On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Erik Hofman wrote: > On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote: >> No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called. >> >> I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code >> should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any >> commmercial use. > > Disallowing commercial use means Linux distributors can't include it in > their distribution. You will never be able to convince every single > developer that touched fgdata somehow to allow us to switch license. > You won't convince me anyhow.
+1. (I suspect there is a very strong correlation between long term contribution and commitment to the GPL) On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results of which have been fed back into FG. Changing the license won't actually make any difference to FPS et al. They appear still to be selling v1.9.1, and given their advertising methods, I can see no reason why they would put any effort into updating their package. As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? -Stuart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
