On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +0000, Lee wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +0000, Lee wrote in message > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to > > > > non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS > > > > have been done by people who want to ensure that their > > > > work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to > > > > make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial > > > > organisations. Some people also like to include > > > > non-violence conditions. > > > > > > ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the > > > fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other > > > places, I still don't see how any other open or free > > > source code license gives the author more control over his > > > code, also for commercial or military use. > > > > > > ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free > > > to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or > > > Trolltech with Qt. > > > > You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;) Licences are not > > always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit > > for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it > > (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten > > on the bum). > > .. ;o) FUD-meisters like to make that impression
It's not just FUD. If you fail to foresee all the possible ways that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, can specifically permit something that you don't want. It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have accepted conditions in a licence. I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific licence. > > > If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need > > for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work > > (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). > > I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to > > fly - you won't need a licence. All you will need is for me > > to give it to you. > > ..an unlimited license, ok. Who's paper you did fold? ;o) I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:) But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at all. It's just a permission to use. > > > But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set > > fire to it, I won't give it to you. > > ..here we move towards Contract-land. If you print your > license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, > have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper > plane? Also, given my acceptance of your "license", I can > circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your > ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording > your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling. ;o) :) One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with your automobile. If a friend offers to let you use their automobile do you demand a licence before accepting? Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you manage to interpret the licence you demanded? > > > I can see why some people like that way of operating, even > > though I'm personally happy with the GPL. > > > > > > Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the > > > > GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the > > > > lack of control over the work once released under the > > > > license, I can't > > > > > > ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under > > > the GPL. > > > > I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no > > control over what anyone else does with what I've released > > under the GPL. > > ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ > work. Yep. > > > > > criticise the people who don't want to give up that > > > > control. > > > > > > > > Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about > > > > linking to pay-ware either. No one is forcing anyone to > > > > buy anything, so it's take it or leave it. > > > > > > ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other > > > payware licenses, this depends on the license's "small > > > print" language. > > > > > > > I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied > > > > to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and > > > > people can no longer do what they want. > > > > > > ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you > > > wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been > > > given by the original authors, "before you jumped in." > > > Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it > > > as you damned well pleases. Other peoples code can be > > > thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do > > > so, and wise people will tell you "Riiiiiiiiiiight, I'll > > > consider it if you can convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get > > > that into GPLv3." ;-) > > > > The problem I see with it is when people say that something > > _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one > > fancies. If someone decides to release it under an 'open' > > or 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone > > benefits - but if you start saying that it _should_ be so > > licenced then the person actually doing it has no choice and > > you've entered the realm of compulsion. > > ..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad > people to skim off the good stuff _and_ change author credits > _and_ hide it as closed source _and_ charge for it. > > ..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say > "should GPL" and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it > happen. ;-) ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) As I've said, I'm happy to use the GPL for anything I do for FG. However, that's my choice. I'm all for encouraging it's use for FG stuff too but I'm not at all happy with any form of compulsion - that's imposing your will on someone else. ...and there's too much of that already. LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
