Hi Augusto, .. I cc'd you this because the licensing discussion here is relevant to your MB339. :o)
..for the rest of you guys, this discusses why-n-how the GPL is _the_ superior commersial and academic license, IMHO. ;o) On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:15:44 -0500, Curtis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ..and Sylpheed-1.9.6 was too alpha, so I'm back at 1.0.4-1. ;o) > Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > >On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:38:39 -0500, Curtis wrote in message > > > > > > > This could go two possible directions. If someone wants to > > > volunteer to do this, it could be contributed to FlightGear for > > > everyone to enjoy. The person requesting this might also be able > > > to pay some smallish amount (yet to be determined) to have this > > > done, but if he pays for it, he wants to "own" the result for his > > > own use, and it couldn't be contributed to flightgear.. > >> > >> > > > > .."he who pays" can _both_ own his paid-for SR20 and have us > > distribute it for him under the GPL. > > > > <sigh> I'm not sure if it's worth the bother to reply here </sigh> > > But "he who pays" for something to be developed can do whatever he > wants with it. In this case if he pays for the model's development, > he doesn't want to give it away to everyone for free. That's his > right and his choice to make. > > If someone is developing something on their own, they can dual, > triple, quadruple license it however they want, ..precisely. ;o) And, preaching this to the choir here is meant to leave this advice on record here for new and future FG developers, at least I find this worthwhile. ;o) > but if they want to do an > open-source + commercial license, they are going to have to find > someone to buy it commercially, and if it's already available as > open-source, why should someone pay for it? And there may be answers > to that retorical question, but in this specific case, if there's > already an SR20 model in FlightGear, why would this guy want to pay > for it? ..eh. Not quite how this came across to me, the context I saw when I wrote grandparent msg last week, allowed a few litigation traps. ..it _is_ possible to both couple and de-couple "commercial" with open source, eg Microsoft does the latter with contract law, closing their code with contracts known as "End User License Agreement", which is well established legalese for "contract." In courts, they litigate their cases primarily on the merits of the contracts. "Just a wee dispute here, no bad guys here." ;o) ..the GPL instead makes use of copyright law and of _not_ entering into any contractual agreement, but instead _allowing_ something that is otherwise forbidden (distribution), and on a certain condition, "your source too, please." The language "nothing else in this license allows", is designed to make the GPL irrelevant in any case of disagreement or absense of compliance, so all cases fall back onto copyright law in courts as "Software Piracy!!![Tm]." Ugly. ;o) ..I know of _no_ other copyright scheme that can match the GPL's proven slam dunk track record in courts. Now, the FUD meisters will have you believe the GPL is not proven in courts, conveniently ignoring the common practice of making secrecy, _part_ of the settlements. ;o) ..once this rather powerful law and licence combination is fully understood by he-who-pays, he's going to prefer the GPL over his current licensing scheme. I think it is worthwhile to spend this wee bit of extra effort to get those who pays, get that bit home between their ears. ;o) ..it is perfectly legal to sell GPL software, and make _GPL_compliance_, _part_ of the sales contract terms. So, there is _no_ conflict between "commercial" and the GPL. ;o) > > > Feel free to contact me off-line if you like. If more than one > > > persons responds, I guess I need to reserve the right to make > > > some hard decisions. :-) > > > > ..one of them could be spend more time explaining copyright law > > enforcement and the GPL to him, he either misses RMS' copyright > > law enforcement scheme behind the GPL, or he pretends to, like > > the SCO Group in Lindon, Utah. > > > > None of this last paragraph seems to make any sense in the context of ..thread context was missing. ;o) > this discussion. I'm not sure how useful it is to launch into a > GPL/RMS/Groklaw/SCO rant every time the word "commercial" passes > across your computer screen, especially when your comments don't seem > to make any logical sense or have any connection to the topic at > hand. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but I could be having a stressful > day here or something like that. :-) .. ;o) ..there _are_ a few people out there who are happy to destroy us, these pays proxies to lure us open source people into various litigation traps, using baits quite similar to that in your OP in this thread, so we do need to beware of these schemes. Now, I also wrote grandparent msg 3days ago before I got the rest of this thread, those posts covered context in this thread better. ;o) > Apparently no one is interested in doing a Cirrus model for FlightGear > at this time, which is fine, I was just asking, and just presenting a > couple different options for getting it done. .. ;o) ..I got thinking about Dave M. He has a new XML book out too now: http://megginson.com/ -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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
