Free Flight, Free Speech

Hi Jwocky,

A person should not be restricted in his debate. He may even argue theft once (or maybe twice). But when it is repeated at high frequency, it becomes libel, as Thorsten did. Now you have made your argument of Thorstens theft. But we are not ging to repeat it senselessly, turning it into the same libel as Thorsten did, are we?

Kind regards, Vincent

Simply switching from the word "thief" to "illegal" is not a correction to the issue. I also do not want to be associated with an organization that is without any substantiation called illegal.

The issue is not as bad as the "thief" issue yet, so i will not be childish about the reasonably small usage of "illegal". But i do advise the moderation at that other forum to keep a close eye on it, as to not let it expand into the size of the "thief" issue.

Kind regards, Vincent

Thorsten stole from other authors when he took their work and didn't put them in the copyrights file and then, based on his suppression of their author rights, changed the license for the whole package.
But sincde I am not one of those authors, I am not away any works form me was ever copied into the Space Shuttle, it is not a case, I have a legal handle on in any form.

However, since TR and Bugman specifically are crossing more and more in the criminal realm with what they do and not a merely Civilian lawsuit, things like that can be used in a criminal court to establish a pattern of behaviour.
An example: If I would ever be accused in a court of law to have killed Emperor Constantine, my posts with historical comparisons or those about WWI would establish a behavioural pattern that I know history and sometimes love it too much. Which could be used to support a theory I killed Emperor Constantine because I didn't like what he did in his time. Of course, he died May 22, 337 AD, so I have a good alibi, I was only born 1627 years after the fact which makes this a purely academic example. But you see, where this goes.

All I wanted to do was get to the bottom of it..

I couldn't understand how you could steal GPL content if it'd been published.. Thorsten's opinion that it was an internal distribution only didn't quite ring true and the restricting of permissions on GPL content also left me confused.