On Thursday 25 Feb 2010, Martin Spott wrote: > leee wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 Feb 2010, Durk Talsma wrote: > > [snip...] > > > >> As follows from this, I have to add that I'm not too excited > >> about all the invidual hangars, and scenery repository sites > >> (such as "unitedfreeworld") that I'm seeing spring to life > >> right now. I do realize that these sites serve their purpose > >> as a temporary storage for material that needs further > >> refinement, and also accept the fact that some materials > >> simply cannot be added to cvs due to the fact that original > >> materials were incompatible with the GPL, but apart from these > >> cases, I do believe that it should be encouraged that eligible > >> materials go into CVS. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Durk > > > > While I agree with the reasoning behind only using aircraft > > that are owned by the FG project for promotional screenshots I > > simply don't understand the sentiments behind what you said > > above. > > > > If people _want_ to offer their work to the FG project that's > > fine, and I was always happy to do so, but your statement above > > seems to suggest to me that you believe that the FG project > > should be _entitled_ to ownership of any works produced in > > connection with > > ^^^^^^^^^ > > > it. > > No, you're proclaiming false assumptions here. The GPL does not > deal with controlling the "ownership", instead it's covering the > conditions of "use" of the respective item.
Sigh... I can only refer you to your own suggestion regarding reading precisely what has actually been written. Read it again, more carefully this time, and you'll see that Durk intimated that he dissaproves of individual personal hangers and thinks that their contents should be placed into FG's cvs repository: it was this issue that I wished to raise and discuss. Your accusation that was 'proclaiming false assumptions' in the context of the GPL are completely spurious and irrelevant. > > > While the GPL is liked and approved of by many, myself > > included, it must be recognised that not everybody likes it or > > wishes to release their work under it. Furthermore, it is not > > a case of the GPL being _right_ and everything else being > > _wrong_: people should be allowed to release their work under > > whatever conditions they choose. > > Yup, and Durk did not challenge this right in any way. Instead > he's expressing (in this case specifically related to "promotial > materials") that those who expect themselves (or their work) as > being considered to be part of the collaborative project named > "FlightGear" are supposed to stick with this projects common > rules. To cite Durk (since you didn't quote the relevant part of > his EMail): > > "[...] all promotial materials for FlightGear should only contain > material that is part of the official FlightGear repository." Once again, read the OP more carefully and you'll see that regarding the issue I wished to raise, that of dissapproval of personal hangers and that they should be rolled into FG's cvs, Durk was not specifically referring _just_ to promotional materials. > > If you'd adopt the habit of reading precisely what people are > writing on this very list, then we'd have far less discussions > like this one. If people don't like to submit their (art)work to > CVS, then they're of course free to keep it separately, even if > we're not happy about this attitude. But these people should at > least be honest about admitting that they decided to play in > their private sandbox instead of collaborating with the > FlightGear project. > > Cheers, > Martin. Exactly why are you not happy with people maintaining their own hangers? This is the precise point I was raising. And just where is there any dishonesty in doing so? To be absolutely honest, your rabid and thinly veilled insulting and misleading responses (for describing an aircraft as just 'art' work whilst ignoring the FDM, animation and scripting development work that goes into them is both insulting and misleading) towards anyone who disagrees with your personal views do neither yourself nor the FG project any credit at all. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
