I have to agree with the last 2 options maybe keep a select few to go
with the release. It would make the first time data update more pleasant :).
For the aircraft models, there are 3 not-very-attractive choices:
* Don't say the aircraft are GPL'ed. Models are under any random
On samedi 24 janvier 2009, syd adams wrote:
I have to agree with the last 2 options maybe keep a select few to go
with the release. It would make the first time data update more pleasant
:).
We had it (some years ago) the first time data update more pleasant when
there was a specific
From: Tim Moore [mailto:timo...@redhat.com]
Doubtful.
We can't say that all the models in the repository are covered by the
GPL and
have models in there that are not. This is a terrible trap for anyone
wanting to
use FlightGear in any professional setting.
We should consider why we want
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..no F-g way, they add a restriction beyond the GPL,
toss out all Boeing models and replace them all with
similar Airbus, Tupolev, Antonov, Shin-Meiwa, Harbin,
Dornier, Short etc models. And do it LOUDLY. ;o)
Not true in my opinion, the GPL can't explicitly allow
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Arnt, they are completely within their rights to add that
stipulation. You
can bet all of the other manufacturers will have the same stipulations.
That said, the note/ section is just a reminder to anyone who wants to
make a profit by selling a 'Boeing 747' simulator
On Thursday, 22. January 2009, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Since it appears as though JSBSim will use the product identifiers
(e.g..Boeing 737) in a descriptive manner, and no profit will be derived
from said usage, then we have no objection to inclusion of the product
identifiers on the software.
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
I hope you agree with me that Boeing was very reasonable. I do hope we can
be equally reasonable and fair, and comply with the GPL at the same time.
This will require some creativity and thought.
I won't argue the fairness of their position, but it's simply not
On Thursday, 22. January 2009, Tim Moore wrote:
We can't say that all the models in the repository are covered by the GPL
and have models in there that are not. This is a terrible trap for anyone
wanting to use FlightGear in any professional setting.
Please do not confuse the software license
* Tim Moore -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
* Don't say the aircraft are GPL'ed. Models are under any random license;
seller beware. Yuck.
* Rip out the non-GPLed models.
* Create GPL'ed and other aircraft repositories.
Or, as has been suggested before, do actually remove all occurrences
of the
Or, as has been suggested before, do actually remove all occurrences
of the name Boeing and use a substitute:
Bingo737
m.
Boing 314?
:-)
Actually, David Slocombe had a good suggestion earlier. I'll formulate a
letter to the Software Freedom Law Center and ask them for guidance.
Jon
* Jon S. Berndt -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
Bingo737
Boing 314?
That wouldn't work. It's too similar, as probably any court
will find.
Actually, David Slocombe had a good suggestion earlier. I'll
formulate a letter to the Software Freedom Law Center and ask
them for guidance.
The
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:26:02 -0600, Jon wrote in message
003901c97c38$c8d5fe10$5a81fa...@net:
However, if a situation
arises in which the aircraft models are to be sold for a profit,
please contact us to discuss implementation of a Trademark License
Agreement for the sale of consumer
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:37:39 +0100, Erik wrote in message
49783053.7020...@ehofman.com:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..no F-g way, they add a restriction beyond the GPL,
toss out all Boeing models and replace them all with
similar Airbus, Tupolev, Antonov, Shin-Meiwa, Harbin,
Dornier, Short
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:42:30 +0100, Erik wrote in message
49783176.9020...@ehofman.com:
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Arnt, they are completely within their rights to add that
stipulation. You
can bet all of the other manufacturers will have the same
stipulations.
That said, the note/
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:43:22 +0100, Melchior wrote in message
200901221243.23...@rk-nord.at:
* Jon S. Berndt -- Thursday 22 January 2009:
Bingo737
Boing 314?
That wouldn't work. It's too similar, as probably any court
will find.
Actually, David Slocombe had a good
Ah sorry, that slipped my attention, you are right.
I'll ask Jon about it.
Erik
We should discuss this, then, because the impacts may be more far reaching.
I asked the Boeing licensing people some time ago about our flight models.
They were OK with us creating models, but were not OK with
I came up with the following for the F-16 file:
note
This model was created using data that is, or has been, publically
available by means of technical reports, textbooks, image graphs or
published code. This aircraft description file is in no way related
to the manufacturer of the real
* Erik Hofman -- Wednesday 21 January 2009:
Neither the name of (any of) the authors nor the names of (any of) the
manufacturers may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this file.
Maybe it should be made clear that this part is not an addition
to the license -- not
On mercredi 21 janvier 2009, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
Ah sorry, that slipped my attention, you are right.
I'll ask Jon about it.
Erik
We should discuss this, then, because the impacts may be more far reaching.
I asked the Boeing licensing people some time ago about our flight models.
They
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
* Erik Hofman -- Wednesday 21 January 2009:
Neither the name of (any of) the authors nor the names of (any of) the
manufacturers may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this file.
Maybe it should be made clear that this part is not an addition
gerard robin wrote:
These addons won't be a restriction only an information.
True.
Erik
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
.My interpretation of that is.
We must clearly acknowledge and protect their right to their trade
marks. Boeing is the registered trade mark of..
Beyond that, in the only case of another company's IP that I have had to
deal with, having had a 'sort of' go-ahead I sent them back a
We may go on to keep our model and our code protected under GPL
license.
Only an information regarding the copyright for such private Name:
Boeing..Lockheed.. and so on could be necessary.
These addons won't be a restriction only an information.
Cheers
To be absolutely clear, here
Why agonize over this, where obviously no one on this list is expert.
Instead, why not write to h...@softwarefreedom.org or
connect to #sflc on irc.freenode.net and ask the lawyers who offer
the needed advice for free. See:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/ (Software Freedom Law Center)
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:21:50 -0600, Jon wrote in message
003501c97c27$6d008850$470198...@net:
We may go on to keep our model and our code protected under GPL
license.
Only an information regarding the copyright for such private Name:
Boeing..Lockheed.. and so on could be necessary.
However, if a situation
arises in which the aircraft models are to be sold for a profit,
please contact us to discuss implementation of a Trademark License
Agreement for the sale of consumer products.
..no F-g way, they add a restriction beyond the GPL,
toss out all Boeing models and
26 matches
Mail list logo
