On Jan 25, 2008 1:16 PM, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:51:55 +1100, George wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Jan 23, 2008 4:38 AM, Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > * Stuart Buchanan -- Tuesday 22 January 2008:
> > > > If not, I wonder whether I should just move them to somewhere
> > > > less prominent in the wiki with a disclaimer, as they are
> > > > currently more prominent than they deserve to be, IMHO.
> > >
> > > Good idea. I see all the same problems that you do. And I find it
> > > quite annoying that one can't see who's behind the nicknames.
> > > If someone writes something questionable then I'd like to know
> > > who it was.
> > >
> > > m.
> > >
> > >
> > Wiki's can work best when people can't find out who it was that said
> > something.
> >
> > It's true that the MILSTD's contribution is sizeable so the best
> > approach could be to leave a polite note on
> >
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:MILSTDwhich
> > he/she has been editing themselves. Unless the user steps forward and
> > identify themselves.
> >
> > MILSTD's edits:
> >
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MILSTD
>
> ..the 2 edits that sticks out to me, are:
>
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=Copyright_Inquiry&diff=prev&oldid=5021
>
> ...and:
>
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki/index.php?title=Modeling_Resources&diff=prev&oldid=5020,
> specificly "resources that are explicitly and without doubt in the
> public domain can be included without an explicit GPL statement"
>
> ...which is where I feel "MILSTD" is promoting adding "public
> domain work", _over_ adding work to FG under the GPL.
>
> ..me, I prefer the GPLv3 ;o) , but this is fundamentally an issue
> of copyright law and FG policy that you FG coders should decide,
> because you guys own the copyright here.
>
Hi Arnt,
I'll admit that I didn't read that far into the edits, currently at work.
We probably should probably revert the public domain clauses as they change
the meaning of the paragraphs to something which is not correct. IMO, Public
Domain is fluffy at best, depending on who you ask
Regards
George
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
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
