have to share my perception.

More than that - The binary is not distributable to begin with. You don't have the right to the unauthorized parts, you can't distribute it.

No argument here. But since people do things they are supposed not to, I think that is equally important to inform that in the event that someone (dumbly or in bad faith) distributes such a package to you with a GPL.txt file attached, you are not magically entitled to use that binary.

This is a fault of the developers in question, not the license. The license is fine, they are not.

We lost the context, sorry. The original phrase that triggered my (most recent) reaction were:

"It seems to me that the arguments have settled on GPL being totally fine for Orbiter addons"

(this quote is not mine, search the thread if you needs to know the author)

Given the current practices by some add-on developers (relying on implicit and or informal consent), the GPL is not totally fine for Orbiter Addons.

The GPL is totally fine for Orbiter addons in which you have full ownership of the code used and/or explicit consent from the copyright holders from the code you don't own.

It's not good enough to -anything-. If you do not have permission to use something, you cannot use it. Your intentions are irrelevant. There is no license under which you can legally release code you do not have permission to release.

There're licenses where implicit permission are enough? Such a license would be welcome here.

This is not true. You can GPL anything. The GPL FAQ again:

That would not do alone. People do meshes using many 3D modeling tools, and then "export" it to a format that Orbiter likes. Anima8or is one very popular tool around here.

You can "reverse engineer" the mesh into a format understandable to your 3D Modelling of choice. It's what I do, I prefer to use Blender.

So the meshes we have in Orbiter are not exactly the source code. And some developers are not comfortable in waiving the rights that the GPL demands on the meshes - they don't mind the code, but want to keep such rights about the mesh. GPL is not fine to these guys.

Moreover, at least in my country there is a of a law that imposes restrictions to musical works (it's pure government sponsored extortion). GPL don't accept further restrictions (if you can't fulfill external obligations and the GPL at the same time, you don't have the right to distribute it at all).

But the Creative Commons license appears to had gained recognition around here - there's a light on the end of the tunnel (and it doesn't "peweeeing" on me).

About the PDFs and other textual assets, here we have different rules to books and software (they used to be the same, but that created a loophole on the taxes paid by software developers, and the government intervened). And again, if I can't fully fulfill legal obligations and the GPL at the same time ("no further restrictions"), I can't distribute the whole package (nor end users can use it).

I have no reason to believe that other countries don't have similar or totally different restrictions (and we have people from all the world using Orbiter and Orbiter add-ons).

So we cannot state that using GPL for non code assets is fine - at least, not yet. Unless one have an USA centric view of the world and don't mind about the legal status of the add-ons in other countries.

So the GPL is totally fine, as long as you are not using someone else's work without their permission, which is never OK no matter what.

I beg to differ. "GPL is totally fine, as long as you are not using someone else's work without their explicit permission, all your assets have no restrictions imposed by law that conflicts with the GPL and you totally agrees on the GPL terms in all your assets".

Again, this is not a problem inherent to GPL, but yet, GPL is still not totally fine to be used in Orbiters add ons without further considerations.

This can be said about nearly any kind of tool. The GPL is hardly unique in this regard.

Exactly. If one claims that his hammer are totally fine to be used on screws, the blame goes solely to the claimant.

But still, the hammer is not totally fine to be used on screws.

If you are that worried about it, cease distribution of these add-ons until Doc Martin addresses the legal issues. You can't just magically un-GPL them, that solves nothing.

I'm not worried about. NOW.

The GPL licensed add-ons are almost none nowadays (compared with the total number of add-ons published), and these few guys that licenses his add-ons under the GPL are smart enough to know what they are doing.

My concerning is that by stating that "The GPL is totally fine to be used in Orbiter's add-ons", some developers (or most of them?) that nowadays are on a legal limbo (but not ethical one - the norma here is the implicit consent, just to be clear) will become legally liable by reissuing his work under the GPL.

They would void the license to use and distribute their work (that nowadays are implicit), by using a license that imposes demands that they cannot comply under the penalty of not being applicable - and then, as yourself explained, the Berne Convention license applies : "All Rights Reserved" i.e., no distribution nor end user usage allowed.

What perhaps wasn't became clear to you is that this is not a Open Source driven community.

The guys here formed this community around a Closed Source Software (Orbiter), where third party development (by professionals *AND* by amateurs) are welcomed no matter the license.

There're artists that don't mind the code ("here, take this for free"), but are totally restrictive about the artwork ("here, use my mesh but only in your vessel - and don't dare to touch my texture!"). There're sound effects to be licensed, and little (or none) way to track who was the guy that recorded that "Ping".

How in hell I can say to these guys "GPL is totally fine to be used on Orbiter add-ons"???

 

[Face]

If Doc Martin put "all rights reserved" in the SDK examples then you can't base your addon on that, period.

When I started Ascension Ultra, I based my addon on his DG example. Back then, the "all rights reserved" mark was clearly there in the header.

Ascension Ultra is now totally different (ah.. that "totally" term again ) from DG, of course, and it already was so when I "slapped" the GPL on the project. Nevertheless, you could argue that it is derived work, because without Martin's example I would not have started to code AU to begin with. And I hope I am not naive here, but isn't inspiring people to release addons part of the reason for Martin's examples?

Do we really say here that I am now a copyright infringer, and as such my license there is irrelevant, so all users of AU are copyright infringers, too? :shrug: Good thing I've taken it down, but looks like I have to also put a proper notice up so none of my fellow Orbinauts is in risk of being called so just for using my example derived Orbiter addon.

And.. isn't that getting even further. Can't we also say on this grounds, that almost EVERY damn addon is a copyright infringment, because it is highly probable that everyone used example code to base his addon on? If this is so, no license is relevant, isn't it? Way to care about the Orbiter ecosystem...

BTW: I've never stated "using GPL is totally fine" in this isolated way. I said that it seems to me that the arguments have settled on GPL being totally fine for Orbiter addons. This is an interpretation of the situation as I've observed it, not a statement of authority.

However, I sure would wish for such a statement done by an Orbiter representative, which would reassure every Orbiter developer that he can use GPL without having to fear being disputed in the future JUST for the choice of the license. As estar already layed out, the "camps" involved in this will never really agree, and as such there will always be FUD and slippery-slope arguments.

 

[boogabooga]

Keeping up with this thread is a full time job. :uhh:

 

[Notebook]

I'm not keeping up with it, and its still a full time job.

N.