There's also one of my favorites, the "
Do what the 
you want license" :lol:
I second that.
The discussion has merits, but the whole thing is nitpicky. For the vast majority of addons, the arguments brought up don't apply.
For the sake of the argument, can you pinpoint some examples? O found allegations using "vast majority", "all of them", etc, somewhat hard to uphold (being the reason I had withdraw such statement from one post of mine before).
For point one, it's obvious that the uploader accepted the TOS; there's no other way to upload.
But once I download the bundle, where is the link that guarantees me such right granting applies to me?
If the bundle was by some personal, non legal reasons dropped from OHM, I still have the rights to keep using that bundle?
Its defensible under the Copyright Act such kind of implicit licensing? Or in other words, The TOS of the site I download something can be used a licensing terms of the material I downloaded from them? It's this licensing terms still valid if the content is withdraw from the site?
And, this is the most important part, on what grounds you uphold your responses for my questions?
(links, quotes, anything - please educate me)
For point two, it doesn't matter. Copyright doesn't touch private use. There are no circumstances, as long as you aren't reproducing it, that you would ever have to prove that you legally downloaded it.
Here is a paper by a University of Michigan law professor asserting that personal use is lawful.
By your means, you are implying that as long I do not distribute, it's perfectly ok to use Software under Copyright infringement?
Am I allowed to use a Pirated Copy of Microsoft Windows to run Orbiter, as long as I do not further distribute it?
And, more important, the paper you link (interesting reading) is Law Abiding? Ms. Jessica Litman interpretation of the Law is usable over USA borders?
I understood by reading it that in USA, the present licensing terms of OHM is acceptable, as all of us use Orbiter Add Ons on a strict personal uses basis.
Good to know - mainly because it appears to me that Orbiter Hangar is hosted in USA.
Now, and IMHO, we need to address the use rights from people from other countries too. Such law interpretation is valid on EU?
For point three, unless OH changes dramatically, OH is a repository for Orbiter addons. Any change in the TOS, assuming that a dramatic change doesn't occur, still doesn't change the fact that you are uploading an addon to be used with Orbiter.
You used the magic word : "assuming".
I would like to get rid of "assumptions", and make things crystal clear without any trace of doubt.
Granted, if really needed.
---------- Post added at 02:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 AM ----------
"in some countries"... you can even get killed for the mere accusation of blasphemy. What do you expect? Make the extreme the norm?
If we were a Religiously based community, it could be our concernings if by some reason we could be used to prosecute some sorrow soul to death - at least, in the moment in which are aware of the possibility.
But granted, you would not be liable for such things. You are perfectly entitled to do not care, and I respect your position.
But I care. Am I entitled to such position?
Bringing your argument to our reality: you are stating that since in USA, as it appears based on the linked paper you brought to our attention recently, americans simply don't have to care about such implicit terms, Orbiter Hangar should not take any actions in order to add some, how I would say... legal peace of mind? ... to the non americans Add On Developers and Users?
This is not an argument, it's a real question: it's perfectly acceptable if Orbiter Hangar decides to be an USA centric site.
But I would like to be aware of that - just in case.
In most countries, its very hard to construct a crime from copyright violations. In Germany and similar countries, based on Roman law traditions, it requires organized crime grade business from copyright violations - even massive copyright violations alone are often not enough to make it more than a civil case.
I think that I already stated that the fear to be prosecuted is not my motivating force (but I don't live in Australia
). What I want, if possible, is to be more "Law friendly" as it is possible for the sake of peace of mind.
I was not very pleased in a recent accusation of doing Copyright Infringement, I won't be happy on seeing anyone here facing such accusations - or by some Open Source license violations neither. This things are very disgusting situations - please believe that nobody would be pleased on living this.
If Software Licenses are going to be used on Orbiter Add Ons, it appears to me that such Licenses should be respected, or not used at all.
(The Github clause is: )
However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.
I don't see GitHub granting me the right to use the forked material.
Picky? Yes. But nobody likes to be poked by such things.
Yet further, in the
very same page you gave us:
GitHub probably intends "the right to fork" to mean "the right to use the Fork feature of the github.com website." In this case, "creating a fork" would not mean generally creating a copy or derivative work (as it does in general FLOSS parlance), but rather it means triggering the software of github.com to create and host a verbatim copy of a repository and categorize that copy under the user's list of forks.
If the original copyright owner doesn't license any other permissions, clicking that button is all that the TOS-required permission allows the user can do. This doesn't grant any rights to create a derivative work, or to redistribute the code outside of github.com, since the "Fork" feature is intrinsic to the github.com website.
Please note, also, that GitHub is a code repository - it's my understanding that things that works perfectly fine to source code could not be so fine in artistic content.
---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 AM ----------
This is NOT how a license change works.
To make a license change, you must contact EVERY contributor and obtain an explicit sign-off to make ANY alternations to licensing.
I will answer this by quoting myself:
Such a project will have a leader, that will for sure be a somewhat experienced developer. Being the project leader, it's up to him to choose the license, to educate his collaborateurs and guarantee the he has the copyright rights he needs.
(emphasis are... recently... mine).
This is the EXACT way a license change works. The uploader (Project Leader) must had been granted the copyright rights it needs to do so.
Changing the licensing of my work is possible because I have the Copyright rights I need to to so.
Changing the licensing of a collaborative work is possible when the guy distributing the bundle (the uploader) has been granted such right by all the Copyright Holders.
People that don't agrees with the licensing terms will not collaborate to him, and if the guy is not that smart and accepts collaboration in terms he doesn't wants and insist on using it in his own terms, anyone of the collaborateurs are entitled to issue a Cease and Desist on such material.
Besides, it was stated already that OHM TOS is also a licensing term (not really sure of that, by the guy appears to know what he's talking). So, you had objected to something that is happening right now - to the uploader explicitly had been granted the right to cope with OHM TOS by using someone else differently licensed code?
