>>Petr Gotthard wrote: >> To follow the "do things right" rule I think it would be great to implement >> a generic interface for standalone I/O modules. Both Micro$oft FSX and >> X-Plane have such interface. The M&S HLA users would just need to build a >> shared module (.dll or .so) for a particular HLA RTI and load it via the >> standard FlightGear plug-in interface. > >Erik wrote: >Adding a plug-in interface instantly raises questions about GPL >compatibility which have to be addressed prior to implementing such a >thing. I believe the question did come up several times before but the >possibility to easily violate the GPL was always a too big a hurdle to >continue.
Let me advocate the idea: I'm proposing a generic interface. If you look from the other side, it's a possibility to easily implement a new I/O module for FlightGear. To help people that might be interested to extend FlightGear but do not want to recompile the whole binary. I personally believe that the number of nice users scared away is higher than the number of new GPL violating users. Especially because commercial/proprietary users may use X-Plane. Every coin has two sides: - Not every I/O module will violate the GPL - Not every nice (non GPL violating) user interested in extending FlightGear is able/willing to build the whole binary - Only some of the users will violate GPL - Generic interface simplify/facilitate FlightGear extensibility for all users (both nice and GPL violating) - People don't need the generic interface to violate the FlightGear GPL - The generic interface doesn't have to be included in the mainline CVS - Including the interface in mainline CVS helps all users (both nice and GPL violating) Petr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
