License Wars MEGA THREAD (now with GPL!)

[Face]

Orbiter will die as you see nowwhere and the community and it's absence of a community moderator is the reason.

Perhaps it will. Perhaps it will not. I don't know :shrug:

One thing is pretty clear to me, though: with even Microsoft (you know, those guys initially responsible for all the GPL "cancer" FUD around?) investing heavily in Open Source now, the direction of the software world in this regards is basically set.

 

[ADSWNJ]

My view - I am 100% happy with GPL for my MFD addons. I have had the privilege to resuscitate old semi-dead addons and breathe new life into them (e.g. Glideslope). I have taken much newer code (e.g. BaseSync) and added new features to it. I have created my own original work (e.g. RV Orientation). And I have partnered with cool guys to bring new ideas to life (e.g. Enjo with lots of things, but especially MMExt, and Keiththg on Lagrange).

Why have I spent thousands of hours of development time for free on these works? Fundamentally because I enjoy the intellectual challenge, and I like the sense of community in giving back something. Ultimately, its a sign of respect for Martins and the tens of thousands of hours he put into creating this fascinating simulation.

As for GPL - I cannot get excited about GPL, MIT, or other licenses. I only ask 2 things: (1) If somebody makes a derivative work from my source, then they keep the same freedoms for the next guys as I give to them, and (2) please don't expect or demand any support, warranties, or feature-enhancements (although I may at my discretion do them, or you may do them yourself if you prefer, or we could work together on them).

If anyone suggests that GPL is invalid, and has a bona fide case to complain, then we as a whole group can figure out what to do about it (e.g. make an Orbiter Public License!). But until then ... use GPL, release your source, and be good contributors. Recipe for life, eh?

 

[Face]

If anyone suggests that GPL is invalid, and has a bona fide case to complain, then we as a whole group can figure out what to do about it (e.g. make an Orbiter Public License!). But until then ... use GPL, release your source, and be good contributors. Recipe for life, eh?

This has happened before with OVP, and the result was dual-licensing it as LGPL. Personally, I wouldn't want to get fellow contributors that put their free time into a project I've started into that situation anymore. They deserve to know ahead under what legal situation their contributions will be.

Since GPL is disputed here, telling potential contributors that everything is alright without explaining the pitfalls is not faithful IMHO. Of course this doesn't mean that you have to make it all doom and gloom, either.

The situation is that some see it as invalid, which would make all such addons defaulting to all rights reserved. Those who see it that way will consequently not touch the code or the binaries. Especially for frameworks like Multistage2015 (which triggered this thread), this is certainly a sub-optimal situation.

If GPL on Orbiter addons works for you, all is good :thumbup: .

 

[Urwumpe]

Since GPL is disputed here,...

I still think its not disputed. SCO disputed the GPL and is now history. Hell, even German courts have upheld the GPL when officially disputed, despite the GPL being not fully compatible to European copyright law (But its possible to make it 100% solid, even against claims of former contributors).

 

[Face]

I still think its not disputed.

Well, we have this thread with 400+ posts, so... :shrug:

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, we have this thread with 400+ posts, so... :shrug:

As if that would be any measurement of relevance...


"People, eat excrements, millions of flies can't be wrong!"

 

[Face]

As if that would be any measurement of relevance...

It clearly shows that people here had different views on the subject, especially on the validity of the license for Orbiter addons. This is what I mean with GPL is disputed here. If it wasn't, the topic would not have triggered such a long discussion going back and forth. So in that light, yes, it is a measurement of relevance.

 

[Linguofreak]

Well, we have this thread with 400+ posts, so... :shrug:

Well there's disputed and there's disputed. There will always be a few crackpots that will dispute anything, and that can create FUD that confuses others, but other than that I don't think there really is much dispute. Half of this thread was one guy that kept repeating the same misconceptions over and over.

 

[Face]

There will always be a few crackpots that will dispute anything, and that can create FUD that confuses others, but other than that I don't think there really is much dispute. Half of this thread was one guy that kept repeating the same misconceptions over and over.

That one guy might have been the advocatus diavoli, but the input he gave showed that many had different views. And I would not label folks like jarmonik as crackpots.

 

[Urwumpe]

That one guy might have been the advocatus diavoli, but the input he gave showed that many had different views. And I would not label folks like jarmonik as crackpots.

Still, the key question is always: Did the devs read the GPL before selecting it or not? Is the problem the GPL or the developers who had not been aware which rights they give away and which rights they protect?

Again: the GPL is not disputed by courts. And that's what really matters. But generally, those cases involve professional teams, industry and a good budget for lawyers.

 

[Face]

Again: the GPL is not disputed by courts.

I don't mean that the GPL per se is disputed, just in connection with Orbiter addons. If that was once in court, I have missed it.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't mean that the GPL per se is disputed, just in connection with Orbiter addons. If that was once in court, I have missed it.

Well, let me quote Leonidas there: "Molon Lobe"

You know, linking to non-GPL system libraries is fine for the GPL and there is no definition what a system library is just like there are no hard limits what the system is.

But including UCGO or UMMU or OrbiterSound might really be a bad idea, since those clearly are no system libraries.

 

[Face]

Well, let me quote Leonidas there: "Molon Lobe"

You know, linking to non-GPL system libraries is fine for the GPL and there is no definition what a system library is just like there are no hard limits what the system is.

But including UCGO or UMMU or OrbiterSound might really be a bad idea, since those clearly are no system libraries.

Hey, you are preaching to the choir here. In my opinion, GPL is totally fine for Orbiter addon development. We don't have to rehash those arguments again.

My point is that many other members of the community see it differently, and everybody using GPL for Orbiter development should be aware of this. This is in stark contrast to the situation with proprietary and very restrictive licensing many addon developers use: here almost everybody is quite happy with it, and nobody gets the idea of this being somehow illegal or invalid.

 

[Urwumpe]

My point is that many other members of the community see it differently, and everybody using GPL for Orbiter development should be aware of this.

There are also people who disagree to a spherical Earth or Newtonian gravity. We are both aware of this, but I doubt you have changed your life more because of this knowledge than I did.

 

[Face]

There are also people who disagree to a spherical Earth or Newtonian gravity. We are both aware of this, but I doubt you have changed your life more because of this knowledge than I did.

So you compare members of the community that see the GPL in connection with Orbiter addons as problematic with people that disagree with spherical Earth?? Well, I don't do that, but to each his own.

 

[Urwumpe]

So you compare members of the community that see the GPL in connection with Orbiter addons as problematic with people that disagree with spherical Earth?? Well, I don't do that, but to each his own.

Yeah. I think its exactly the kind of mess we are getting into. It isn't about facts anymore. Its about feeling. They don't experience it as problematic. They regard it as problematic. That's a huge difference. And much worse, I get the impression, the discussion is getting kept alive by a few selected people to fuel the mentioned FUD, which is a purely emotional mechanism. And that possibly intentionally. Just like there are people who argue against a spherical Earth just to be special.

 

[Face]

Yeah. I think its exactly the kind of mess we are getting into. It isn't about facts anymore. Its about feeling. They don't experience it as problematic. They regard it as problematic. That's a huge difference. And much worse, I get the impression, the discussion is getting kept alive by a few selected people to fuel the mentioned FUD, which is a purely emotional mechanism. And that possibly intentionally. Just like there are people who argue against a spherical Earth just to be special.

Indeed you are getting a bit emotional now. The only one constantly trying to wrap the point around is you. But I don't think that you or anybody else is intentionally fueling anything with this discussion. There are just different opinions, and that's it.

 

[Urwumpe]

There are just different opinions, and that's it.

Look, if somebody does not want to use a copyleft license for his own project, its his full right.

But if somebody declares that the licenses of other peoples projects are void, I expect something more solid than a damn feeling. And what should be the consequence of this? No longer open-source development? Close the sources, no group work without NDA? Or should we use a even less restrictive license, so we give up more of our copyright on our work? For a feeling? RLY?

Sure, I am angry about this cooking up again. Sure I feel bad about talking to you there again, because we are usually just microns away in this topic and are both professional enough to know the exact clauses we are talking about.

 

[Face]

Look, if somebody does not want to use a copyleft license for his own project, its his full right.

But if somebody declares that the licenses of other peoples projects are void, I expect something more solid than a damn feeling. And what should be the consequence of this? No longer open-source development? Close the sources, no group work without NDA? Or should we use a even less restrictive license, so we give up more of our copyright on our work? For a feeling? RLY?

Sure, I am angry about this cooking up again. Sure I feel bad about talking to you there again, because we are usually just microns away in this topic and are both professional enough to know the exact clauses we are talking about.

Seeing how only we two are keeping this alive, I think it is best to stop it here. I've elaborated on my point enough already.

 

[jangofett287]

Pulled this into this thread to avoid cluttering oMMu.

Will be with a GPL compatible license, so we could
include it in SSU as well?

I'm curious. Why is it exactly you think that a GPL project can't list a non-GPL project as a dependency?