Petr Gotthard wrote:

> 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)

All valid points but irrelevant for the GPL. It is already possible to 
connect proprietary software to FlightGear using the generic binary 
(socket) protocol handler, but that doesn't violate the GPL. Plug-in 
interfaces tend to do because they are considered 'part of the program' 
by the GPL.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to