On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:04:17 +0100, Lee wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:26, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > 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. > > What sort of percentage of people who develop Open Source > software would you guess also have a paid job developing > proprietary or commercial custom software? ..yes, much too high, here we have a litigation trap. > Anyone working on proprietary commercial custom software will be > working, in effect if not explicitly, under an NDA. This > doesn't stop them from working on O/S stuff as well, providing > that the Closed Source stuff isn't fed in to the O/S stuff. ..all it takes to litigate, is money and allegations. > The terms on an NDA could be draconian but then take-up is going > to be low, so a reasonable NDA is going to be more successful. ..agreed, and they are much harder to defend against. > All those people who get paid for s/w development and who also > work on O/S projects seem to get by ok, without too many > conflicts of interest. ..and precisely because everybody are being reasonable. Not good enough for tSCOG vs IBM (chk GrokLaw) in the short term, but IBM can afford shooing Nazgul on them in the short term and will profit from it in the long term. > > > 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. > > You never been paid for making something work? ;) ..that's easy when everybody are reasonable. ;o) Our problem is that's not good enough, only squeaky clean under the GPL, will do. > > > 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. > > They don't have to be keen. ..nor do we. > They've done what _they_ wanted - they just haven't done what _we_ > want. ..we have many more alternatives, and I'm tossing bait on AirVenture too, that's one million people, give or take a few hundred thousand, 10,000 of them fly their own kite there. > > > 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. > > Heh :) COBOL might not be bad at handling comms, now that I > think about it - defining and manipulating record types has > never been so much fun. ..see? ;o) > > > 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. > > ...which brings me back here :) ..no, either GPL, LGPL it, or toss it into the public domain. Any decent business will pay for SW that they want. -- ..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
