License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

dseagrav

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Why bother with such limitations?

Double license it and forget about.

(...)

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

What if you later come to desire functionality in a GPL package? Is being forced to reinvent the wheel worth protecting someone else's right to make a quick buck off your work? That's pretty much the only reason someone would want to make a combined binary distribution anyway - To turn Orbiter (and your addon) into a commercial product. The idea that someone motivated enough to learn how to use Orbiter is incapable of managing more than one download is absurd.

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

And if they refuse? People aren't always willing to jump at the chance to surrender their rights and hard work for someone else's benefit.

When you dual-license all you're doing is signing away your rights for someone else's benefit, giving yourself additional headaches in what code you can and cannot use, and possibly restricting yourself from future expansion.
 

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
No, that's nonsense. The moment you slap GPL on top of your code it becomes covered by GPL. Period.

It's not what I understood from this.

The argument branch (my got, this thread gone too far! :p ) of mine in which you (welcomingly) intervened was about erroneous (or unfaithful) use of the GPL, leading others to mistake.

You just can't say that if I find a GPL.txt file on a package, I can use that code without fear of doing something illegal.

In the very GPL text, is stated:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
(emphasis are mine)

So yes, it is perfectly possible to add a Term on my EULA that renders the GPL license inoperative - and any guy that used my unGPL'ed code in their product will be in violation of the very same GPL if it decides to publish his work (and who doesn't around here?).

My conclusion is that GPL is (usually) safe. But there are situations (such as ours) in which it can backfire.

Given the extensive extension (ugh) of this thread, do you can state calmly that this kind of misunderstandings will not happen in the field (i.e: that the common Joe Dev, still wetting his feet in coding, can not provoke a chain reaction on the amateur production chain)?

---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

What if you later come to desire functionality in a GPL package? Is being forced to reinvent the wheel worth protecting someone else's right to make a quick buck off your work? That's pretty much the only reason someone would want to make a combined binary distribution anyway - To turn Orbiter (and your addon) into a commercial product. The idea that someone motivated enough to learn how to use Orbiter is incapable of managing more than one download is absurd.

Au contraire (and I'm with Face on this), you would want to grant Orbiter users and developers unlimited use for your code, but don't want your code being used commercially in other softwares.

GPL is one way to do that, but the Orbiter Ecosystem can make this tricky. And it don't solve some other concernings I found here (meshes, sounds, textures, configurations file, etc).

Softwares can be double licensed to GPL - so I grant unrestricted use to my code for Orbiter's users and developers (i.e.: do whatever you want, as long the code works only on Orbiter), and GPL for all the rest.

If you choose to double license a derivative work from me, as long you double license it to that OPL/OEUL/<whatever> and GPL, you are fine.

If you don't like GPL (a right that you have), forget about it and license your derivative only under OPL/OEUL/<whatever>.

What you would not allowed do is relicense the code without the OPL/OEUL/<whatever> either to another license I didn't use originally - as it would defeat the very purpose of such license at first place.

Of course, if you don't mind other people using your code commercially, you can double license your code to OPL/OEUL/<whatever> and MIT/BSD - or just MIT/BSD, by God's sake (you don't mind!).


And if they refuse? People aren't always willing to jump at the chance to surrender their rights and hard work for someone else's benefit.

Don't use their code! It's not what Face is willing to ? To do not surrender his code to anyone, just to Orbiters and open source projects? Why I would deny this right to other people?


When you dual-license all you're doing is signing away your rights for someone else's benefit, giving yourself additional headaches in what code you can and cannot use, and possibly restricting yourself from future expansion.

It depends highly of the licence you would be using.

Is Trolltech, I mean, Nokia, I mean... (never mind), losing any rights double licensing QT as GPL and also in a bunch of Commercial, restrictive licenses?
 
Last edited:

meson800

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
Points
18
So I would say "usually safe". But it's my understanding that this issue can be safely ignored.
Edited that sentence to make it clearer :tiphat:

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 also been misunderstanding the GPL. Obviously my addons aren't close to the work you have done :cheers:, but I will also start relicensing my addons to GPL.
 

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
(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.

Common Law is not the only legal system in the World.

We have russians, british, germans, brazilians, argentines, canadians, italians, spanish (to mention just the ones that I already interacted somehow since I created my account, 4 months ago).

You can't assume we are all covered under the same Laws you are.

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

What if you later come to desire functionality in a GPL package?

What would happen if I desire functionality from another non GPL licensed vessel on my GPL'ed code?

You see, no matter where you go, you will face the same problems.

So this is a constant in both sides of our equation, and can be safely ignored:

Code:
10 + 2X*43Y = 5 + 4 + 1 + 8H + 34ˆZ

is essentially the same as

2X*43Y = 8H + 34ˆZ
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
It seems to me that the arguments have settled on GPL being totally fine for Orbiter addons, without any kind of exceptions. Neither the original author nor re-distributors of the addon per se is in any danger of getting sued (which is ridiculous, anyway) or having their work essentially shunned by the community for FUD (which was actually more of a problem for me).

Going back to the origin of the discussion, Multistage2015, I now wonder what that all means for addons that use a GPL'ed "middle-ware" like that (or genericvessel).

IMHO, it doesn't mean that the authors of these addons are obliged to release them under GPL, too. They can still choose what license to use for their meshes, textures, sounds etc. Only if they include the middle-ware binaries in the distribution, they have to give credit and state the GPL for those parts.
 
Last edited:

kamaz

Unicorn hunter
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
4
Points
0
It's not what I understood from this.

You are (again) conflating two issues.

You are not allowed to take my GPL'd code and put EULA on it, because you are my licensee.

But as a licensor you are allowed to take two copies of your own code, and put GPL on one copy, and EULA on the other copy, and there is no conflict whatsoever.

So yes, it is perfectly possible to add a Term on my EULA that renders the GPL license inoperative

You are confusing two scenarios:

- a program available under two different licenses a.k.a. dual licensing -- this is described above

- a program covered by two separate licenses simultanously -- this only occurs when merging third-party program A written by U covered under license X with a third party program B written by V covered under license Y, which results in A+B combo covered by license X+Y, the copyright of which is held jointly by U, V, and the person doing the merging.

- and any guy that used my unGPL'ed code in their product will be in violation of the very same GPL if it decides to publish his work (and who doesn't around here?).

Nonsense. I am bound by the terms under which I have received your code.
I don't care who else you are giving it to and under what terms.

If I got your code under GPL and my girlfriend got your code in exchange for a blowjob, then I am under no obligation to give you a blowjob, because I was never party to the software-for-blowjob contract. I don't even need to know that such contract exists in a first place.

Given the extensive extension (ugh) of this thread, do you can state calmly that this kind of misunderstandings will not happen in the field (i.e: that the common Joe Dev, still wetting his feet in coding, can not provoke a chain reaction on the amateur production chain)?

Yes.

---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

Common Law is not the only legal system in the World.

Volenti non fit injuria goes all the way back to Roman Law. It's a fundamental concept in any legal system.

What would happen if I desire functionality from another non GPL licensed vessel on my GPL'ed code?

Then you have a problem.
 
Last edited:

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
Question.

If I download a "unGPL'ed" code (one where by some reason stated above, the distribution rights are void", add to my own code and then redistribute it, and another poor guy download it and use it.

This third guy has the right to use the code?
 

kamaz

Unicorn hunter
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
4
Points
0
If I download a "unGPL'ed" code (one where by some reason stated above, the distribution rights are void", add to my own code and then redistribute it, and another poor guy download it and use it.

And you are not supposed to do that.

This third guy has the right to use the code?

Technically no, but I don't really see him getting sued. He acted in a good will when procuring your code.
 

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
You are (again) conflating two issues.

You are not allowed to take my GPL'd code and put EULA on it, because you are my licensee.

But as a licensor you are allowed to take two copies of your own code, and put GPL on one copy, and EULA on the other copy, and there is no conflict whatsoever.

You are misleaded. :)

I don't care about your code, I care about *MINE*.

I'm "impersonating" Face's concerns here: I wrote a nice vessel from scratch (or reusing only BSD/MIT/public domain code).

So I have the full and unrestricted right to add any EULA I want.

I want that every Orbiter user and developer can use unrestrictedly my code, but I don't want it being used on X-Plane or any other commercially available equivalent software.

It happens that I like GPL very much, and want to share my work with that nice guys too.

But I don't understand GPL that well, and my EULA ("just Orbiters! Just Orbiters! Just Orbiters!!") rendered GPL inoperative without realizing.

Can you really state that this scenario is unrealistic?


You are confusing two scenarios:

- a program available under two different licenses a.k.a. dual licensing -- this is described above

- a program covered by two separate licenses simultanously -- this only occurs when merging third-party program A written by U covered under license X with a third party program B written by V covered under license Y, which results in A+B combo covered by license X+Y, the copyright of which is held jointly by U, V, and the person doing the merging.

Nope. You are ignoring the problem I'm presenting.

I *AM* the sole copyright holder, and I can double license it in any license I think will suit me.

Both "versions" of the licensed software are in the same package - you choose the license that fits you best.

If you choose OPL/OEUL/<????>, I grant the right to do a derivative work under OPL/OEUL/<????>, and ALSO the right to double license it under the same other license(s) I used, and in my example was GPL.

If you choose to go in the GPL way, you loose the rights I granted you in OPL/OEUL/<????>, and should stick with GPL only terms.


Nonsense. I am bound by the terms under which I have received your code.
I don't care who else you are giving it to and under what terms.

This is not nonsense, and somewhat simpler that you are implying.


If I got your code under GPL and my girlfriend got your code in exchange for a blowjob, then I am under no obligation to give you a blowjob, because I was never party to the software-for-blowjob contract. I don't even need to know that such contract exists in a first place.

Let's keep your girlfriend out of this, please? Prostitution is a felony where I live...


Volenti non fit injuria goes all the way back to Roman Law. It's a fundamental concept in any legal system.

That are used with different exceptions on different countries.

Labor Law, in Brazil, is one of them. If I accept to work to a well known labor law rule breaker, I still has the right to prosecute the guy if he breaks the law again with me.
 
Last edited:

kamaz

Unicorn hunter
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
4
Points
0
But I don't understand GPL that well, and my EULA ("just Orbiters! Just Orbiters! Just Orbiters!!") rendered GPL inoperative without realizing.

It's not that it "rendered GPL inoperative", it's that your code cannot be integrated into GPL'd add-ons.

Now: why, exactly, is that a problem?
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
What would happen if I desire functionality from another non GPL licensed vessel on my GPL'ed code?

I'd ask the author nicely if he is OK with me including it in my GPL project under his name.

I always was under the impression that every Orbiter addon developer wants to give to the community. If he displays his code - under whatever license - I always think that he is proud of it and would be happy if other fellow developers use his code, of course under the premise of giving credit where credit is due.

If he is not, I'd just shrug and either use something else or re-implement it. However, I have never encountered such a developer. Do you think we have some here?
 

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
And you are not supposed to do that.

But this is not the exact reason we need licences? Because people do things they are supposed not to?


Technically no, but I don't really see him getting sued. He acted in a good will when procuring your code.

So you are saying that would be OK to use GPL'ed code in my close source vessels to be used only in Orbiter? I swear that I will share my code to any copyright holder, if they contact me! :)

(I won't be sued anyway, right?) ;)

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:03 PM ----------

It's not that it "rendered GPL inoperative", it's that your code cannot be integrated into GPL'd add-ons.

Now: why, exactly, is that a problem?

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
(emphasis are mine)

---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

I'd ask the author nicely if he is OK with me including it in my GPL project under his name.

And if the author had meet the bus factor, or by some other reason are not reachable?

It would not be better if that permission were already granted, if you fulfill some terms?

indeed, this was not the very reason we started this discussion on the Multistage thread?
 
Last edited:

kamaz

Unicorn hunter
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
4
Points
0
So you are saying that would be OK to use GPL'ed code in my close source vessels to be used only in Orbiter?

Did I say that? Realize that your scenario has yourself commiting a fraud, and your downstream user is a victim of your fraud.

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 PM ----------

(emphasis are mine)

Again: all that means that your code cannot be integrated into GPL'd code.

You have failed to explain why someone would need your code in the first place!
 

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
And if the author had meet the bus factor, or by some other reason are not reachable?

It would not be better if that permission were already granted, if you fulfull some terms?

This is the exact reason for me starting genericvessel, and I guess also for fred18 to start Multistage2015. Vinka is gone, but we don't have the permission to use his code (even if we had it somehow). This is to be respected. Period.

It would be much better if he had released it under GPL (or BSD, or MIT) to begin with, but I respect his decision. Perhaps Vinka would have done so if this thread had been in existence before. Unfortunately it was not. But now it is, and this is good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
It seems to me that the arguments have settled on GPL being totally fine for Orbiter addons, without any kind of exceptions.

I could not agree less.

GPL is fine, but have some drawbacks. It will make the life of the common joe developer trickier - and the end user more complex (as it will be impossible to create packages of orbiter add-ons to simplify his life).

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 PM ----------

Again: all that means that your code cannot be integrated into GPL'd code.

No, man. IT MEANS THAT MY CODE CAN NOT BE DISTRIBUTED TOGETHER GPL CODE!!!

Do you remember when YOU said that GPL is all about distribution of code, not about use?

---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

Since almost all of our devs around here are amateurs, this guy *will not* be aware that my unattendedly unGPL'ed code is not compatible with his package. And he will, inadvertently, be in GPL violation.

This is fine to you? Good.

But so you will have to be fine if someone else do the same - and then, why licenses after all?

---------- Post added at 07:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------

And yet, the GPL doesn't cover all the developer's concernings - as configuration files (INI and CFG), textures, meshes, sounds.

GPL does not fits all. You will have to add another license into your package anyway.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------

You have failed to explain why someone would need your code in the first place!

To fly a fancy vessel on Orbiter? :)
 
Last edited:

Xyon

Puts the Fun in Dysfunctional
Administrator
Moderator
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Webmaster
GFX Staff
Beta Tester
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
6,922
Reaction score
789
Points
203
Location
10.0.0.1
Website
www.orbiter-radio.co.uk
Preferred Pronouns
she/her
OF-Staff NOTE: The discussion in this thread is an important one for the Orbiter development community as regards releasing addons under the GPL distribution software license. It's clear there is much confusion about this license and what it represents / requires as part of its terms and this discussion is helping to resolve some of those confusions.

Please keep this thread on the noted topic. Resolution of perceived personal affronts or transactions involving curious biological activities can be pursued elsewhere.

Posts in violation of Orbiter-Forum rules will be moderated per our usual policies.
 
Last edited:

Face

Well-known member
Orbiter Contributor
Addon Developer
Beta Tester
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
4,390
Reaction score
577
Points
153
Location
Vienna
I could not agree less.

They have not settled on GPL being totally fine? I only see you arguing against it anymore.

Estar's explanation was rather excellent IMHO, and it convinced me that my previous stance was not wrong. Obviously it convinced others, too, which were critics before.
 

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
They have not settled on GPL being totally fine? I only see you arguing against it anymore.

*MY* (perhaps I'm the only one, perhaps not) position about GPL is that IT'S FINE TO USE GPL, if you know what you are doing.

If you are not a professional developer, and don't have full control of all the sources you use (as Delta Glider! How many vessels born from DGs sources? DG is GPLed?), GPL can backfire you. Please note, I said "can", not "will".

I don't care if I am the only one arguing. I will continue to argue until proven wrong (perhaps we should bring this to someone at FSF or EFF?).

I care about the license. I don't want to see it involuntarily (or voluntarily) disrespected.


Estar's explanation was rather excellent IMHO, and it convinced me that my previous stance was not wrong. Obviously it convinced others, too, which were critics before.

I can change my mind if you, openly, publicly and sending a copy of your statement to someone on FSF, state categorically the the following GPL quote is not neither ever will be a problem, hassle or headache to any Orbirter Add-On.

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
(emphasis are mine)

Until there, I'll stand my ground on GPL is fine, but can backfire on you if you don't know what you are doing..

I care about GPL, but I care even more about the Orbiter's Ecosystem.

---------- Post added 08-12-15 at 12:34 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-11-15 at 09:10 PM ----------

I Need to correct myself.

Again: all that means that your code cannot be integrated into GPL'd code.

No, man. IT MEANS THAT MY CODE CAN NOT BE DISTRIBUTED TOGETHER GPL CODE!!!

I was wrong. The sad fact is that IT MEANS THAT MY CODE CAN NOT BE DISTRIBUTED AT ALL!!! Unless I double license it. :)

If the GPL terms are not fully fulfilled (without a single exception), the very same GPL states:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all

If I'm not entitled to distribute the code, I am in GPL violation by doing that. Any guy that downloads it, do it in (involuntary) violation. If he uses it, he does is in copyright violation (as he has not the right to use the code!). If he further distributes it, he does it in GPL and copyright violation.

The guy will not be sued (neither do I), but we have a nasty chained reaction waiting to happen: *I* got reported, my code is taken down, and then every single guy that used inadvertently my code in his project believing in my GPL licensing claims are now in risk of being reported and getting his code took down too.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how GPL would be "totally fine", or "safe" to be used - unless someone proves that this (or similar) scenario is unreal.

p.s.: I have a few vessel's source code here, and some of them still uses the variable name "dg" on the Dialog's callback handlers !!

Now, I take a look on the Delta Glider and in *EVERY* DG's source code I found:
Code:
// ==============================================================
//                ORBITER MODULE: DeltaGlider
//                  Part of the ORBITER SDK
//          Copyright (C) 2001-2009 Martin Schweiger
//                   All rights reserved
//

I beg your attentions to the phrase "All rights reserved" - it appears to me that... Mr. Schweiger had retained *all his rights* to this code. Perhaps a grant to freely use the code can be found somewhere else - but I think my point is already proven: YOU CANNOT USE GPL SAFELY IN YOUR CODE WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

Using GPL in your code IS NOT TOTALLY FINE.

Using GPL in your code IS FINE AS LONG YOU ARE THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF ALL THE CODE YOU USED OR YOU HAVE PERMISSION FROM EVERY COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF THE CODE YOU DON'T OWN.

If every add-on developer here, believing in Face's statement that "Using GPL is totally fine", adopts the GPL in their personal projects that were started using the Delta Glider sources (how many of them? Can anyone at least estimate?), so God knows how many of our add-ons would be liable of being took down by lack of distribution rights (as the GPL is now VOID - let me quote again: " If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all" ).

Worst, every single Orbiter user that download one of these add-ons would be copyright infringers.

Ok, you will not be sued. But you will be an infringer anyway - and if this doesn't bother you, why in hell we need licenses?
 
Last edited:

dseagrav

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Points
16
You can't use -any- license without considerations. It's a legal document, and like any other legal document it should be entered into with deliberation and forethought. The idea that if you sign your name to something without reading it you're a damn fool and you deserve what you get is so old that Moses's parents nagged him about it when he took out his first donkey loan.

If you're arguing that the GPL is bad because you have to think about it, then every legal document ever is bad.

Worst, every single Orbiter user that download one of these add-ons would be copyright infringers.
Untrue. We've been over this. To violate the GPL you must copy, modify, or redistribute code. At no point can you violate the GPL merely by using software.
 

Lisias

Space Traveller Wanna-be
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
346
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Website
www.youtube.com
Disclaimer: this is not a problem inherent to GPL (probably any other open source would have such issues).

GPL is not evil. People misusing GPL ending up doing involuntary evilness.

Using GPL in your Orbiter project can be a good thing - but, please, know what you are doing.

---------- Post added at 01:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 AM ----------

Untrue. We've been over this. To violate the GPL you must copy, modify, or redistribute code. At no point can you violate the GPL merely by using software.

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.

Without the GPL (and in the absence of another *EXPLICIT* licensing terms), the guy has no right of using the code. And using someone else's code without explicit authorization of the copyright holders (that the guy does *not* have, as the GPL had forbidden the distribution), leaves that guy in copyright infringement.

GPL is not a law. FSF is not a country. Your problems don't end just because the GPL says so (or says nothing).



---------- Post added at 01:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------

You can't use -any- license without considerations. It's a legal document, and like any other legal document it should be entered into with deliberation and forethought.

Excellently said, my friend. So you agree with me that the statement "Using GPL is totally fine" should not had been made?


---------- Post added at 01:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------

If you're arguing that the GPL is bad because you have to think about it, then every legal document ever is bad.

No. I'm arguing that non careful use of the GPL (and, granted, any other license) can hurt us, the Orbiter Ecosystem, big time.

So, it is not "totally fine" using GPL (neither any other license) without further considerations.
 
Last edited:
Top