On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:52:50 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:11:27 +0100, Jonathan wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> 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?
>
>..inline with this, you oughtta be possible to rip out the secret
>military parameters, put in new ones from, say, a Taylor Cub,
>and then show this to your military client and get your code
>approved as licenseable under the GPL.
I take it you're not familiar with this sort of working
environment. Depending on the exact setup the code could belong
to the German Gvt, the parameters classified by the same and
also commercially confidential and portions of the HUD symbology
generation code licensed from a third party. It may not be
simply a case of performance parameters being classified but
also operating modes and data feeds.
Note that Jorge had to write the 'plugin' code in his own time
on his own machine. That implies his contract of employment may
be less draconian than my own where any code I write that is
related to my work is automatically owned by my employer (unless
I get specific written clearance). Even under Jorges conditions
in order to removed 'offending items and data' he would have to
work at home on his own machine - that means taking classified
information home, something his employer is unlikely to allow.
In the sort of environment that Jorge seems to be working in the
presumption is against release of _anything_. You have to prove
to several different bodies that what you are releasing is
'clean' and get it all signed off - and those doing the signing
have to have a good reason for spending their time on the work.
>From where I sit my view is that Jorge would be best served by
working with what he has now whilst FG decides if the patch is
worth incorporating. If its not worth / not consistent with the
GPL to incorporate the code then could a 'non-infringing' path
to the same object be built? If so then I think Jorge should be
assisted in getting it implemented - surely his won't be the
only case where an external project will want to feed data back
in this, or a similar, way?
Rick
--
Help the Waterway Recovery Group to help restore the Uks canal network
Make a donation to the 'Right Tool' Appeal
http://www.wrg.org.uk/cgi-bin/fmaker.pl?appeal.htm
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
