Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote: > The GPL requirements are in no way removed, of course.
OK, excellent. My fear was that your management/team was afraid the GPL, and you were trying to sell them on this patch as a way to "get around" it. But do be aware that this stuff is complicated. An FSF interpretation of their license in a FAQ is not itself a license. There are many examples of dynamic linkage between GPL and proprietary code that are not generally interpreted as violations (binary linux kernel drivers, for example). We would need to be very careful to explain that this mechanism is *not* a exemption to our license. So I would still argue against this patch simply because it confuses the issue of license requirements. But it's good to know that at least we all interpret the license the same way. > Now that I have made the patch, it can be made available for > everyone to use, but I don't think I will do that anyway. I'm just > trying to show you why I find it odd to see you reject my patch. > > [...] we would have spent a *lot* of money on a new visualization > system. I'd rather try and put that money to better use. Maybe try > to make FlightGear profit by this later on. This part still has me confused. No offense, but your patch as submitted doesn't do anything but add code to the already complicated HUD implementation. Even if Curt applied it, there is no way a user could tell that it was there. It is a "feature" only for people who (1) cannot or do not want to contribute code to the project and (2) want to distribute binary HUD rendering modules. As far as I can see, that group has a population of zero. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
