On Wednesday 06 Jan 2010, J. Holden wrote: > With regards to what has been said, the GPLv2 gives the end user > the right to both modify the software and, if certain conditions > are met, distribute the software. It does NOT change the fact > that all the contributors actually own the copyright on the > software, or it appears in FlightGears' case, a lot of different > people own the copyright to the software. > > In either case we need a system where we either start tracking > who owns what copyrights in different parts of the software, or > assigning the copyright to FlightGear while ensuring the > contributors have all the rights they would otherwise have. > > The reason for this, which I didn't state, is so we are better > prepared to protect our software from people who may violate the > GPL down the distribution line. If someone modifies FlightGear > and obfuscates the copyright, that's a clear violation of the GPL > - copyrights must be intact under the license. > > Now, let's say someone takes parts of the FG source code for > inclusion in a proprietary, closed-source product, and the > copyright is NOT consolidated. Let's assume I track down the > problem - now I have to track down the copyright holder of the > code which was used in that piece of software and get them to > enforce their own license. Not everyone would be willing to do > that. > > If everyone consolidates their copyrights under FlightGear, that > violation is much easier to enforce. However, "FlightGear" would > need to be a legal entity in this case. I'm not sure how to do > that, but I can do the research. > > If you'd like a read, check section 2.3: > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html#x1 >-70002.2.1 > > Cheers > John
You're still talking in terms of protecting 'our' software, but more importantly, the bottom line is that the main driving force behind all of the recent discussions about the exploitation of FG seems to be resentment that other people are making a profit from FG, rather than ensuring the freedom of FG, insofar as no one can claim ownership and control of it, and subsequently restrict its use. The activities of the violators of the GPL, in the case of FG, do not result in any financial or material loss to the developers, so there is, in all practical terms, no loss to be protected against; FG remains 'free' despite the activities of voilators and this is the important thing. The effort spent in trying to hunt down these violators is out of all proportion to any results gained, which at most can only stop someone from doing something and is entirely concerned with restriction; it does nothing to actually further improve or promote anything, or allow something new. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
