Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
Oliver wrote: But what about nasal script code in a xml file that is written from scratch but makes use of flightgear's nasal implementation? That should rise no problems, just as PHP and java scripts don't inherit the interpreters license. Erik -- http://www.ehtw.info (Dutch)Future of Enschede Airport Twente http://www.ehofman.com/fgfs FlightGear Flight Simulator ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
Mathias Fröhlich wrote: From my point of view that is the same with gcc. The compiler is GPL, but the programs compiled with gcc do not need to be gpl. The runtime libraries used by gcc compiled codes is a little less than LGPL. I think that you can do properitary aircraft with flightgear. The only restriction could be that no GPL configuration files are referenced. I think of standard electrical systems for example. If the 'larger system' provider does modifications to flightgears sources he must publish the sources with his modifications. We are then free to incorporate them into our tree. I am not aware of any possible claims from third party libs like zlib ... Agreed 100%. Erik -- http://www.ehtw.info (Dutch)Future of Enschede Airport Twente http://www.ehofman.com/fgfs FlightGear Flight Simulator ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there. Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within the FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger system that includes FlightGear + that aircraft. In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our source code, but not content created with or used by that code (except for things like the base package which is explicitely licensed as GPL.) Is it possible that someone could lay claim to any newly created proprietary content (3d models, artwork, panels, etc.) by way of the GPL? Even if FlightGear is happy to allow people to create proprietary aircraft, could someone upstream in plib or zlib or openal land somehow file a complaint? To me this is analogous to Microsoft demanding all documents created and owned by a company just because they created and edited them with Microsoft Word. I just don't see that ever happening. But I wonder what others think about this issue from a legal point of view. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Curtis L. Olson schrieb: Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there. INAL but your case looks to me like that that person wants to use FGFS just as an (complex) viewer/interpreter program for his proprietary content(*). This happens all the time with Notepad, Word, Perl, Python, ... and nobody complains - because they can't IMHO. CU, Christian (*) I'm assuming that the proprietary aircraft doesn't derive of any preexisting material (like textures) in FGFS. This might become complex with the cofiguration XML files as they must be written from scratch IMHO. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEhb/mlhWtxOxWNFcRAnrzAKCAWdawZ2712mrlLH31MLWTC36xKwCeNZyZ 8ku0uOQ9z0/cmYdpGHontNo= =2ukc -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 18:52, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there. Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within the FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger system that includes FlightGear + that aircraft. In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our source code, but not content created with or used by that code (except for things like the base package which is explicitely licensed as GPL.) Is it possible that someone could lay claim to any newly created proprietary content (3d models, artwork, panels, etc.) by way of the GPL? Even if FlightGear is happy to allow people to create proprietary aircraft, could someone upstream in plib or zlib or openal land somehow file a complaint? To me this is analogous to Microsoft demanding all documents created and owned by a company just because they created and edited them with Microsoft Word. I just don't see that ever happening. But I wonder what others think about this issue from a legal point of view. From my point of view that is the same with gcc. The compiler is GPL, but the programs compiled with gcc do not need to be gpl. The runtime libraries used by gcc compiled codes is a little less than LGPL. I think that you can do properitary aircraft with flightgear. The only restriction could be that no GPL configuration files are referenced. I think of standard electrical systems for example. If the 'larger system' provider does modifications to flightgears sources he must publish the sources with his modifications. We are then free to incorporate them into our tree. I am not aware of any possible claims from third party libs like zlib ... Greetings Mathias -- Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
Am Dienstag, den 06.06.2006, 19:48 +0200 schrieb Christian Mayer: (*) I'm assuming that the proprietary aircraft doesn't derive of any preexisting material (like textures) in FGFS. This might become complex with the cofiguration XML files as they must be written from scratch IMHO. But what about nasal script code in a xml file that is written from scratch but makes use of flightgear's nasal implementation? Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our source code, but not content created with or used by that code (except for things like the base package which is explicitely licensed as GPL.) In my mind, that is one reason why the approach taken by FlightGear and associated projects lke JSBSim and YASim, etc. are so valuable: because they provide a generic capability, and sensitive information provided in configuration files (flight model, 3D models, etc.) can be owned and controlled. I think it is exactly analogous to your illustration: Microsoft does not own any documents created by Microsoft Word, or Publisher, for instance. Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oliver schrieb: Am Dienstag, den 06.06.2006, 19:48 +0200 schrieb Christian Mayer: (*) I'm assuming that the proprietary aircraft doesn't derive of any preexisting material (like textures) in FGFS. This might become complex with the cofiguration XML files as they must be written from scratch IMHO. But what about nasal script code in a xml file that is written from scratch but makes use of flightgear's nasal implementation? That's IMHO no problem - it doesn't matter if I've got a Perl/Python/... script or a Nasal script. CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEhc63lhWtxOxWNFcRAv+FAJ46UBmkO7HBY/aO/gTnkv5q56qpngCfQVSF sdM3jkxMnw+MJPnia8NVAFs= =lmjT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
Have to check the gpl. Most address the issue of expansion of the code. On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 2:02 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there. Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within the FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger system that includes FlightGear + that aircraft. In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our source code, but not content created with or used by that code (except for things like the base package which is explicitely licensed as GPL.) Is it possible that someone could lay claim to any newly created proprietary content (3d models, artwork, panels, etc.) by way of the GPL? Even if FlightGear is happy to allow people to create proprietary aircraft, could someone upstream in plib or zlib or openal land somehow file a complaint? To me this is analogous to Microsoft demanding all documents created and owned by a company just because they created and edited them with Microsoft Word. I just don't see that ever happening. But I wonder what others think about this issue from a legal point of view. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Bush's family and their Saudi partners make higher profits by preventing Saddam's huge Iraqi oil reserves from ever being sold. They'll Enron the world - George Watson 2001 For Hurricanes www.globalboiling.com For solar wind and earthquakes www.electricquakes.com Typos caused by two inch mobile phone keyboard ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] GPL licensing question.
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 17:52, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there. Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within the FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger system that includes FlightGear + that aircraft. In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our source code, but not content created with or used by that code (except for things like the base package which is explicitely licensed as GPL.) Is it possible that someone could lay claim to any newly created proprietary content (3d models, artwork, panels, etc.) by way of the GPL? Even if FlightGear is happy to allow people to create proprietary aircraft, could someone upstream in plib or zlib or openal land somehow file a complaint? To me this is analogous to Microsoft demanding all documents created and owned by a company just because they created and edited them with Microsoft Word. I just don't see that ever happening. But I wonder what others think about this issue from a legal point of view. Thanks, Curt. I don't think we need to worry about the source code aspects of GPL in FG - that's fairly straight forward and well understood. It's the situation regarding the GPL'd data that seems a lot less clearer and is causing the most uncertainty. The GPL'd data that comes with FG can be separated in to two areas, broadly defined as artwork and configuration. Now, if someone were to take an aircraft or a building etc model, or a texture and then modify it, it would still be covered by the GPL because it would clearly be a derived work. However, the configuration files are how FG is instructed to work and so can't be GPL'd, even if proprietary configuration files are derived from ones already in FG. Basically, if you want to do the same thing in a proprietary regime as something that has already been done in GPL'd FG, the files will, and in fact _must_ have similar content. I'm not sure exactly how nasal should be treated though. Each script qualifies as a program and would therefore seem to belong with the source code but in fact, nasal use within FG is used as another way of controlling FG - just consider a simple script to toggle a property and how insisting that it is GPL'd would prevent any proprietary use of similar code, which seems nonsensical. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
