Am 15.02.2012 19:30, schrieb kreuzritter2000: > Am Sonntag, den 12.02.2012, 11:00 +0100 schrieb Erik Hofman: >> So Emanuel has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model >> and to update git accordingly. > > I agree he is the owner of the model, but he is not the owner of the > FlightGear project. > I see the aircraft name DC-3 as a placeholder owned by the FlightGear > project and Emanuel modified it by adding data to it. So he is not the > owner of the placeholder. > > What i want to say is, that it will get a community driven project > nowhere if we have persons sitting there refusing commits from others > only because they have personal issues with them or because they were > the ones that started an aircraft at first place. > Refusing commits is only acceptable if the data is not GPL, a copyright > violation or a degradation of the existing data. > And it won't help the whole project if we have 1...n different DC-3 > aircrafts on git and everyone is doing his own thing. > So there is one DC-3 starting out as a placeholder owned by the > FlightGear projet and individuals should learn to work together and > improve the placeholder. It's common practice that contribution get reviewed. In FG this is usually done by the maintainer, in most cases the initial commiter of the Aircraft. The Maintainer decides what to include, what to reject and what has to be modified. Usually, before starting a Project, one does some homework, collects data, pilot reports, drawings, reads manuals, etc. With this knowledge, he should be capable to review contributions. This has worked for FlightGear for years and I don't see a point in reverting this, just because of personal dislike.
To be clear. Noone has suffered physical injury, no material destroyed and no law broken. Emmanuel keeps collecting compatible contributions and the PAF can maintain their (really impressive) modifications in their hangar. Both parties should stop the whining, shrug their shoulders and continue having fun working on FlightGear. > > If persons do not comply on working together on a single aircraft then i > suggest to remove the existing aircraft data completly. > So that a willing group of volunteers that want to work together can > start from the beginning > > So in other words, Emanual has every right to dismiss any modifications > on *his* model but he has no right to refuse improvements of the > FlightGear Project. > And one aircraft is like a couple of lines of source code in the > project. > > It would be horrible if programmers would say: > "This is my function and no one is allowed to modify it, i will refuse > any commit." > > > In they case i get this mentioned conflict wrong you can ignore the > above words. > > Best Regards, > Oliver C. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Virtualization& Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning > Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing > also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
