Hello, >I agree he is the owner of the model, but he is not the owner of the >FlightGear project.
I would disagree here in one point. >From my understanding of the law, he is just the owner = copyright-holder of >the parts he made (basic 3d-model, basic .xmls), but not the parts which had >been contributed by others (like the systems simulation etc. as listed by >Clement de l'Hamaide here). So not the owner of the whole model. There is just a rule in FGFS-project, (and maybe other OpenSource-Projects) that the starter of a sub-project is also the main-maintainer, and has the right to accept/ refuse contributions to it. You can accept this, or not. Anyway, being OpenSource you can create a fork and try to make the original source better. When the PAF-group decided to go on without Mr. BARANGER, they in fact created a fork of the DC3-Project. Which is allowed and a major part of OpenSource. GNU GPL allows that Mr. BARANGER can take use of things developed in the fork and port it over to his own project, and of course the PAF can do the same. But I must admit in this situation it has a bad taste and I can understand the dissapointment of Clement de l'Hamaide. >But here it's not the problem of "who is the author model". The problem >is => >the minimum politeness is to ask to the PAF team if we accept to >see our >contributions committed. >I know the GPL give the possibility to commit without asking anything but >>here we speak about "fair practice". vs >When you decide to download a package from a website and upload it on >your >website and GIT the minimum politeness is to ask to the author of >the >improvement if he's agreed with this isn't it ? Indeed GNU GPL allows comitting without asking. It does not care about politeness. So this action would be legally correct. But I have never seen before that GNU-compatible things which had been developed outside the usually FGFS-developement process - as an example new users creating a GNU-GPL compatible contribution to FGFS- had been committed to FGdata without asking the author before. I have never seen that Gijs, Durk, Curt etc. picked up any work and put I into FGdata without asking the authors before to do so. It would be legally correct what happened here, but I'm not sure if this is really how FGFS works. I would be at least also not happy if someone creates an AW139, use the parts of even the whole model in developement of my own work resting outside FG without asking me, put it into FGdata, but maybe even refuse to let me contribute to it. Though it would be legally correct, I would definitively not be happy! I do know: "Release early, release often", but it is difficult as long only a handfull of people has commit rights and you have to create merge requests to commit to your own work. In the whole discussion there had been some further statements which gives me some headaches: >When the team of the PAF has decided to prohibit access to their work to >me, they also requested the opportunity to put it on ILM. There are two possibilites to understand the meaning of this sentence, not sure which one is really correct: 1.) real prohibited access and that would be a violation of the GNU GPL-licence. A GNU GPL-work (and especially the Source Code) may never be prohibited in access to anyone! 2.) intended improvements was refused by the PAF-group for some reasons At least As I could follow the DC3-developement on the FGFS-forum and in the PAF-forum, I have never seen a prohibited access by the PAF to the DC3. The released downloads was available for all, and the developement process even readable without registration in their forum. No idea about 2.)... >If the team of the PAF not appreciate >the principle of respect of the original authors of the open source, >they go to make aircraft for FS X or X Plane. In addition, it can make >money Maybe I did understood this sentences wrong. But the GNU GPL licence does not say anything about respect. As long you do keep to the licence you already respected the original author. And as it is OpenSource other people can take the models and do what you want as long you keep to the licence. Even if you don't like it. Maybe the negative side of OpenSource. And yes, you can also make money with GNU GPL-work- it is allowed. > tired of seeing all these kids puerile want to use the work of > others, to obtain recognition as authors. Here, in this case it even indeed like that, that those "kids" made a manifold work with all those scripting, improvements etc., created a fork, and the project starter as not being part of this fork took, better said used their work and put into his own fork. I my eyes this action is nearly exactly what isn't liked in the statement above. And to describe a group of people in an age between 15-40 as kids is not very nice.... >And back on the 5 or 6 files with licensing issues in my airplanes is >ridiculous. ... Because >most have been fixed. There was once an example somewhere: Being in a supermarket, buying 10 things. You just pay 9 of them. Is this o.k.? According to the statement above, it would be o.k. Wow...and this gives me now really headaches. I thought it is be clear that Non-GPL things should never be in a GPL-project! Even it is just one single little piece. The fact that the main developers doesn't complain about and don't take any action before the coming 2.6-release gives me some more headaches. I wonder how long we have to wait until we see some new developers violating the GPL and point to the mentioned statement..."but I thought its is o.k. when just one or two files aren't be compatible to GNU-GPL? It is just 2-3 files between many others?!" Hmmm.... >.Ive seen a lot of things Ive modelled end up in other's >'original' work , but i've also borrowed nasal scripts and ideas from >others so I can't complain .I agree ,though, cooperation is usually a >better way to go :) Given and take-principle. In a perfect FGFS-world there would be perfect cooperation and we would have the most realistic and generally best aircraft models. Unfortunately we are human ;-) Cheers Heiko still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
