Re: [Flightgear-devel] license

[Martin S. <Mar...@mg...>]

Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote:

>> It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text.
>> One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear
>> Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says:
>>
>>   "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute
>>   the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this
>>   one."
>>
>>
>> ....  whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently
>> "similar", despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much
>> different.

> IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The attribution clause 
> is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which is a horrible idea on 
> multiple levels. 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

This GNU article is biased like hell and they're completely suppressing
the well-founded reason for the clause they're agitating against. 
Therefore it doesn't help much to develop a balanced representation of
the topic you/we are talking about.

> And has been pointed out, selling of flightgear does have a legitimate place.

Aside from the above, CC BY-SA 2.0 (as well as BSD, of course) allow
commercial use.  They just require you to put the proper license tag
onto the box (as does the GPL).  The issue wrt. 'mixing' CC BY-SA 2.0
and GPL, for example, is the particular phrasing in the different
licenses, which is incompatible.

Cheers,
	Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------