Search results

This is not true. FSF has no say in your distribution of anything that's not theirs, and even if you DID incorporate FSF's code in your GPL orbiter addon, you are not in violation of the GPL unless you are distributing your addon together with Orbiter. The "linking" that FSF opposes does not...

Doing it in plain English by the usual means is fine. You could put a file at the top level saying "The code is GPL V3, everything else is CC-BY-SA" and that will do. You could put license statements at the top of each file. You could put a file in each directory with the license for that...

Yeah, this is what confused everyone (including me) in the beginning, and had me panic about the idea of having to relicense NASSP. It isn't mentioned because it's taken care of higher up, in the list of what the GPL covers. From the GPL itself: So unless you are engaged in copying...

Yes. The only time you have to make an exception to the GPL is if you wish to allow people to make a copy, modification, or distribution that would otherwise not be permitted. It is never necessary to modify the GPL to permit an end-user to do something, as the GPL does not restrict any...

What does this even mean? NASSP is our work. We can release it under whatever license we like. It's none of "the community"'s business. It's been GPL v2 for almost ten years now and nobody has breathed a word of complaint until this week. Now all of a sudden we are attacking the community and...

It doesn't matter how many people are wrong, they're still wrong.

Let me try again. Remember that the Orbiter exception only covers distributing your addon together with Orbiter. Usage does not come into play. If NASSP had an Orbiter exception, it can use only GPLed code that has an Orbiter exception. This is because I don't have the right to apply the...

Oh, I got it backwards. I can't take GPL code into a GPL+exception project because I don't have the right to relicense the GPL code to GPL+exception. The exception would only apply to my code, I can't apply it to the other party's code.

Yes. A linking exception is GPL-incompatible. NASSP is vanilla GPL v2 Or Later. We use other GPLed software, one with an Orbiter exception (yaAGC) and at least one without (the excel file reader). In our case the Orbiter exception would make us unable to use other GPLed software unless we got...

Right. In this case, it is the addon developer making the GPL release who violates the license on the code s/he got with the SDK. The GPL release is irrelevant, it was the SDK example license that was violated.

Whoever does, you have my sincerest condolences.

The GPL is fine. The "current practices" (they sure as hell aren't MY practices) are not. OR if the code you are using is under a GPL-compatible license. If something is GPL or LGPL, I don't have to have explicit permission. Such a license would be very dangerous; Implied consent in and of...

Right. You have to GPL the whole package. If you cannot GPL a part of it, you cannot GPL it. This does not mean that your code goes into the public domain, or that the GPL is suddenly invalid, it just does not apply. Your work goes back to the default "all rights reserved". In the case you...

This is because Doc Martin does not grant permission to use the samples in this manner, not because of the GPL. There is no license that will make taking Doc Martin's "All Rights Reserved" example source code and releasing it OK. The GPL has no bearing on this. What they are doing is illegal no...

How exactly did I say nobody would sue? I understand English is not your first language but this is an absurd way to read it. (I could argue that this makes you unqualified to interpret an English legal document to us, but that would be unfair.) Unauthorized use is unauthorized use. There is no...

No. Read it again. The case you cite is whether or not NON-GPL code containing GPL code becomes "virally" subject to the GPL. Again, this has NOTHING to do with whether or not a third-party copyright holder can sue Orbiter users for using a GPLed addon. This is not true, nothing in the GPL...

Not at all relevant to this scenario either. The case being argued revolves around whether or not tainting a closed-source program with GPL code causes the entire program to be "virally" infected with the GPL. This has no bearing on whether or not a third-party copyright holder can sue Orbiter...

Are you going to pay for the consultation? Last time I required FSF's legal opinion it was $10,000 USD per incident. (We ended up having our own lawyer answer the question simply because it was cheaper.)

The words "The act of running the Program is not restricted" in the GPL mean that even if you have such a default usage restriction the GPL just overrode it. Default protections are a non-issue. You're grinding your axe so hard there's not much axe left.

Not. Freaking. True. Stop saying this. It is wrong. The GPL does not cover usage. It is not a usage license. Unless you have a separate usage license for your GPL project, there is no usage license. Usage is free. You cannot violate the GPL by using software. Full stop, end of sentence. This...