On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:53:25 -0500, Shad wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Tim Moore wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Shad Young wrote: > > > >> Chris Metzler wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:14:06 -0500 > >>> Shad Young wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> (even MSFS has a large open source > >>>> base), > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Just curious what you're referring to here? I have no doubt that there > >>> is open source/free software stuff out there relating to MSFS, but I dunno > >>> what it is; so I'm curious. What kind of open source/free software stuff > >>> has been done for MSFS? I did some quick googles, but couldn't find > >>> anything. > >>> > >>> > > ... > > > >> http://www.freeflightdesign.com/ > >> > >> > > > > Quoted from that web site: > > "Please note that all source files have been made available with the > > permission of the > > original author. They are not to be uploaded to any other web site without > > the expressed > > permission of the author and/or Freeflight Design Shop." > > > > "NOTICE: By downloading any files available from this site you are hereby > > acknowledging > > agreement to properly credit the original designer(s) for their efforts > > should you > > release any reworks and/or paint-ups of these files. In addition, you agree > > not to sell, > > package for sale, or distribute any files found at this site, or > > alterations thereof, > > for profit." > > > > This is pretty representative of the terms I've seen for free MSFS add-ons. > > It is not > > "open-source" or "free source" according to commonly understood definitions > > of those > > words. > > > > My sincere apologies. It was not my intent to offend. > > Shad ..while Robert Black wins his bet on you not offending anyone, you might lose your bet, those "freebee" MSFS add-on license terms _not_ allowing "for profit", are _not_ compatible with FlightGear's GPL, which explicitly allows "for profit". ..you can get around this license term conflict by writing each author and ask each for "dual licencing" (and I would suggest the GPLv3), but I am fairly certain I could put money on Microsoft having locked them into a "MSFS EULA + freebee EULA only" scheme, Microsoft has played these litigation tricks for at least the last 20 years, and you might wanna check out http://groklaw.net/ , it covers just about a few billions worth of Microsoft-by-proxy litigation over the last few years. ..people often start out ready to join al-Qaida, then calm down to certainty with some frustration on the glacial lack of speed, then you start enjoying the show. ..I used to compare Groklaw and litigation, to AirVenture and air shows. I ate that dog a few months back, it's more like AirVenture and paper planes. ;o) Both places are about the finest artistic, litigation _can_ be and _is_ done for kicks, just like aerobatics, it's just a different kinda acrobatics. ;o) ..you mentioned earlier your client did not want linux installed on his machines, would running FG from a Ubuntu-style Live CD or usb key or off a boot server, leaving the installed "OS" untouched, be acceptable? ..on older hardware, you might wanna fetch the CD iso image with the original "OS" and then boot it any of the above ways and then run FG from the iso image without ever writing to any NTFS disk, and even that (doing writes to NTFS) is fairly safe now. -- ..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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
