On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in the > context of getting FG working with closed source/proprietary > software? ..usually this is done by idiot stunts like signing away your rights in contracts such as EULA's or NDA, where that A is a synonym of the legal term contract, a well known litigation bait. > While I much prefer O/S I'll use whatever software I want and > don't feel any qualms about using C/S proprietary software. > > Software is a tool, not a religion and developing software isn't > about proselytising but making something work. ..it is also a multi-billion business for people like Microsoft and IBM. > I figure that vatsim would be happy to be able to distribute a > suitable interface client but aren't prepared to finance the > development of one. ..then they are not keen enough. > If I had current C++ skills, instead of obsolete COBOL & FORTRAN > experience, ..who says this interface cannot be done in one of these 2 lingos? A Cobol or Fortran "white box" would stand out _prominently_, from the common C 'n C++ code, especially in court. > I figure the easiest way to solve this would be to write an interface > client (a discrete userland prog that could talk to their servers but > also communicate with FG though it's existing IO) under their > conditions, and give it to vatsim for them to distribute, and if > it were taken up and used, further maintain. -- ..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 Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
