On 25/10/09 23:33, Detlef Faber wrote: > Rather than shouting down his well intended move I would expect some > Suggestings how to deal with this appropriately. > > So don't come up with a "Stop contributing if you don't like it" > solution. I'm sure there are alternatives. >
I am not FG developer, but I am a developer of other open source stuff in my time (BSD and GPL both), I say the following on that basis. I also say the following only considering only the distribution of FlightGear (renamed or not) here, not the copyright violations on screenshots/videos, that's a different issue. FACT 1: FlightGear is GPL, the GPL permits the actions of ProFlightSim or whatever they call themselves today, and any other person or organisation who wishes in future to do the same. Provided they follow all the clauses of the GPL. This can not be argued. FACT 2: It is not permitted for FlightGear to introduce restrictions further than the GPL if they are to continue to use the GPL. I make no comment at this juncture if the recent commit could be viewed as such. FACT 3: Developers of FlightGear are well aware that the contributions they make are distributed under the GPL. If the developers contribute to FlightGear, they must accept that this is the case and accept that actions following the GPL be permitted in perpetuity. FACT 4: If developers are now unhappy that ProFlightSim (and others?) are distributing the present FlightGear in the manner in which they are doing so, well it's unfortunate but there is nothing that can be done. The "cat is out of the bag", the code has been distributed, it's under the GPL, you can't retrospectively "pull" it back, that's WHY the GPL is there to ensure that what is free remains free (libre not gratis). FlightGear as it is today will always be "out there" and it will always be under GPL and will always be able to be redistributed and "rebranded" in this manner. THEREFORE: Going forward there is only two solutions for developers who find this distribution of GPL software to be unacceptable; a) Stop contributing to FlightGear, or; b) FlightGear as a whole adopts a new license which prohibits all the actions that the developers decide they do not like. Neither "solution" applies retrospectively, what's out is out, see FACT 4. MY OPINION: The recent commit probably doesn't cause any GPL violation. However it is distasteful. It goes against the spirit of the GPL to introduce "countermeasures" to attempt to discourage a specific manner in which the GPL is being utilised, you are attempting to discourage partaking in one of the freedoms that the GPL gives. It's like saying "this is under the GPL, but we're going to do everything we can to stop you using this bit of the GPL because we don't like it". If that is the case, then ditch the GPL and go with something you like better, but don't try and circumvent the GPL, I believe it is simply disrespectful of the GPL to do so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
