>>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 

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 


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to