Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
* Jari Häkkinen -- Wednesday 06 April 2011: The GPL ideology is to keep the or later clause. I'm not much into ideologies. I consider both GPLv2 and GPLv3 acceptable. But I don't intend to ever (again) license anything with an or later clause. This is signing a contract without reading it first! Why should I allow anyone to re-license a fork of my work under GPLv4 or GPLv5?! I don't know what's in those licenses. Nobody does. And I don't consider the or later clause to be in the spirit of the GPL at all. (In the spirit of the FSF, yes.) Because an or later clause allows a fork under a license that is not compatible with what the original work is under, so that improvements in the fork cannot be ported back -- something that the FSF (rightfully) sells us as one of the advantages. You can include GPLv2 code in GPLv3 code, but not the other way around, right? So, basically, I'd be forced to switch the original work to GPLv3 to use other people's additions to it. Very much *not* in the spirit of Free Software. I'm just not naïve/stupid enough for that. m. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:42:38 +0200, Melchior wrote in message 201104081042.39...@rk-nord.at: * Jari Häkkinen -- Wednesday 06 April 2011: The GPL ideology is to keep the or later clause. I'm not much into ideologies. I consider both GPLv2 and GPLv3 acceptable. But I don't intend to ever (again) license anything with an or later clause. This is signing a contract without reading it first! Why should I allow anyone to re-license a fork of my work under GPLv4 or GPLv5?! I don't know what's in those licenses. Nobody does. And I don't consider the or later clause to be in the spirit of the GPL at all. (In the spirit of the FSF, yes.) Because an or later clause allows a fork under a license that is not compatible with what the original work is under, so that improvements in the fork cannot be ported back -- something that the FSF (rightfully) sells us as one of the advantages. You can include GPLv2 code in GPLv3 code, but not the other way around, right? So, basically, I'd be forced to switch the original work to GPLv3 to use other people's additions to it. Very much *not* in the spirit of Free Software. I'm just not naïve/stupid enough for that. m. ..then you should dual-license your work, under _both_ the GPLv2-only _and_ the GPLv3-only. ;o) ..that approach keeps your work under licenses you know and like, and keeps your copyright yours to decide on GPLv4 or GPLv5 etc once you learn of them, rather than in advance. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am Freitag, den 08.04.2011, 10:42 +0200 schrieb Melchior FRANZ: And I don't consider the or later clause to be in the spirit of the GPL at all. (In the spirit of the FSF, yes.) Because an or later clause allows a fork under a license that is not compatible with what the original work is under, so that improvements in the fork cannot be ported back -- something that the FSF (rightfully) sells us as one of the advantages. You can include GPLv2 code in GPLv3 code, but not the other way around, right? So, basically, I'd be forced to switch the original work to GPLv3 to use other people's additions to it. Very much *not* in the spirit of Free Software. I'm just not naïve/stupid enough for that. If justage changes or new kinds of distributions arise the GPLv2 won't protect your intention that were the reasons why you have chosen GPLv2. A typical problem of GPLv2 is AFAIK, that someone can put your code in hardware but he don't need to tell you, how you can change or update it. And this is completly compliant with GPLv2, but with GPLv3 it is not. The GPLv3 changed that and. That's the reason why the or later clause is important, it can protect your intentions in the future. Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
* kreuzritter2000 -- Friday 08 April 2011: That's the reason why the or later clause is important, it can protect your intentions in the future. Or it can be completely against my intentions. Hard to say before I read the text of the GPLv4, GPLv5 etc. I don't need a master who protects my intentions. If I realize that the license does no longer work, then I'll change it. Note: *I* will change it. I don't see the need to let *others* change the license of my work. m. FlightGear-license paradoxon: The fewer someone has committed to FlightGear, the more he is concerned about licensing issues. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am Freitag, den 08.04.2011, 14:21 +0200 schrieb Melchior FRANZ: * kreuzritter2000 -- Friday 08 April 2011: That's the reason why the or later clause is important, it can protect your intentions in the future. Or it can be completely against my intentions. Hard to say before I read the text of the GPLv4, GPLv5 etc. I don't need a master who protects my intentions. If I realize that the license does no longer work, then I'll change it. Note: *I* will change it. I don't see the need to let *others* change the license of my work. m. You can't change your license of your work when you're dead. Your work will be misused for 70 years against your intentions or die because others won't continue to improve your open source project further because of the old license that start to be helpless to protect the open source intentions in a new marked. So, saying i won't accept the or later clause is just shortsighted in the long run. I don't know if you care about what happens with your work after your dead, but if it were my work i would take this seriously. Especially when it is a large community project were other developers work depend on your own work. I have enough trust in the Free Software Foundation that they will still protect my intentions after my dead until the work gets public domain after 70 years of my death. Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am 04.04.11 12:43, schrieb HB-GRAL: Hi all I try to repeat my questions (and at least today I don’t like no-where-going-just-www-linking answers with directives _read_, _do_, _what_do_you_mean_ and all this ;o), I am not in that mood, sorry Arnt, don’t take it personal): - Is fgdata licenced under GPLv2 or later or GPLv3 or later ? Wiki and flightgear.org says (or links to): GPLv3 (without or later, gitoriuos says GPLv2 (without or later, the distribution contains a COPYING.txt with GPLv2. - Do other contributors of the origin repo have the right to change my origin licence assignment from GPLv2 to GPLv3, when they just pull and push the same code? (I really think: No.) - Case no, they don’t have the right: Where should this be stated to prevent the code from such changes by accident? Where can people read that there is already licence assignment and no individual licence distribution is needed for the code within origin fgdata? - Is there a clean up of fgdata needed (only for 5 or 6 aircrafts) ? Cheers, Yves -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:08:49 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote in message 4d9c57d1.4090...@sablonier.ch: Am 04.04.11 12:43, schrieb HB-GRAL: Hi all I try to repeat my questions (and at least today I don’t like no-where-going-just-www-linking answers with directives _read_, _do_, _what_do_you_mean_ and all this ;o), I am not in that mood, sorry Arnt, don’t take it personal): ..the only 2 ways to actually do what you meant to do, is by actually knowing what you're doing, and by accident when you don't. ;o) - Is fgdata licenced under GPLv2 or later or GPLv3 or later ? Wiki and flightgear.org says (or links to): GPLv3 (without or later, gitoriuos says GPLv2 (without or later, the distribution contains a COPYING.txt with GPLv2. - Do other contributors of the origin repo have the right to change my origin licence assignment from GPLv2 to GPLv3, when they just pull and push the same code? (I really think: No.) - Case no, they don’t have the right: Where should this be stated to prevent the code from such changes by accident? Where can people read that there is already licence assignment and no individual licence distribution is needed for the code within origin fgdata? - Is there a clean up of fgdata needed (only for 5 or 6 aircrafts) ? Cheers, Yves -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On 2011-04-06 14.08, HB-GRAL wrote: - Do other contributors of the origin repo have the right to change my origin licence assignment from GPLv2 to GPLv3, when they just pull and push the same code? (I really think: No.) I think anyone has the right to redistribute the code under GPLv3 if there is a GPLv2 or later statement in the original license. A GPLv2 only clause may block redistribution under GPLv3, I do not know and really I do not care. Pulling all fg related material under GPLv2 or later license and pushing to another repository, i.e. forking, and changing the license to GPLv3 is legal. Pulling the material from the repo and simply pushing it back to the same repository may pose interesting legal questions. Can such an act be considered redistribution? Is a redistribution required to change license to GPLv3? The legality is really irrelevant because making such a move without the consent of the authors of code under GPLv2 and later will probably alienate contributors. The fg project should avoid making license changes without the consent of authors in the repositories it controls, but the fg project cannot prohibit 3rd parties from actually changing their redistribution license to GPLv3 (if GPLv2 or later was used originally). A resolution maybe be that all contributors to single files agrees to revoke or later from each single file (note, all contributors must agree or the file must be replaced with independent art). As time goes by new improved code in the GPLv2 only files will supersede the files with loose GPLv2 or later clauses and deem the files obsolete. Open source GPL contributors should remember, we _choose_ to release our work under GPL. The GPL ideology is to keep the or later clause. Why fight it? If the GPL way of licensing is not for you then you should find another license that fits your needs and optimally it is GPL friendly so that files/code can co-exist. I heard the argument: This project is so cool, I want to contribute but I don't like the license. Well, then this project is obviously not for you. Remember, many times the coolness comes because of GPL. I agree that files in fg controlled repositories that were changed by accident from GPLv2 to v3 should be restored to the original license. Cheers, Jari -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:59 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman: ha mAa GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik No, this is exactly allowed. That's the reason why the two words or later were added, when the GPLv2 was created. No it's not. This is my model an placing my distribution under GPL3 restricts it's license. Anyone is free to fork the Fokker-100 and place it under the terms of GPL3 but the one in the base package is GPL2 (or later) period. Erik -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:19:09 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1301987949.1641.2.camel@Raptor: On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:59 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman: ha mAa GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik No, this is exactly allowed. That's the reason why the two words or later were added, when the GPLv2 was created. No it's not. This is my model an placing my distribution under GPL3 restricts it's license. Anyone is free to fork the Fokker-100 and place it under the terms of GPL3 but the one in the base package is GPL2 (or later) period. Erik ..you're still not making sense to me, you're saying No it's not, then that e.g. FlightProSim.com is free to fork your Fokker-100 and place it under the terms of GPL3 but the one in the base package is GPL2 (or later) period. ;o) ..I'm guessing you meant to say your fokker100 is going to stay under the same license as the rest of the base package, now it's GPLv2-and-later, later it may be GPLv3, GPLv3.1, GPLv4 etc as it is developed and forked etc to fit new FG things. :o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 10:13 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..I'm guessing you meant to say your fokker100 is going to stay under the same license as the rest of the base package, now it's GPLv2-and-later, later it may be GPLv3, GPLv3.1, GPLv4 etc as it is developed and forked etc to fit new FG things. :o) Hmm, fair enough. Erik -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am Dienstag, den 05.04.2011, 09:19 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman: On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:59 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman: ha mAa GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik No, this is exactly allowed. That's the reason why the two words or later were added, when the GPLv2 was created. No it's not. This is my model an placing my distribution under GPL3 restricts it's license. Anyone is free to fork the Fokker-100 and place it under the terms of GPL3 but the one in the base package is GPL2 (or later) period. Erik No, the or in the passus GPLv2 or later is a right to choose. Someone who gets the code can give it away under the terms of the GPLv2, but he does not need to do this, when there is a GPLv3 or later license available. He can give it away under the terms of GPLv3. Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:31 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: No, the or in the passus GPLv2 or later is a right to choose. Someone who gets the code can give it away under the terms of the GPLv2, but he does not need to do this, when there is a GPLv3 or later license available. He can give it away under the terms of GPLv3. Sigh, of course not. The version in the base package is my work so I decide the license of that copy. Erik -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:04:03 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1302001443.32253.2.camel@Raptor: On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:31 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: No, the or in the passus GPLv2 or later is a right to choose. Someone who gets the code can give it away under the terms of the GPLv2, but he does not need to do this, when there is a GPLv3 or later license available. He can give it away under the terms of GPLv3. Sigh, of course not. The version in the base package is my work so I decide the license of that copy. Erik ..and we just agreed that my guess on your GPLv2-and-later license is in your own words Hmm, fair enough., which hopefully is what you meant to do, when you put your work into FG-base. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am Dienstag, den 05.04.2011, 13:04 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman: On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 12:31 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: No, the or in the passus GPLv2 or later is a right to choose. Someone who gets the code can give it away under the terms of the GPLv2, but he does not need to do this, when there is a GPLv3 or later license available. He can give it away under the terms of GPLv3. Sigh, of course not. The version in the base package is my work so I decide the license of that copy. Erik No the base package belongs to the FG community and you commited your work under their GPLv2 or later conditions. If the FG community decides to switch to GPLv3 one day, the community can do this without asking you for permission. To hinder them you need to put your own repository or package online and put your work under the condiction GPLv2 only. Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 13:34 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..and we just agreed that my guess on your GPLv2-and-later license is in your own words Hmm, fair enough., which hopefully is what you meant to do, when you put your work into FG-base. Look if the license states that one can apply a later license doesn't mean one can alter the original license (text). You for one should know that. Erik -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:35 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: No the base package belongs to the FG community and you commited your work under their GPLv2 or later conditions. If the FG community decides to switch to GPLv3 one day, the community can do this without asking you for permission. Incorrect, the copyright still belongs to me. GPL2 just makes it easier. Erik -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
This is nitpicking. The original files are released under the GPL v2 terms. That licence cannot be revocated by anyone, not even by the author, though he may choose to re-release the files with another licence. The terms of the unmodified GPL v2 allow the relicencing by 3rd parties with subsequent licences from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html : This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This does not supercede the original license, it effectively means a fork under a new licence. The GPL v2 on the original remains in effect, but changes on the GPLv3 versions would be covered by the GPLv3 terms. Alessandro From: e...@ehofman.com To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 14:54:40 +0200 Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only? On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:35 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: No the base package belongs to the FG community and you commited your work under their GPLv2 or later conditions. If the FG community decides to switch to GPLv3 one day, the community can do this without asking you for permission. Incorrect, the copyright still belongs to me. GPL2 just makes it easier. Erik -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am 05.04.11 17:00, schrieb TDO_Brandano -: This does not supercede the original license, it effectively means a fork under a new licence. The GPL v2 on the original remains in effect, but changes on the GPLv3 versions would be covered by the GPLv3 terms. Alessandro Wiki and flightgear.org are linking to GPLv3 (because they link to GPL #undefined), some people might think they have to use the updated licence. Gitorious (original repo now, isn’t it?) says: GPLv2. There is also a COPYING file in the repo with GPLv2 text, (and 10 other raw licence texts btw). I do not care about the or later, because we are talking from the same repo, and I think no one has the right to pull from origin and push it back with licence change. GPLv3 is not just an update of GPLv2, it is another licence, right ? This is from the readme of 767-300, which comes with GPLv3 licence: Alot of the systems were used from the Flightgear Boeing 777-200ER model, by Syd Adams and Justin Smithies, which is also under the same GNU GPL. True? Main point is that it is GPL of course, but I think people should not pull GPLv2 code from the original repo and push back the same code with another licence version? Anyway, this needs only a small clean up for Mig15, Fokker100, 767-300, PC9-M, A340-600. And people should know, that all the stuff within fgdata is already covered by one licence and that there is no dual licencing and that they don’t have to distribute GPL licence text themself. Maybe I am wrong at all, sorry for the confusion. I am just a small and non-important contributor who wants to do licence things how it has to be done. Cheers, Yves -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Hi Yves, HB-GRAL wrote: Maybe I am wrong at all, sorry for the confusion. I am just a small and non-important contributor who wants to do licence things how it has to be done. I'm convinced that being careful about contributor's licenses is a core requirement in a world where The FlightGear Project is being faced with re-distributors trying to push the limits of the license. If we don't respect our own licensing, we loose the credibility when requesting others to do so. Therefore I'd say: Well done ! Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
* TDO_Brandano - -- Tuesday 05 April 2011: The terms of the unmodified GPL v2 allow the relicencing by 3rd parties with subsequent licences [citation:] | either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Caution: this is *not* part of the GPLv2. It's *below* the line stating END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and is just meant as an *example* for how (the FSF would like us) to apply the GPLv2. But the license is also valid if such a block is *not* added to every single code file. This is just a suggestion for best practice. IOW: GPLv2 means GPLv2, it does *not* mean GPLv2 or later. m. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:53:22 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1302008002.6099.0.camel@Raptor: On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 13:34 +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..and we just agreed that my guess on your GPLv2-and-later license is in your own words Hmm, fair enough., which hopefully is what you meant to do, when you put your work into FG-base. Look if the license states that one can apply a later license doesn't mean one can alter the original license (text). ..correct, because there is no need to change it, the permission to use a later GPL version, is already given. To deny the use of later versions, you must do what Linus did, remove the or later language. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:54:40 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1302008080.6099.1.camel@Raptor: On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 14:35 +0200, kreuzritter2000 wrote: No the base package belongs to the FG community and you commited your work under their GPLv2 or later conditions. If the FG community decides to switch to GPLv3 one day, the community can do this without asking you for permission. Incorrect, ..disagreed. the copyright still belongs to me. ..agreed, nobody is disputing your copyright, the (non?)issue here is your own conflicting statements of how you _meant_ to license your own work, and how you actually _did_ license your own work. ;o) ..once you understand your own licensing ;o), you become able to make an informed decision on it. GPL2 just makes it easier. ..disagreed, and you may want to read the history behind the GPLv3, the GPLv2 has holes that the GPLv3 plugs. ..the only thing I like better with GPLv2, is the owner's right to deny bad people permission to any further use of your code, this was considered the major obstacle to business use of GPLv2, but people like tSCOG, Microsoft etc deserves such bans, but escape them once they are back in compliance under GPLv3, under GPLv2 they also need to beg forgiveness and to beg for a new license. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:14:03 +0200, Melchior wrote in message 201104052114.04...@rk-nord.at: * TDO_Brandano - -- Tuesday 05 April 2011: The terms of the unmodified GPL v2 allow the relicencing by 3rd parties with subsequent licences [citation:] | either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Caution: this is *not* part of the GPLv2. It's *below* the line stating END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and is just meant as an *example* for how (the FSF would like us) to apply the GPLv2. ..dig deep into can of worms in the 2'nd paragraph of §9 in: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html But the license is also valid if such a block is *not* added to every single code file. This is just a suggestion for best practice. IOW: GPLv2 means GPLv2, it does *not* mean GPLv2 or later. ..one of the problems with the GPLv2 is that that _can_ be argued both ways, not to mention litigated both ways. More bait at: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050131065655645 -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
* Arnt Karlsen -- Tuesday 05 April 2011: On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:14:03 +0200, Melchior wrote in message Caution: this is *not* part of the GPLv2. It's *below* the line stating END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and is just meant as an *example* for how (the FSF would like us) to apply the GPLv2. ..dig deep into can of worms in the 2'nd paragraph of §9 in: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html That paragraph says *nothing* that contradicted what I wrote. It rather confirms it. Sorry, you just didn't get that paragraph, it seems. Not going to waste more time on that level ... m. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 12:43 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote: Hi all While reading all the licence or license files distributed with fgdata I have to ask a small question here, and I apologize in advance to open a new licence thread, I am tired of this kind of threads myself: Normally the licenses are GPL2 or later, the only project I know of that has a different view is the linux kernel. - Is FlightGear fgdata distributed under GPL2 and later or GPL2 only ? I found following aircrafts distributed under other licences: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. -- Create and publish websites with WebMatrix Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:58:06 +0200, Erik wrote in message 1301914686.991.1.camel@Raptor: On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 12:43 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote: Hi all While reading all the licence or license files distributed with fgdata I have to ask a small question here, and I apologize in advance to open a new licence thread, I am tired of this kind of threads myself: Normally the licenses are GPL2 or later, the only project I know of that has a different view is the linux kernel. - Is FlightGear fgdata distributed under GPL2 and later or GPL2 only ? I found following aircrafts distributed under other licences: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. ..you meant GPLv2-and-later, not GPLv2-only? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Create and publish websites with WebMatrix Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200 Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. ..you meant GPLv2-and-later, not GPLv2-only? GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik -- Create and publish websites with WebMatrix Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman: On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200 Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.net wrote: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. ..you meant GPLv2-and-later, not GPLv2-only? GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik I don’t know who gave permission for this, but recent Fokker100 is distributed with GPL3 LICENCE.txt in fgdata. Also other aircrafts do. Anyway, I think all the aircrafts in fgdata have to be distributed under GPL2, because the main project/repo on gitorious is still GPL2 and not GPL3. And GPL2 does not mean GPL3, nor GPL2 and later, nor GPL1000 in one tousand years. Cheers, Yves -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am 04.04.11 23:35, schrieb HB-GRAL: Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman: On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200 Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.net wrote: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. ..you meant GPLv2-and-later, not GPLv2-only? GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik I don’t know who gave permission for this, but recent Fokker100 is distributed with GPL3 LICENCE.txt in fgdata. Also other aircrafts do. Anyway, I think all the aircrafts in fgdata have to be distributed under GPL2, because the main project/repo on gitorious is still GPL2 and not GPL3. And GPL2 does not mean GPL3, nor GPL2 and later, nor GPL1000 in one tousand years. Cheers, Yves Sorry for my bad english in all my posts, so here tousand means thousand. Maybe I am a bit too angry, it is because I miss project lead here at all. I wish to have someone here who cares about my work, about licence and distribution. Cheers, Yves -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 23:48:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote in message 4d9a3c9b.3090...@sablonier.ch: Am 04.04.11 23:35, schrieb HB-GRAL: Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman: On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200 Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.net wrote: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. ..you meant GPLv2-and-later, not GPLv2-only? GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik I don’t know who gave permission for this, but recent Fokker100 is distributed with GPL3 LICENCE.txt in fgdata. Also other aircrafts do. Anyway, I think all the aircrafts in fgdata have to be distributed under GPL2, because the main project/repo on gitorious is still GPL2 and not GPL3. And GPL2 does not mean GPL3, nor GPL2 and later, nor GPL1000 in one tousand years. Cheers, Yves Sorry for my bad english in all my posts, so here tousand means thousand. Maybe I am a bit too angry, it is because I miss project lead here at all. I wish to have someone here who cares about my work, about licence and distribution. Cheers, Yves ..Yves, Erik, you guys make no sense to me ;o), _read_ the licenses and _then_ tell me what you _meant_ to say, and how you want to license your FG work. My guess remains GPLv2-and-later. :o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am 05.04.11 00:36, schrieb Arnt Karlsen: On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 23:48:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote in message 4d9a3c9b.3090...@sablonier.ch: Am 04.04.11 23:35, schrieb HB-GRAL: Am 04.04.11 19:01, schrieb Erik Hofman: On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200 Arnt Karlsena...@c2i.netwrote: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. ..you meant GPLv2-and-later, not GPLv2-only? GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik I don’t know who gave permission for this, but recent Fokker100 is distributed with GPL3 LICENCE.txt in fgdata. Also other aircrafts do. Anyway, I think all the aircrafts in fgdata have to be distributed under GPL2, because the main project/repo on gitorious is still GPL2 and not GPL3. And GPL2 does not mean GPL3, nor GPL2 and later, nor GPL1000 in one tousand years. Cheers, Yves Sorry for my bad english in all my posts, so here tousand means thousand. Maybe I am a bit too angry, it is because I miss project lead here at all. I wish to have someone here who cares about my work, about licence and distribution. Cheers, Yves ..Yves, Erik, you guys make no sense to me ;o), _read_ the licenses and _then_ tell me what you _meant_ to say, and how you want to license your FG work. My guess remains GPLv2-and-later. :o) Hi Arnt Thanks for your guess. -Yves -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
Am Montag, den 04.04.2011, 19:01 +0200 schrieb Erik Hofman: On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:53:16 +0200 Arnt Karlsen a...@c2i.net wrote: - Mig15 (not compatible to GPL2 at all) - Fokker100 (GPL3, could not be used with GPL2 only) The Fokker 100 was never released under the GPL3 by me so it's still GPL2. If there's a license stating otherwise it's wrong. ..you meant GPLv2-and-later, not GPLv2-only? GPL2 or later, which doesn't mean the license of the version in the base package can be changed to GPL3 without my permission. Erik No, this is exactly allowed. That's the reason why the two words or later were added, when the GPLv2 was created. The creators of the license thought about what to do when a change of the license is needed and the developers get unreachable for example when they pass away. So this is completly compliant with the GPL2 or later license, your permission is not needed, you already gave it with accepting the or later passus. To make this impossible a GPL2 only passus is necessary, but this has other disadvantages like other problems that could arise in future and a new version would make sense. Just my 2 cents for clarification. Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
