On Friday 09 Apr 2004 6:46 am, Jorge Van Hemelryck wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 04:37:30 +0200
>
> Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > ..you wrote it, rip it apart and see if _some_ things _can_ be GPL'ed.
>
> Actually, I didn't write the HUD code. This code already existed when I
> started working on the project.
<snip>
> You might not be familiar with the confidentiality issues I'm talking
> about. The HUD definition is industrial property, and it's also
> protected and considered confidential by the government. There's very
> little I can do about it, maybe it can change when the simulated
> aircraft are retired from service.
>
I've been reading this thread with interest. You'll tell me if I'm wrong,
JvH, but I believe the situation is that the HUD code (i) contains
information which is proprietary ("industrial property") and (ii) attracts an
[inter]national security protective marking, i.e. in loose journalistic terms
it's a military secret. I can see several reasons why the latter should be
the case if the HUD code tells you about the capabilities and performance of
an in-service military aircraft. What this implies is that the HUD code is
very specific to a particular aircraft, and hasn't been written so that the
SECRET bits are parameterised. Yesterday, you wrote '... we can't distribute
... even the symbol definitions' which I find intriguing; when I last had
access to information in this area, the symbology was the subject of
unclassified NATO definitions. Have you got a foo fighter underground
somewhere? Seriously, in my experience it is the *performance
characteristics* of military equipment that are secrets - if the aircraft is
in service there will be an entry for it in Jane's! Is the information which
makes the HUD classified so embedded that it can't be extracted?
Regards
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
