On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:27:42 +0000, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
..this looong post with unsnipped quotes is a FG licensing FAQ candidate, so I don't snip this time. > On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +0000, Lee wrote in message > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +0000, Lee wrote in message > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to > > > > > non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS > > > > > have been done by people who want to ensure that their > > > > > work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to > > > > > make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial > > > > > organisations. Some people also like to include > > > > > non-violence conditions. > > > > > > > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > > > > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > > > > places, I still don't see how any other open or free > > > > source code license gives the author more control over his > > > > code, also for commercial or military use. > > > > > > > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free > > > > to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or > > > > Trolltech with Qt. > > > > > > You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not > > > always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit > > > for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it > > > (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten > > > on the bum). > > > > .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression > > It's not just FUD. If you fail to foresee all the possible ways > that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, > can specifically permit something that you don't want. ..such as? > It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have > accepted conditions in a licence. ..ah, a feature. ;o) > I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the > abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these > issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific > licence. .. > > > If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need > > > for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work > > > (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). > > > I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to > > > fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me > > > to give it to you. > > > > ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) > > I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:) > > But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at > all. It's just a permission to use. ..precisely that permission, is a license. Licenses does not have to be unlimited, and may even be conditional. They cease being licenses and become contracts as you require your contractual "licensee" to say or do a certain act, such as click "ok" to enter into said contract. ..all Microsofts End User License Agreement's are contracts. > > > > > But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set > > > fire to it, I won't give it to you. > > > > ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your > > license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, > > have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper > > plane? Also, given my acceptance of your "license", I can > > circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your > > ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording > > your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) > > :) > > One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with > your automobile. If a friend offers to let you use their > automobile do you demand a licence before accepting? ..that offer of a permission is an offer of a license. > Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you > manage to interpret the licence you demanded? ..you confuse licenses with contracts. Very common, and what FUDmeisters want happening. > > > > > I can see why some people like that way of operating, even > > > though I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > > > > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the > > > > > GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the > > > > > lack of control over the work once released under the > > > > > license, I can't > > > > > > > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under > > > > the GPL. > > > > > > I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no > > > control over what anyone else does with what I've released > > > under the GPL. > > > > ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ > > work. > > Yep. > > > > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that > > > > > control. > > > > > > > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > > > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to > > > > > buy anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > > > > > > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other > > > > payware licenses, this depends on the license's "small > > > > print" language. > > > > > > > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied > > > > > to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and > > > > > people can no longer do what they want. > > > > > > > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > > > > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been > > > > given by the original authors, "before you jumped in." > > > > Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it > > > > as you damned well pleases. Other peoples code can be > > > > thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do > > > > so, and wise people will tell you "Riiiiiiiiiiight, I'll > > > > consider it if you can convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get > > > > that into GPLv3." ;-) > > > > > > The problem I see with it is when people say that something > > > _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one > > > fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' > > > or 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone > > > benefits - but if you start saying that it _should_ be so > > > licenced then the person actually doing it has no choice and > > > you've entered the realm of compulsion. > > > > ..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad > > people to skim off the good stuff _and_ change author credits > > _and_ hide it as closed source _and_ charge for it. > > > > ..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say > > "should GPL" and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it > > happen. ;-) > > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) > > As I've said, I'm happy to use the GPL for anything I do for FG. > However, that's my choice. I'm all for encouraging it's use for > FG stuff too but I'm not at all happy with any form of > compulsion - that's imposing your will on someone else. > > ...and there's too much of that already. ..I can agree, however when someone yells "Duck!" at you, which is the prudent thing to do? ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
