Face

Beta Tester
No. You should be more careful about how you interpret people.

I was not being "dismissive", I was not dismissing the solution : I was arguing about a loophole I found in the solution.

Language barrier is always a problem, so I give you the benefit of the doubt - but you had call me a liar, one that uses of perfidy while arguing!
Before you are laying words into my mouth ("liar"), take a deep breath, please.

Meson's question was if anyone is arguing that GPL with the exception is not a solution. You did that with that post I linked. You even repeated it now: "arguing about a loophole in the solution".

I also stand by the term "dismissive" for the advice you gave at the very start of the thread: you clearly said that GPL is not applicable. That's dismissive IMHO. Perhaps we understand different things under that term (the different languages were already discussed before), but this is not an excuse for this outbreak of yours. If anyone owes an apology, it is you to our eyes for using large fonts .

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------

Not always, and this is celeuma we're facing (pun not intended) here.
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/559/

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Ah, I missed the idea that Orbiter = Orbiter + GPL addon + whatever other addons. Therefore, the argument seems to be, a simple Orbiter exception doesn't cover everything, you would need an exception also for every other Orbiter addon.

But isn't that logic not valid, because it's a use issue? Just because another addon that some enduser is also running isn't GPL doesn't mean it's a violation, because that's how the enduser chose to use it.
Humm... Yeah, I forgot that. Your logic appears to be sound.

My hypothesis is not valid, as it appears.

Given the whole conversation above, is there anyone on OF here who thinks that a GPL addon, with an exception that it can be used with Orbiter, is in violation of the GPL/could be forced down, assuming all copyright owners agreed to the GPL w/ exception license?
I had an objection, but you prove me wrong. I think that a GPL with a Exception explicitly to Orbiter (and its direct descendants, in the case Martin changes the Orbiter's name) will be enough.

I already stated that, just to clarify things.

Now that I understand all the requirements, I think that the GPL with Exception is the only thing that will work for you. Make sure to exempt just Orbiter (and its direct successors blessed by Martin - so you don't have to relicense everything if Martin is forced to rename the project), and I think the matter is settled.
(yes, I'm about that dismissive thing)

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

Perhaps we understand different things under that term (the different languages were already discussed before),
As far as I understand, being dismissive is a unfaithful use of argument, a tool for perpetrating fallacies.

I think (but I'm not sure) thar the Deustch word for dismiss is abweisend.

Hardly something to be fond of being called of.

IF you would say it in Deutsch, how do you would phrase it?

(I know my english sucks, being that the reason I'm always using online dictionaries and choosing not commonly used words on my sentences - I just don't have the feeling a native english speaker has to choose the most commonly used word for something, neither has the perception for subtleties)

I think I'm FACEing some irony (pun... oh, never mind)

dseagrav

Question:
what if our project included in its source code GPLed source code from someone else's project? Can that project's owners decide that our interpretation of linking doesn't fly with them and take action against us?
So, now we must note that the copyright holders of the included code are in a position to complain if someone distributes in violation of the GPL. However, by the same logic as my previous answer, I do not see how you and your fellows have distributed in violation. The hypothetical violators would be others who distributed the combination of your plugin (and thus these others' work) with the closed source program.

The authors of the included code would certainly have a legal course of action against someone who did that. On the other hand, since the host program is closed-source, who has rights to create a combined work that includes it and your plugin? I would guess that the owner of the closed-source program does not grant that right to anyone. So, if the owner doesn't bundle you in a release, who is left to violate?

It would certainly be polite for you to post a notice explaining this situation and warning potential distributors that there is no way to distribute the combination of your plugin and the host program without legal liability. However, again, it takes a long stretch of the imagination to see how any of this leads to liability for you and your fellow creators.
So there you have it. GPLing Orbiter addons is safe, provided nobody distributes Orbiter along with the addon or vice versa.

Edit: Now there's another thing we can argue about - This means that an Orbiter-safety clause addition to the GPL IS dangerous to projects that include other GPL software since the resulting modified GPL is not GPL-compatible. Binary distributions of your addon would violate the GPL.

Last edited:

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
I've been asking questions on stackexchange about the GPL, and I got this answer which I think might clear up some of the questions here:
I missed your post, I'm sorry. Thank you very much.

Since you already asked, do you mind to ask again what can happen if I release a code of mine under the GPL that I'm already know that is not GPL compliant?

Can i be accused of fraud but using the GPL license in my distribution, previously knowing that my code isn't licenseable and so, leading other people to wrongly believing they can reuse my code under the GPL (and facing consequences later)?

dseagrav

Can i be accused of fraud but using the GPL license in my distribution, previously knowing that my code isn't licenseable and so, leading other people to wrongly believing they can reuse my code under the GPL (and facing consequences later)?
I don't have to ask; If you intentionally deceive people you are liable for the deception. This doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Secondly, you can have contributors "sign away" their copyright on merging into the repo. Have the contributor add their own name to the AUTHORS file, but put something at the top of the AUTHORS file like "all authors listed below agree to the GPL license for their code, with the Orbiter exception".
I think this automatic waiving off doesn't works in every country.

On mine, you must explicitly waive off your rights clicking on a checkbox.

Moreover, what would happen if someone just rip off the message that message on the AUTHOR's top and then add his name? Would be he exempt from that message?

Perhaps a better approach would be demand the explicit rights waiving off to get write access to the repository.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

This controversy is over 15 years old at this point, and nobody cared enough to go to court.
I think you are not very well informed.

But, indeed, I have no reasons to be happy either. From here:
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.
You can be right about my (or the community) excessive faith on the GPL.

I seriously doubt anyone will ever bother over Orbiter add-ons.
To tell you the true, there is no problem really. See this discussion as what would we should do if (or when?) this became a problem.
My further interventions on the thread were motivated by Face's uneasiness about the matter. I found his concernings valid, and tried my best to address them.

So? By uploading the add-on to OH, I have consented for the add-on to be distributed, and by slapping GPL on it I have consented for it to be redistributed and further modified. By that I have effectively waived my right to sue, and besises, what interest would I have in suing anyone using my add-on?
It's something that already crossed my mind:
I would not say the word "illegal" yet - GPL licenses are mainly focused on REdistributing other people work, it in any way limits what the original copyright holder does with his code.

So my proposition that every Orbiter Hangar published addon is already double licensed is not an absurd idea.

A possible problem is that implicit consent is not legally supported in all countries. On mine, it's not - except for big, mass driven services - as cellphone companies, IIRC.

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

I don't have to ask; If you intentionally deceive people you are liable for the deception. This doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.
But the FSF is entitled to sue me by using their license on the deception? if yes, on what grounds?

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------

Edit: Now there's another thing we can argue about - This means that an Orbiter-safety clause addition to the GPL IS dangerous to projects that include other GPL software since the resulting modified GPL is not GPL-compatible. Binary distributions of your addon would violate the GPL.
That already crossed my mind. But it's my opinion that double licensing would overcome this.

What do you think?

Last edited:

dseagrav

But the FSF is entitled to sue me by using their license on the deception? if yes, on what grounds?
No, unless the FSF holds copyright to whatever you copied. The only people that can sue you would be the person(s) who held copyright to what you distributed, and potentially but not absolutely the person(s) you intentionally deceived and therefore exposed to liability.

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
No, unless the FSF holds copyright to whatever you copied. The only people that can sue you would be the person(s) who held copyright to what you distributed, and potentially but not absolutely the person(s) you intentionally deceived and therefore exposed to liability.
Now I see. The GPL license *is* copyrighted, but FSF granted the right to freely distribute a verbatim copy of the license without imposing any restrictions.

From FSF site:
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
So I can include a copy of the license in my non GPL code to unfaithfully implies (or by stupidly believing) my GPL incompatible code is GPL'ed, but since FSF didn't restricted the distribution of the file, they can not pursue me for that.

I'm right?

But please consider that I cannot license my works using Microsoft License, as I'm not entitled by Microsoft to do so, so it's my understanding that if I pretend to license something I made using a Microsoft License ( what I would do such stupidity is out of the scope of the argument ), sooner or later some Microsoft hired attorney will demand intimate contact with my banking accounts.

So I fail to understand why Microsoft could sues me if I claim my product iis Microsoft EULA licensed without meeting Microsoft's criteria to do so ($), but FSF could not do the same if I claim my work is GPL licensed but do not meet the GPL demands. (Of course, my argument validity depends on Microsoft being entitled to sue me if I claim some work of mine is licensed under the Microsoft EULA without explicit Microsoft authorization). SolarLiner It's necessary, TARS. Addon Developer So wait. To sum up here: We are discussing about license issues that actually are none, because we are not distributing add ons with Orbiter. Am I right? dseagrav Addon Developer Addon Developer Now I see. The GPL license *is* copyrighted, but FSF granted the right to freely distribute a verbatim copy of the license without imposing any restrictions. I'm right? Not for the reasons you think. The GPL is a distribution license, not a user license. It covers only distribution, modification, and copying of the licensed items. If you make the claim that something is GPLed, then it is GPLed. If the item you claim is GPLed is in actuality not, then the copyright holders of the item can come after you. The copyright holders of the item are the only people who can sue anyone for anything. If the person you are defrauding finds out on their own you lied and ceases distribution, then you are safe, it is highly unlikely they can successfully bring charges against you because they are not the copyright holders. The only case in which they might be able to sue you is if the copyright holders sue -them-, in which case they might be able to pursue you to recover their costs in defending themselves (successfully or otherwise). This is beyond the scope of the GPL though, and would apply to any license. ---------- Post added at 06:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ---------- We are discussing about license issues that actually are none, because we are not distributing add ons with Orbiter. Am I right? In the end, yes. People confused the GPL, which is a distribution license, with a EULA, which governs end-user rights. meson800 Addon Developer Addon Developer Donator To really finish this up: There are no GPL issues, as no one distributes addons bundled with Orbiter. GPL addons are safe if they aren't distributed with Orbiter.. FSF has no copyright claim on GPL addons, and cannot sue. An Orbiter exception would only be needed if you were bundling your addon with Orbiter. Adding an Orbiter exception might make it incompatible with the GPL (if you use GPL code in your addon). This is mostly moot, as no one really bundles. Technically, you could redistribute a bundle like that, as long as it adhered to Dr. Schweiger's restrictions: You are allowed to distribute Orbiter, as long as you do not charge any fee for the software or distribution without explicit permission by the licensor. If you offer Orbiter as an online download (Orbiter mirror site), the site must refer to the software as "Orbiter Space Flight Simulator" and contain a link to the Orbiter home page. The download and access to the download page must be unrestricted and free of charge. ---------- Post added at 07:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 PM ---------- Kumbaya everyone Last edited: Lisias Space Traveller Wanna-be In the end, yes. People confused the GPL, which is a distribution license, with a EULA, which governs end-user rights. I understand the difference between an EULA and the GPL. This is not what I'm asking about, assuming I'm one of the subjects to this statement. (EULAs and GPL are not necessarily incompatible) What I don't understand is why FSF are not entitled to prosecute me if I use unfaithfully (or stupidly) her name to endorse my work without having the rights to claim that. It's my understanding that Microsoft would gladly do that in a blink. It's also my understanding that someone that uses me (by associating himself directly to my name, or implicitly by using some kind of copyrighted work) to endorse his works without my authorization are causing prejudice to my image. I think (but I don't really know) that the english legalese for this is Misrepresentation. ---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ---------- To really finish this up: There are no GPL issues, as no one distributes addons bundled with Orbiter. GPL addons are safe. This wasn't really stablished: Now there's another thing we can argue about - This means that an Orbiter-safety clause addition to the GPL IS dangerous to projects that include other GPL software since the resulting modified GPL is not GPL-compatible. Binary distributions of your addon would violate the GPL. So I would say "usually safe". But it's my understanding that this issue can be safely ignored. FSF has no copyright claim on GPL addons, and cannot sue. I stand corrected for that (but I don't understand exactly why, yet, FSF cannot sue for another reasons) An Orbiter exception would only be needed if you were bundling your addon with Orbiter. It appears to me that you would need an equivalente exception by bundlilng your add-on with another non GPL add-ons Adding an Orbiter exception might make it incompatible with the GPL (if you use GPL code in your addon). This is mostly moot, as no one really bundles. No dispute on that. Technically, you could redistribute a bundle like that, as long as it adhered to Dr. Schweiger's restrictions: Here I can not agree without reserves. GPL doesn't allows further restrictions, so subjecting the add-on to Dr Schweiger's restrictions would made the GPL invalid if any of Dr Schweiger's restrictions denies or are incompatible with some GPL clause. But other than that, yes (in my opinion, for what it's worth). Last edited: dseagrav Addon Developer Addon Developer What I don't understand is why FSF are not entitled to prosecute me if I use unfaithfully (or stupidly) her name to endorse my work without having the rights to claim that. It's my understanding that Microsoft would gladly do that in a blink. The FSF does not own the GPL in that sense of the word, nor does Microsoft own their EULA in that sense of the word. There is nothing to prevent you from releasing anything under any license apart from restrictions caused by including someone else's copyrighted materials, in which case you are subject to their license if there is one. Releasing something of yours under a license does not create an implication that you are endorsed by whoever created the license. Now if you were to say "Created by/Endorsed by the FSF" or "Created by/Endorsed by Microsoft", then they could sue you for misrepresentation. Microsoft might be able to sue you for including the text of their EULA with your project, but you don't really have to do that to declare your project as covered by that license. In this case the suit would be for copyright violation, not misrepresentation. This wasn't really stablished Says you. Purely GPL addons are safe provided a combined Orbiter/addon binary distribution is not created. There is no debate. If you say otherwise you are wrong. Last edited: Lisias Space Traveller Wanna-be Microsoft might be able to sue you for including the text of their EULA with your project, but you don't really have to do that to declare your project as covered by that license. In this case the suit would be for copyright violation, not misrepresentation. Thanks for the clarification. There's no implied association by using someone's else licensing terms (this is something that I will accept, as I facing some resistance to understand - I will work on that). Purely GPL addons are safe provided a combined Orbiter/addon binary distribution is not created. There is no debate. If you say otherwise you are wrong. Exactly. Purely GPL addons are safe provided a combined Orbiter/addon binary distribution is not created. The original post stated GPL addons are safe isolated into a sentence, not correlating it to the previous sentence. Semantically, it would be something like "I keep my guns unloaded. Guns are safe." But, granted, I misquoted the original statement and my remark didn't really qualified what I was addressing - so I committed the exactly same mistake I pinpointed. :facepalm: My apologies, and thank you for your efforts on correcting me. Last edited: estar Addon Developer Addon Developer Beta Tester I haven't been involved in Orbiter development for a while but I have been writing gaming products for tabletop roleplaying, think Dungeons & Dragos, that uses the Open Game License, and Creative Commons for several years now. And when I was involved in Orbiter Development I was an advocate for using Open Source and used the BSD license for my add-ons. All of this goes back to one thing. That when a author creates a work, software or otherwise, he automatically gets a copyright. If somebody else want to copy that work then the author needs to either give permission or transfer the copyright. Copyright about the control of the right to copy a work i.e. distribute, publish, etc. The author can only give permission for the work he has created and has the copyright for. The GPL is a type of permission that an author can use to define the condition under which his work can be copied. Bear with me I know some of this been stated earlier. For a completely original work that is a piece of software that an author wrote the other can use the GPL as the mean of granting permission. Despite what the FSF desires, more on that later, the author can use the GPL even if it depends on a closed source binary that nobody else has access too. The FSF may not like this, and try to discourage this. But an author has every right to do this. It his work, in this case an Orbiter Add-on, his copyright and he has the right to set the conditions to copy his work. The only parties that are involved are the author and the person who copies his work. Where things get complex is when the author incorporates OTHER people's work into his own work. In this case he has to satisfied the conditions they set. If he tries to impose conditions for own work that conflict that of the work he incorporates then he can't distribute his own work nor anybody else can. This is for any type of license not just the GPL and it can be complex. Let's talk specifics. I wrote Project Mercury for Orbiter. I licensed under the more permissive BSD license. But supposed I licensed it under the GPL. I deliberately designed that add-on to dynamically link with Orbiter. That was my choice. There is no conflict with my add-on being distributed with Orbiter as it common-sense logic that the way it meant to be. The Mercury Add-on binary is utterly useless outside of running as a Orbiter Add-on. The original source code can't be compiled as anything other than a Orbiter Add-on. Now the FSF doesn't like this. Their goal is to have a completely open and free as freedom ecosystem of software from the highest to lowest level. However FSF doesn't have a say in what permission I give for the code I write. More so the only condition of using the text of the GPL v2 is that I don't modify that. As long as I can do that, I can use the text of the GPL as my license for granting permission for copying the code and binary of my add-on. Let's suppose I got angry at Orbiter Bob for bundling a free CD with Orbiter and my Add-on on it. Suppose I was an enough of an ornery idiot that I sued the guy to cease and desist and that he caused me actual damage in excess of$2,000.

The first thing will happen is that the Judge will throw my case out of court. Why? Because he will not hear a case where one piece of software is free as in beer to distribute, and another piece of software that will DELIBERATELY designed to work with the first software is also free to distribute in both sense of the word. And that the controversy is that Bob combined the binary of A with the code and binary of B on a single CD or website.

That is a stupid thing to argue a civil lawsuit about. Granted it will make Bob and possibly me look like jerks in front of the Orbiter community but that is a social not a legal issue.

It doesn't mean add-on developers are scot-free. Where they have to be careful is when they incorporate other people code and binaries.

Let's go back to Project Mercury. Again let's say I wrote the code for Project Mercury under the GPL, obviously I link the Orbiter library. But I want sound. The standard for sound is Orbitersound which is closed source and has it own set of permission for copying that not compatible for the GPL. In fact it doesn't allow anybody to copy it. The only place to get it from Dan's website.

So now my Project Mercury add-on links to Orbiter on one side and links to Oribtersound on the other. Can people distribute my code for Project Mercury under the GPL? Absolutely. Can they distribute the code, the binaries for Project Mercury and Orbiter, yes. Can they distribute Orbitersound, my add-on (code and binary), and Orbiter as a single package, no because of Dan's restriction.

Let's take it a step farther.

Now I have Project Mercury linked to Orbiter Sound and Orbiter itself and I want to use XCompress (fictitious) a GPLed file compress library and code. Will I able to use it? No because XCompress was never written in Orbiter in mind nor for use with anything that links to a closed source Orbiter add-on like Orbitersound.

If Wanted to use XCompress with my add-on I will have to go the project author and ask for specific permission. If the project has multiple authors, like most open source project this may prove impractical.

Now suppose I want to use NiftyReentry a library that was designed to be used with Orbiter and its add-ons. Which also happens to be under the GPL. Could Project Mercury use code from and be distributed with NiftyReentry or link to its binary? In my opinion yes.

Like me with Project Mercury the author of Nifty Reentry deliberately chose to link with Orbiter. The author's use of the GPL means he want the code to be free as in freedom and be widely distributed. Which also compatible with why I would be using the GPL for Project Mercury.

Common sense dictates that if two pieces of software are both designed to be linked to the SAME closed source package and use the SAME License then the author intended for code to be shared freely between the two as that is the purpose of using the GPL in the first place.

Now if I didn't release Project Mercury under the GPL and instead made it closed source. Then I couldn't use code from Nifty Rentry or link to it. Because the author of Nifty Reentry DID NOT give me permission to use his code in that way.

Again ask yourself what would your answer to be a judge if he asked what is the controversy in distributing Nifty Re-entry, and Project Mercury along with Orbiter together.

Finally what if a bunch of folk made an GPLed space simulator called Solar System Explorer or SSE for short. They wanted to use my code from the Project Mercury add-on which is also under the GPL in this example. Lets stipulate they didn't replicate the Orbiter API but have their own.

Do they have permission to do this? Yes as both software are under the GPL.
The only point of concern would be the API calls to Orbiter Sound and Orbiter.

If they want to be safe then they can replace the call with SSE API and refactor the add-on to conform with however they setup their add-ons.

For practical reason they can't just compile the code and link the add-on to SSE. They would have to replace all the API calls to Orbiter (and Orbiter Sound) with calls of their own. They will have to refactor the add-on to fit with the way they structure their add-on.

But the rest of the add-on can be freely copied because I gave the permission to do that with I used the GPL. Any problems with the licenses of Orbiter and Orbitersound is removed when the api calls are removed.

That pretty much covers it.

In the end what we do is a hobby. The license we pick are used to convey to the rest of the community how we like people to copy our goal. Because we are an community focused on Orbiter it is implicit that the things we release under any license are meant to be used with Orbiter.

Now historically there been three major camps of add-on developers and license in Orbiter.

1) The open source advocates which includes myself. This camp wants add-ons to be open source to encourage sharing and reuse of code for whatever purpose and reason, commercial or non-commercial. The major limitation that Orbiter itself is in non-commercial free to distribute. But since Orbiter is just that awesome this camp lives with it and does what it can to keep as much of the add-on open.

2) The non-commercial camp, the main concern is that the add-on, and this includes Orbiter itself is not use for monetary or commercial gain. Source code can be open for reuse under a variety of condition none of it truly open source.

3) Closed source camp, the code is closed and only binaries are distributed. Because of Orbiter is non-commercial, the binary add-ons are also non-commercial. There are important add-on libraries in this camp the most important of which is Orbitersound.

Each of these camp because the author have different feeling and concerns about how their work is distributed. There always been tension between the three camps since the earliest day. The situation continues to exist because there are some really great add-on developed by all three. The Orbiter Community is what it is because of the three existing and working together.

The current controversy over licensing has been repeated several time in the community. Each time it wastes people's time and creates a lot of fear and uncertainty before it abate. In the end people realize that for the most part the various orbiter authors state clearly the condition they are comfortable with for their work to be copied. That it just take a bit of homework to see if that piece of code or that add-on will work for what you want to do as a project. And people release that many times all they have to ask to get a special permission for a project.

Face

Beta Tester
As far as I understand, being dismissive is a unfaithful use of argument, a tool for perpetrating fallacies.

I think (but I'm not sure) thar the Deustch word for dismiss is abweisend.

Hardly something to be fond of being called of.

IF you would say it in Deutsch, how do you would phrase it?
If you enter "dismissive" in leo.org (which is the online dictionary I use), the first translation for dismissive is "ablehnend". In German, there is nothing unfaithful with that. I meant it that way, because I usually give the benefit of a doubt BEFORE calling people out.

However, in German "liar" means "Lügner". The faithfulness of this term is pretty clear to me. You have put that word in my mouth, although I have never said it to you.

For being "only a messenger", you sure seem to be very emotionally attached to this.

Last edited:

jarmonik

Beta Tester
Thank you estar for your clear description. And my thanks for everybody else as well.

Looks like I have fundamentally miss understood the GPL. It isn't a bad license at all. Look like I have been so wrong so long. At least something good has come out of this, since there's one less GPL scary person in the community I have no time to develop the IMFD and BaseSync so, I'll release them under GPL to give a change for someone else to continue the work. Should be ready in a few days.

EDIT: I'll take a look at the LTMFD if can prepare it for open source distribution, but it may take a while.

Last edited:

dseagrav

jarmonik, releasing IMFD and LTMFD would be great for us NASSP types because I'm right now doing initial work on the Mission Control Center "subsystem", and being able to steal the scary orbital math from you saves me having to spin it up on my own.

As for all that long stuff estar posted about intentions and the GPL, none of it matters a whit unless someone is doing a binary distribution of Orbiter + GPLed addon. You can use XCompress if you wish, you can distribute it with your GPLed addon, you just cannot distribute Orbiter + addon. (Or GPLed addon+non-GPLed addon, for that matter)

As long as your binary distributions contain purely GPLed or non-GPLed works you are fine. NASSP's binary distribution contains only GPL-compatible-licensed components and is therefore safe. No violation occurs unless we distribute something GPL-incompatible with it. At no point does intended USAGE come into play because the GPL does not cover usage at all. It is a distribution license, not a usage license.

kamaz

Unicorn hunter
So I can include a copy of the license in my non GPL code to unfaithfully implies (or by stupidly believing) my GPL incompatible code is GPL'ed,
No, that's nonsense. The moment you slap GPL on top of your code it becomes covered by GPL. Period. The only situation when your code is GPL-incompatible is when your code incorporates someone else's code which is licensed in a manner which is incompatible with GPL, i.e. covered by 4-clause BSD license.

but since FSF didn't restricted the distribution of the file, they can not pursue me for that.
Yes.

So I fail to understand why Microsoft could sues me if I claim my product iis Microsoft EULA licensed without meeting Microsoft's criteria to do so (\$), but FSF could not do the same if I claim my work is GPL licensed but do not meet the GPL demands.
Because what you are saying is an absolute nonsense.

License is a contract between a copyright holder (licensor) and an user (licensee). It's all it is.

Your confusion stems from the fact that FSF has released a certain boilerplate contract (i.e. GPL) and claims copyright on the text of the contract itself. But all the FSF copyright on GPL changes is that you are not allowed to edit the license text (i.e. change contract terms). That's all. However, as far as the relationship between the licensor and licensee is concerned, it does not matter where the contract comes from, it matters what the contract says, and what is its legal context.

W.r.t. dynamic linking, the issue is that FSF claims that their boilerplate contract (GPL) forbids licensee from dynamic linking the GPL code to Orbiter core. However:

(1) the contract does not actually say that! FSF's interpretation is built on a very shaky legal ground (Basically it assumes that API is copyrightable, which is not the case at least in EU.)

(2) since you have given the licensee the code under this contract with the explicit intent that the code should be used with Orbiter, then, by virtue of legal principles such as Volenti non fit injuria and estoppel you have granted the licensee a de facto license exception for linking with Orbiter core, even if the contract forbids that per se.

(3) it is good practice that such de facto exceptions should be spelled de iure in the copyright notice

The only situation when anyone gets in trouble if the following scenario: you take FSF's code (becoming its licensee) and link this code to Orbiter thus introducing a de facto license exception -- and give the code to me under the altered license (either de facto or de iure). This is equivalent to changing the license terms on FSF's code, which the contract (GPL) between the FSF and you does not allow -- and this is exactly what FSF could sue you for.

However, for your own code the issue is completely moot, because you, as the licensor, can set any terms you like.

What would happen if you released your own add-on under the terms of MS EULA? Not much, the licensee would be bound by different terms of contract. Next, if you somehow managed to release your own code under the terms of MS EULA without fulfilling licensor's obligations specified in this contract then the licensee (i.e. the user) could sue you for breach of contract. That's all.

However, that does not even seem to be possible, because software licenses are one-sided contracts -- i.e. they specify the obligations of the licensee, not of the licensor -- the latter is ususally not obliged to anything.

It logically follows that you can only violate software licence when you are in the licensee position, never in the licensor position. So to be sued by FSF you would have to first enter the licensee position with respect to them -- i.e. put their code in your add-on.

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
For being "only a messenger", you sure seem to be very emotionally attached to this.
No willing to prolong this point, but let me clarify this specific subject:

Being a messenger, I'm attached "emotionally" on being a "truthful" one - obviously, not always a correct one : don't misunderstand the message (that can be wrong) with the messenger (that can genuinely believe the message is right).

Things goes down to the pipe when the messenger, knowing that his message is false and misleading, spreads it in bad faith.

Call me dumb (what I am occasionally), but don't call me a liar. Even indirectly.

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------

Well... Just one more time (and in good faith, I swear).

From the same leo.org, i asked by the meaning of ablehnend and got:

deprecatingly
deprecative
deprecatory
dismissive
hostile
negative
negatory
renunciative
renunciatory

I emphatized the words that called my attention. Going for the first, deprecatingly, I got:

• to express earnest disapproval of.
to urge reasons against; protest against (a scheme, purpose, etc.).
to depreciate; belittle.
Archaic. to pray for deliverance from.

What, well, was not any of what I was doing: I was simply stating that GPL would not be applicable on that case (the validity of the claim is out of scope for now).

I believe, now, that it was not your intention to (indireclty) call me "unfaithful" (liar was a bit too much, indeed). But there was no way to infer that at that time - and I used the very same online dictionary you used.

(Language barrier is a , double barrier is a double )

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

As long as your binary distributions contain purely GPLed or non-GPLed works you are fine.
That was my point since the beginning (but I lost myself in the mess, no dispute on that).

Why bother with such limitations?

Double license it and forget about. In the exact instant that someone, by some reason, put your DLL in their package to create a new add-on (something far from being rare in Orbiter), the GPL became invalid but the other license do not!

That OPL/OEUL/<whatever> thing I proposed was trying to solve this exact loophole.

Grant Orbiter users/developers with a permissive (but specific to Orbiter) BSD/MIT/<I don't know> style license, and GPL for all the rest.

If you are the sole copyright holder, you can do it without problems.

If you are not, you should ask permission from the others copyright holders the same way.

Last edited: