Some potential pitfalls. Who 'is' the flightgear project? Is it the leadership? Is it everyone by consensus? What if the project splits? What if you as an individual does not agree with the project leadership? You have lost your rights.
Taking the case of flight sim pro as an example. By saying that 'the great simulator is built from flight gear' (which it does) - then although peope have been up in arms, the flight sim pro guys fulfil the requirement of promoting flight gear hence have access to all of the images on flight gear. Again, as a user you have given up rights and enshrined a subjective phrase in the triggers to permit use. To block the use of the images, you have then add 'explicit permission', then who gives explicit permission? What about if someone creates a fully compliant fork? Does the project licenses fork as well? Since there is no 'legal entity' called flightgear, what 'owns' the license and copyright? Flightsimpro is just a fork of flightgear by the GPL (with no value add at this stage), so where does that sit (considering it triggered the discussion). There are many rights you gain and lose with licensing. Occam's Razor applies. Keep it simple, keep it aligned to legal entities. Images are (more or less) indivisible, keep the license in the of the creator. Code is intermixed and an aggregate of many creators - use a common license. It is a *very* slippery slope that you have to go down to close all the loopholes. If any on the list have been through license negotations, the ones that are costly and mostly leave you unsatisfied are the ones with caveats and try to prevent an explicit past event. Nuff said from here, hope you guys make the right decision now, but also that decision still makes sense in another 12 months when there is a different pressure placed on the decison. Regards... Matthew On 11/24/08, Ron Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IANAL, > > I have to agree with Melchior. The project should insist on a single > license for the screenshots. > > I also agree with the basic aims of the suggested wiki license and offer > the following suggestions: > > *** First *** > The bullet: > - The creator grants the FlightGear project a revokable and > non-exclusive copyright, which permits the project: > > Should read: > - The creator grants the FlightGear project a non-revocable, perpetual > and non-exclusive copyright license, which permits the project: > > The submitter should not be able revoke the copyright license once > granted. This is the same concept as the GPL. The project should not > have to track down and destroy all copies of an image if a submitter > becomes disgruntled. Once an image is shared under this license grant > is should stay shared. > > *** Second *** > 1. to use the screenshot in documentation and promotion of the > FlightGear simulator, including the display on the FlightGear > website and all authorized mirrors (including mirrors which are > translated to other languages and may include additional services > like forums), > > I suggest we either drop the word "authorized" from mirrors, or provide > an expansive definition of the word "authorized" to make it an op-out > authorization instead of an opt-in. That is, all mirrors are authorized > unless explicitly unauthorized. > > Thanks, > Ron > > On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 21:02 -0500, Matthew Tippett wrote: >> I am suggesting nothing more complex than a requirement for the >> description to include a license. No license information - no upload. >> Forcing a single license for something that is individual and clearly >> divisble is way too coarse. >> >> There should be no maintenance of the flightgear project's side. The >> issue with a catch-all license is that for someone to do what they >> want means they need to create an explict exclusion. >> >> Please ensure that you have worked through a few scenarios, the >> project effort to relicense after a mass-licensing is way higher than >> requesting all users determine what license they want - leaving the >> remainder to be relicensed if and only if they want to give it up all >> rights to the project. >> >> Regards... Matthew >> >> >> On 11/24/08, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > * Matthew Tippett -- Tuesday 25 November 2008: >> >> I would suggest *NOT* making flightgear responsible for managing the >> >> licenses on the images in the gallery. >> > >> > But that's exactly what you suggest: that everyone chooses his >> > favorite license, and the project therefore has to manage all that >> > and keep track of the load of licences. That's a lof of work with >> > no gain. Simplicity rules. Yes, better just one license. And that's >> > what the suggestion on the wiki was for. >> > >> > m. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Sent from my mobile device ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
