On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:46:21 +0100 Rick Ansell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:52:50 +0200, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >..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. I couldn't have expressed myself better. It's just a situation where I cannot control everything, although I'm trying to make things move over here. Believe me, I'm doing the best I can to support free software. > 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. Quite right. Although I don't think anything this clear has been mentioned anywhere in my contract. My main task is not as a programmer. And I certainly can't allow any confidential data to get throught. That is why I'm refraining (and having a hard time doing so) from contributing a model of the aircraft I'm working on to FlightGear. It really is a pity. And if I did one for my own use at home, I would use data found on the internet. > 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. And you can be pretty sure that they will not agree. And sadly, I can understand. > >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? Thanks for trying to support me. I'm open to suggestions, although I have been doing some thinking on my own without success. And lately, what I've been looking for is a way in which the new functionality would have a real use for free software. In what way can it be seen as a useful plugin mechanism ? Whatever comes out of this, tanks to everyone for at least accepting to discuss the matter. I'll try and submit cleaner, "more free" code in the future... -- Jorge Van Hemelryck _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
