Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: > We already have an external HUD code. Actually, it is quite large, > [...] and more importantly it can't be distributed. At all.
That was my fear. Opinions differ (widely!) on this point. But in general, adding a dynamic loading API to a free software project for the sole purpose of interfacing to non-free software is not considered to be within the spirit of the GPL. > Therefore, I'm doing the best I can (that is, mixing my hobbies and > my work, and working at home) in order to make flightgear benefit > from this. I don't want to start a flame war here, but it's not clear to me that the FlightGear community would receive any benefit from having an interface layer to software it cannot use. The standard GNU/FSF argument is that, by enabling and protecting proprietary development (of HUD modules, in this case), it would in fact discourage free software contributions. You are right, of course, that you are under no obligation to distribute your internally-developed modifications to FlightGear. The GPL only requires that *if* you distribute them, you do so under the same license. Accepting this interface layer as part of FlightGear would have the effect of removing that restriction. I do not mean to seem ungrateful, but I'm not sure that's in the community's best interest. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
