On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:39:40 -0500, Curtis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Martin Spott wrote: > > >Ok, in theory having a closed source interface _might_ serve the > >licensing issues, _but_: > > - Who likes to have to use a closed source module in order to > > connect their OpenSource flight simulation to VATSIM ? > > > > Does the bridge module between flightgear and vatsim need to be closed > source? Or just non-GPL? My assumption is that all the closed source > vatsim magic happens in a proprietary library? ..this is the story we are being told, AFAIUI. > We would link our application to this library. Am I wrong on this? > Our application may not then be licensable under the gpl, but we could > still make our portion of the code open and available. ..only one problem: Would any of us need to sign their NDA and risk litigation? They may be nice now, but bad guys can easily grind them flat in court, to get at us. At Groklaw, we have seen at least 2 Canopy people die in suspect "suicidings", I'm guessing because they learned something important. Just how powerful the GPL and copyright law is, is best shown in how the GPL moots such "suicide" schemes for people like us, Samba.org, Red Hat, IBM, who all hides under the GPL. > > - More important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to maintain > > a closed source module, compile it at least for half a dozend > > different platforms and play the lonesome cowboy to whom bug > > reports will be adressed - without having any chance to share the > > load with someone else ? ..maybe Vatsim staff? If they hire somebody to write it under the GPL, they will own it too, and get "street" credibility here, talk is cheap, but action talks loud. Either way. > Hmmm, this is dependent on the answer to your first point. Does the > vatsim app have to be closed source, or is the vatsim app that > we/someone creates simply an app that has to link to a non-gpl, > proprietary library? ..neither. Let's go dance the good old proven Samba way. > > - Most important, who of the OpenSource developers likes to take the > > risk of getting sued for license infringement because VATSIM > > might claim he could have transferred source code from the closed > > source interface to FlightGear ? > > Well I think it's clear that the vatsim folks are more than happy to ..sure. Let's make it beneficial for both parties. > work with us if we are willing to meet them on their terms. ..these are negotiable. Let's see if we can talk them into GPL it all, both Red Hat and IBM makes good money on their GPL business. ..I see _no_ reason why Vatsim, the X-plane guys etc should'nt be able to do likewise. > If we develop a friendly cooperative relationship with them instead of > an adversarial relationship, and if we follow their procedures and > guidelines, why would there be a risk of being sued? ..in the ideal world, there isn't. IRL, there is, and the easiest way to get at us (FG), is thru allegations of "IP" infringement, and the best way is thru people like Vatsim, who are _much_ easier to screw by litigation or by buying their debts and hike their loan etc expenses up really high, etc, "if they don't wanna play ballmer games." ..you basically needs to be Microsoft, the SCO Group or North Korea to not be able to profit from the GPL. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
