On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 07:54:10 +0200, Jorge wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:50:44 -0700 > Andy Ross wrote: > > > 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. > > Two things : > > - With all my good will, it still would not be possible to release the > code. It's not just that it is proprietary. This is a minor issue, > because actually it's even protected by confidentiality (it's a > military simulator). I love this simulator, and I strongly support > free software whenever I can, at work and at home. Some times I just > can't do what I would like to do. Are you telling me that you wish to > make it difficult for some people to use FlightGear ? That would be a > pity. Actually, my own problem at work is now solved, I just wanted to > submit my work (done outside working hours) to the community. I knew > that some people would react like you did, that is why I developed the > functionality on my own. Is it not possible to just include my work > (with some improvements such as conditional compilation of the > functionality) with the distribution of FlightGear ? It would make my > task of making people accept FlightGear here easier... ..you wrote it, rip it apart and see if _some_ things _can_ be GPL'ed. ..on selling the GPL to your military client, tell them about NSA's security patch, nukes etc. An educational challenge, especially when they come from a Wintendo and government background. I did it with my isp client, for bandwidth control on their wifi backbone, they use my http://fmb.no/ipcop/setup-cbq-0.0.5.tar.bz2 . ;-) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
