On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:26, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the > > context of getting FG working with closed source/proprietary > > software? > > ..usually this is done by idiot stunts like signing away your > rights in contracts such as EULA's or NDA, where that A is a > synonym of the legal term contract, a well known litigation > bait.
What sort of percentage of people who develop Open Source software would you guess also have a paid job developing proprietary or commercial custom software? Anyone working on proprietary commercial custom software will be working, in effect if not explicitly, under an NDA. This doesn't stop them from working on O/S stuff as well, providing that the Closed Source stuff isn't fed in to the O/S stuff. The terms on an NDA could be draconian but then take-up is going to be low, so a reasonable NDA is going to be more successful. All those people who get paid for s/w development and who also work on O/S projects seem to get by ok, without too many conflicts of interest. > > > While I much prefer O/S I'll use whatever software I want > > and don't feel any qualms about using C/S proprietary > > software. > > > > Software is a tool, not a religion and developing software > > isn't about proselytising but making something work. > > ..it is also a multi-billion business for people like > Microsoft and IBM. You never been paid for making something work? ;) > > > I figure that vatsim would be happy to be able to distribute > > a suitable interface client but aren't prepared to finance > > the development of one. > > ..then they are not keen enough. They don't have to be keen. They've done what _they_ wanted - they just haven't done what _we_ want. > > > If I had current C++ skills, instead of obsolete COBOL & > > FORTRAN experience, > > ..who says this interface cannot be done in one of these 2 > lingos? A Cobol or Fortran "white box" would stand out > _prominently_, from the common C 'n C++ code, especially in > court. Heh :) COBOL might not be bad at handling comms, now that I think about it - defining and manipulating record types has never been so much fun. > > > I figure the easiest way to solve this would be to write an > > interface client (a discrete userland prog that could talk > > to their servers but also communicate with FG though it's > > existing IO) under their conditions, and give it to vatsim > > for them to distribute, and if it were taken up and used, > > further maintain. ...which brings me back here :) LeeE _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
