Melchior FRANZ wrote: > I'm (still) against binary runtime modules for FlightGear. > I'm more curious as to whether we need them.
The entire guts of FlightGear are available to almost anyone via external communications (e.g. sockets) and Nasal. Why not write a communications script or Nasal script that exposes the data required for your add-on over a socket, and use a similar tool at the add-on end? There is no license that will ever state that any application that *communicates* with it (whether it be a TCP socket, file, or Unix socket) needs to adhere to that license as well, since that would pretty much be the ultimate enforcement of copyleft. Simply put, the mechanics for doing this with FlightGear are already in place, you only need to take a slight detour over a communications link. This has its advantages too, such as added security (no possible code injection) and inherent networkability. Downside is that it takes a little more brain-food to make it work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
