Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:27:42 +, Lee wrote in message 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

..this looong post with unsnipped quotes is a FG licensing FAQ
candidate, so I don't snip this time.

 On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
  On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
   
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to
 non-GPL'd aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS
 have been done by people who want to ensure that their
 work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to
 make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial
 organisations.  Some people also like to include
 non-violence conditions.
   
..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the
fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other
places, I still don't see how any other open or free
source code license gives the author more control over his
code, also for commercial or military use.
   
..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free
to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or
Trolltech with Qt.
  
   You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;)  Licences are not
   always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit
   for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it
   (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten
   on the bum).
 
  .. ;o)   FUD-meisters like to make that impression
 
 It's not just FUD.  If you fail to foresee all the possible ways 
 that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, 
 can specifically permit something that you don't want.

..such as?

 It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have 
 accepted conditions in a licence.

..ah, a feature.  ;o)

 I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the 
 abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these 
 issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific 
 licence.

..

   If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need
   for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work
   (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). 
   I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to
   fly - you won't need a licence.  All you will need is for me
   to give it to you.
 
  ..an unlimited license, ok.  Who's paper you did fold? ;o)
 
 I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:)
 
 But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at 
 all.  It's just a permission to use.

..precisely that permission, is a license.  Licenses does not have to be
unlimited, and may even be conditional.  They cease being licenses and
become contracts as you require your contractual licensee to say or do
a certain act, such as click ok to enter into said contract.

..all Microsofts End User License Agreement's are contracts.

 
   But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set
   fire to it, I won't give it to you.
 
  ..here we move towards Contract-land.  If you print your
  license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it,
  have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper
  plane?  Also, given my acceptance of your license, I can
  circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your
  ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording
  your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling.  ;o)
 
 :)
 
 One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with 
 your automobile.  If a friend offers to let you use their 
 automobile do you demand a licence before accepting?  

..that offer of a permission is an offer of a license.

 Would you then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you 
 manage to interpret the licence you demanded?

..you confuse licenses with contracts.  Very common, and what
FUDmeisters want happening.

 
   I can see why some people like that way of operating, even
   though I'm personally happy with the GPL.
  
 Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the
 GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the
 lack of control over the work once released under the
 license, I can't
   
..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under
the GPL.
  
   I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no
   control over what anyone else does with what I've released
   under the GPL.
 
  ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_
  work.
 
 Yep.
 
 
 criticise the people who don't want to give up that
 control.

 Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about
 linking to pay-ware either.  No one is forcing anyone to
 buy anything, so it's take it or leave it.
   
..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other
payware licenses, this depends on 

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:48:22 +, Dave wrote in message 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
 
  Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
  continue to do so. :-)
 
  Curt.
 
 I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to
 consume  their offspring.

..maybe Curt has naughty kids? ;o)


-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
  On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
   aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
   people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as
   in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work
   isn't exploited by commercial organisations.  Some people
   also like to include non-violence conditions.
 
  ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the
  fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other
  places, I still don't see how any other open or free source
  code license gives the author more control over his code, also
  for commercial or military use.
 
  ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to
  use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with
  Qt.
 
 You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;)  Licences are not always 
 wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting 
 you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever 
 actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum).

.. ;o)   FUD-meisters like to make that impression

 If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a 
 licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except 
 of course, where safety is likely to be an issue).  I could make 
 a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't 
 need a licence.  All you will need is for me to give it to you.  

..an unlimited license, ok.  Who's paper you did fold? ;o)

 But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire 
 to it, I won't give it to you.

..here we move towards Contract-land.  If you print your license on my
paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it, have _any_ ramification 
on my receipt and use of that paper plane?  Also, given my acceptance
of your license, I can circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine,
stick it up your ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as
recording your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling.  ;o)

 I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though 
 I'm personally happy with the GPL.
 
   Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL
   gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of
   control over the work once released under the license, I
   can't
 
  ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the
  GPL.
 
 I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control 
 over what anyone else does with what I've released under the 
 GPL.

..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_ work.

 
   criticise the people who don't want to give up that control.
  
   Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about
   linking to pay-ware either.  No one is forcing anyone to buy
   anything, so it's take it or leave it.
 
  ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware
  licenses, this depends on the license's small print
  language.
 
   I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to
   everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people
   can no longer do what they want.
 
  ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you
  wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given
  by the original authors, before you jumped in.  Your own
  code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned
  well pleases.  Other peoples code can be thrown in legally
  too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people
  will tell you Riiight, I'll consider it if you can
  convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3.  ;-)
 
 The problem I see with it is when people say that something 
 _should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one 
 fancies.  If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or 
 'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but 
 if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the 
 person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the 
 realm of compulsion.

..ah, but for example the BSD type licenses _allows_ bad people to skim
off the good stuff _and_ change author credits _and_ hide it as closed
source _and_ charge for it.  

..with the GPL, everything is in the open, that's why I say should GPL
and is happy to chew out etc anyone to make it happen.  ;-)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Oliver C.]

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:28, David Megginson wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
  force people to use a licence.  One can't tell people what to
  do...

 I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a
 strawman to argue against.  The only suggestion I've seen is using the
 flightgear.org web site to promote only models that are GPL or freer.
  I think that makes sense -- think of the extra, free publicity as a
 carrot for the people who are willing to go open source or better.


Yes, this is exactly, what i meant.


People can use unfree licenses, but when doing this, 
it should not be advertised on the main flightgear.org website,
at least not for free and not in a way that the visiter gets confused.


They should look after their own way to do the advertisement.
The flightgear.org website should not be misused for such none free addons.

And when those people who want to distribute their none free addons
really want some advertisement on the flightgear.org website, then they should
pay for this.
But the point is, the flightgear.org website shouldn't do this advertisement 
for free or near the other GPL'd addons.
It should be clear for a visiter that such thing is an advertisement and not a 
part of the page. So a simple link would not be okay.



Best Regards,
 Oliver C.




___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Lee Elliott]

On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
   On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
  
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to
non-GPL'd aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS
have been done by people who want to ensure that their
work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to
make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial
organisations.  Some people also like to include
non-violence conditions.
  
   ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the
   fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other
   places, I still don't see how any other open or free
   source code license gives the author more control over his
   code, also for commercial or military use.
  
   ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free
   to use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or
   Trolltech with Qt.
 
  You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;)  Licences are not
  always wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit
  for biting you on the back-side when you least expect it
  (not that I ever actually find myself expecting to be bitten
  on the bum).

 .. ;o)   FUD-meisters like to make that impression

It's not just FUD.  If you fail to foresee all the possible ways 
that the work may be used the licence, by failure of omission, 
can specifically permit something that you don't want.

It's also a lot harder to change your mind once people have 
accepted conditions in a licence.

I do want to make it clear that I'm not advocating the 
abandonment of licences, just that some people will see these 
issues as potential problems with using a clear and specific 
licence.


  If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need
  for a licence to allow other people to benefit from the work
  (except of course, where safety is likely to be an issue). 
  I could make a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to
  fly - you won't need a licence.  All you will need is for me
  to give it to you.

 ..an unlimited license, ok.  Who's paper you did fold? ;o)

I'm reminded of Bruce Lee's 'no-style' style of martial arts:)

But I didn't mean an unlimited licence, or any kind of licence at 
all.  It's just a permission to use.


  But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set
  fire to it, I won't give it to you.

 ..here we move towards Contract-land.  If you print your
 license on my paper plane, does my acceptance or not on it,
 have _any_ ramification on my receipt and use of that paper
 plane?  Also, given my acceptance of your license, I can
 circumvent it by dipping it in turpentine, stick it up your
 ass and light it up for such scientific purposes as recording
 your rotation speed, climb-out angle, and ceiling.  ;o)

:)

One day you need to drive somewhere but there's a problem with 
your automobile.  If a friend offers to let you use their 
automobile do you demand a licence before accepting?  Would you 
then expect further use of the auto, depending upon how you 
manage to interpret the licence you demanded?


  I can see why some people like that way of operating, even
  though I'm personally happy with the GPL.
 
Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the
GPL gives me with regard to credit for the work and the
lack of control over the work once released under the
license, I can't
  
   ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under
   the GPL.
 
  I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no
  control over what anyone else does with what I've released
  under the GPL.

 ..precisely, because their changes to your code is _their_
 work.

Yep.


criticise the people who don't want to give up that
control.
   
Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about
linking to pay-ware either.  No one is forcing anyone to
buy anything, so it's take it or leave it.
  
   ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other
   payware licenses, this depends on the license's small
   print language.
  
I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied
to everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and
people can no longer do what they want.
  
   ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you
   wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been
   given by the original authors, before you jumped in. 
   Your own code is and remains your own, and you license it
   as you damned well pleases.  Other peoples code can be
   thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do
   so, and wise people will tell you Riiight, I'll
   consider it if you can convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get
   that into GPLv3.  ;-)
 
  The problem I see with it is when people say that something
  _should_ be licenced under the 

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Jim Wilson]

Curtis L. Olson said:

 Christian Mayer wrote:
 
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Hi,
 
 the web page is comming along nicely!
 
 There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
 normal sized picture should open.
 
 It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
 plane as well.
   
 
 
 Maybe for the *next* release!
 

Oh yeah... but maybe make clicking on the picture do nothing for now.  Instead
add a hyperlink below with the word download in it.   The intuitive thing on
the web is to click thumbs for a bigger view, so the current setup would be
tripping up most visitors.

Best,

Jim


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Curtis L. Olson]

Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones 
made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to 
these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?

Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities...
 

Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those pages are 
currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the aircraft 
download page.

Curt.
--
Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project  http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Oliver C.]

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
 Durk Talsma wrote:
 Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones
 made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to
 these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?
 
 Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities...

 Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those pages are
 currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them from the aircraft
 download page.

 Curt.

Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise aircrafts for 
FlightGear that are not free.

Here's the reason why:
Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the flightgear website 
could lead to  a common behaviour that people tend to not release their 
aircrafts or addons  under the GPL license when other more restrictive ways 
like simple Freeware licenses are possible and accepted.

This has also many other disadvantages like:

- you can't modify or correct the aircrafts, scenery addons etc.
- aircrafts and scenery addons might get outdated or incompatible to newer 
versions of FlightGear
- users are forced to collect their aircrafts and scenery addons from 
different places, which is a bad thing, because it is extremly cumbersomely 
and annoying.  MS Flight Simulator people know what i am talking about.
FlightGear should make use of the fact that it is open source, it allows users
to get everything in one piece without the hassle to visit hundreds of 
different websites.
- the amount of GPL'd flightgear data like aircrafts and scenery would grow 
slower when simple freeware addons are okay and linked to on the flightgear 
website.


That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd aircrafts and 
scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear website.


BTW: 
I saw that there is a GPL'd Boeing 707 and Raytheon T-6A Texan II
on Dave's hangar website, could these two aircrafts be added to the main 
flightgear website and ftp servers?
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/hangar/hangar.html


Best Regards,
 Oliver C.



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100, Oliver wrote in message 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 
 That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd aircrafts
 and  scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear website.

..amen!
 
-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.



___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Lee Elliott]

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:21, Oliver C. wrote:
 On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
  Durk Talsma wrote:
  Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out
   there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss.
   Would it be an idea to add a link to these pages at the
   bottom of the aircraft download page?
  
  Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence
   incompatibilities...
 
  Sure, if someone can send me current links and if those
  pages are currently maintained, I'll definitely link to them
  from the aircraft download page.
 
  Curt.

 Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise
 aircrafts for FlightGear that are not free.

 Here's the reason why:
 Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the
 flightgear website could lead to  a common behaviour that
 people tend to not release their aircrafts or addons  under
 the GPL license when other more restrictive ways like simple
 Freeware licenses are possible and accepted.

 This has also many other disadvantages like:

 - you can't modify or correct the aircrafts, scenery addons
 etc. - aircrafts and scenery addons might get outdated or
 incompatible to newer versions of FlightGear
 - users are forced to collect their aircrafts and scenery
 addons from different places, which is a bad thing, because it
 is extremly cumbersomely and annoying.  MS Flight Simulator
 people know what i am talking about. FlightGear should make
 use of the fact that it is open source, it allows users to get
 everything in one piece without the hassle to visit hundreds
 of different websites.
 - the amount of GPL'd flightgear data like aircrafts and
 scenery would grow slower when simple freeware addons are okay
 and linked to on the flightgear website.


 That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd
 aircrafts and scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear
 website.


 BTW:
 I saw that there is a GPL'd Boeing 707 and Raytheon T-6A Texan
 II on Dave's hangar website, could these two aircrafts be
 added to the main flightgear website and ftp servers?
 http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/hangar/hangar.html


 Best Regards,
  Oliver C.

I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd 
aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by 
people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in 
free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't 
exploited by commercial organisations.  Some people also like to 
include non-violence conditions.

Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL 
gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of 
control over the work once released under the license, I can't 
criticise the people who don't want to give up that control.

Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about linking 
to pay-ware either.  No one is forcing anyone to buy anything, 
so it's take it or leave it.

I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to 
everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people can 
no longer do what they want.

LeeE

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[David Megginson]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
 aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
 people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
 free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't
 exploited by commercial organisations.  Some people also like to
 include non-violence conditions.

I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing pretty
fast, whatever we do about linking.  It looks very newbie and
shareware-ish.


All the best,


David

-- 
http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Lee Elliott]

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 19:41, David Megginson wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
  aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
  people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as
  in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work
  isn't exploited by commercial organisations.  Some people
  also like to include non-violence conditions.

 I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing
 pretty fast, whatever we do about linking.  It looks very
 newbie and shareware-ish.


 All the best,


 David

Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get 
stomped out and/or are newbie and shareware-ish.

Personally, I find it difficult to criticise non-violence clauses 
but they also smack a little of denial - the idea that ignoring 
something makes it go away.

The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see 
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of 
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free, 
is then used by someone else for their own profit, with no need 
to recompense the person who actually did the work.

The GPL specifically allows this.

LeeE

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 
 I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd 
 aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by 
 people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in 
 free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't 
 exploited by commercial organisations.  Some people also like to 
 include non-violence conditions.

..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the fsf.org 
and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other places, I still 
don't see how any other open or free source code license gives the
author more control over his code, also for commercial or military use.

..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to use more
licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with Qt.

 Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL 
 gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of 
 control over the work once released under the license, I can't 

..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the GPL.

 criticise the people who don't want to give up that control.
 
 Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about linking 
 to pay-ware either.  No one is forcing anyone to buy anything, 
 so it's take it or leave it.

..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware 
licenses, this depends on the license's small print language.

 I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to 
 everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people can 
 no longer do what they want.

..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you wanna deny
other people the rights you yourself has been given by the original
authors, before you jumped in.  Your own code is and remains your own,
and you license it as you damned well pleases.  Other peoples code can
be thrown in legally too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and
wise people will tell you Riiight, I'll consider it if you can 
convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3.  ;-)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Paul Surgeon]

On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
 The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
 how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
 time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
 is then used by someone else for their own profit, with no need
 to recompense the person who actually did the work.

 The GPL specifically allows this.

 LeeE

This is a big issue with MSFS addons.
For instance there are people who spend MONTHS filtering and editing sound 
recordings of aircraft to produce a sound package for a single aircraft.
They do it for free and for the community.

Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free 
contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them 
onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit.

This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and 
the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for 
what they freely gave to the community.

Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed 
to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their 
underhanded business.

If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have 
to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then?

Paul

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Chris Metzler]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100
Oliver C. wrote:

 Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise aircrafts for
 FlightGear that are not free.
 
 Here's the reason why:
 Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the flightgear
 website could lead to  a common behaviour that people tend to not
 release their aircrafts or addons  under the GPL license when other more
 restrictive ways like simple Freeware licenses are possible and
 accepted.

I think this is true.  I differ with you in how awful I think this
would be.  I would absolutely *prefer* that people use the GPL.
Everything I do is licensed that way.  But if someone who has
put a lot of effort into creating something decides they want to
make it available to the community, but do not want other people
to be able to make money off of it without the original author
getting any credit, I'm not going to tell them that they're bad
people for wanting that.

The more people creating add-ons for FlightGear, the more
attractive it will look.  The more attractive it looks, the
more users it will have.  The more users it has, the more
people will create add-ons for it, *some* of which will
doubtless be licensed under the GPL.  Those are GPL'd
add-ons that those new contributors would not have created
otherwise, because they never would have tried FlightGear
in the first place.


 This has also many other disadvantages like:
 
 - you can't modify or correct the aircrafts, scenery addons etc.

This depends on what non-GPL license is used; it's not universally
true.


 - aircrafts and scenery addons might get outdated or incompatible to
 newer versions of FlightGear

This is true anyway, even with GPL'd stuff.  You might be saying
that license restrictions might make it difficult for third parties
to fix such future incompatibilities, in which case my answer is
as above:  it depends on the license.  It's not universally true.


 - users are forced to collect their aircrafts and scenery addons from 
 different places, which is a bad thing, because it is extremly
 cumbersomely and annoying.  MS Flight Simulator people know what i am
 talking about. FlightGear should make use of the fact that it is open
 source, it allows users to get everything in one piece without the
 hassle to visit hundreds of different websites.

This is going to be true no matter what.  People are always free to
create add-ons for FlightGear, and they're always free to put whatever
licenses they want on it and/or make them available in other places.
The only way to prevent the scenario you describe would be to somehow
make it impossible for anyone creating add-ons to license them under
anything other than the GPL.  I don't know how you'd do that, but I
definitely wouldn't support it.


 - the amount of GPL'd flightgear data like aircrafts and scenery would
 grow slower when simple freeware addons are okay and linked to on the
 flightgear website.

I'm not sure this is true.  Your thinking is presumably that an
add-on licensed under a typical freeware license is an add-on
that could have been licensed under the GPL, but wasn't.  However,
it's not a zero-sum exercise.  One of the reasons there are so many
add-ons for MSFS is because there are so many people using it,
and one of the reasons there are so many people using it is because
there are so many add-ons for it.  If the availability of freeware
-licensed add-ons causes the FlightGear community to increase in
size, and thus the number of people creating scenery and aircraft
increases, then it's quite possible that the amount of GPL'd add-ons
would increase also.

I think we should always *encourage* people making stuff for FlightGear
to license stuff under the GPL.  But I don't think we should ostracize
enthusiastic users who opt for other licenses for the things they
create for the community to use.

-c


-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove snip-me. to email)

As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear


pgpKE5bQaJXZK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[David Megginson]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing
  pretty fast, whatever we do about linking.  It looks very
  newbie and shareware-ish.

 Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get
 stomped out and/or are newbie and shareware-ish.

Vanity licensing clauses.  Outside of little shareware communities,
the world pretty much wants some kind of standard open source license
or public domain, or it shrugs and moves on -- it gets way too hard to
keep track when n packages end up with n different kinds of licenses
(OK, lets see: package #1023 is for non-violent use only, package #56
is for use only by Wiccans and those who agree not to persecute them,
package #337 is banned for use in Israel, package #5529 is banned for
use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
Ralph Nader supporters).


All the best,


David

-- 
http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Steven Beeckman]

Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
 

The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else for their own profit, with no need
to recompense the person who actually did the work.
The GPL specifically allows this.
LeeE
   

This is a big issue with MSFS addons.
For instance there are people who spend MONTHS filtering and editing sound 
recordings of aircraft to produce a sound package for a single aircraft.
They do it for free and for the community.

Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free 
contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them 
onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit.

This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and 
the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for 
what they freely gave to the community.

Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed 
to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their 
underhanded business.

If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have 
to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then?

Paul
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
 

Maybe it's time to create a FlightGear Aircraft License ?
Steven
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[David Megginson]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:36:42 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free
 contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them
 onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit.
 
 This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and
 the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for
 what they freely gave to the community.
 
 Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed
 to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their
 underhanded business.

 If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have
 to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then?

I think you might be a bit confused: GPL works *are* copyrighted, and
the copyright holder can still sue someone for removing credit or for
violating the license in any other way.  In the cases you mentioned,
the people could just as easily have gone to court if the sounds had
been GPL'd or LGPL'd.  Personally, I'm a lawyer's son, so I know how
unprofitable suing usually is (except for the lawyers); as a result, I
sometimes prefer to abandon copyright claims altogether and simply
make my work Public Domain, as I did with SAX.

The GPL does not allow you to stop someone else for charging to
redistribute your work, but it does require that person to let
everyone else know where the work originally came from (i.e. where
they can get the same thing for free).  Many companies actually make a
business out of the GPL by dual-licensing their own work -- release
for free under GPL (which imposes certain restrictions on commercial
use), then sell a commercially-licensed version of the same stuff
without the GPL requirements.


All the best,


David

-- 
http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Dave Martin]

On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:36, Paul Surgeon wrote:

 If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
 have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
 then?

 Paul


The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their 
work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial use of 
their models / work providing that credit is not removed and the source of 
the work and any modifications to it is also made freely available.

It is the Authors choice to use this licence.

Dave Martin

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Lee Elliott]

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
  aircraft.  The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
  people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as
  in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work
  isn't exploited by commercial organisations.  Some people
  also like to include non-violence conditions.

 ..these issues has been and is discussed thoroughly in the
 fsf.org and opensource.org and Groklaw.net and many other
 places, I still don't see how any other open or free source
 code license gives the author more control over his code, also
 for commercial or military use.

 ..and, those a/c authors who wants it both ways, are free to
 use more licenses, like Mysql AB with Mysql or Trolltech with
 Qt.

You're thinking too narrowly perhaps;)  Licences are not always 
wanted by many people - they can have a nasty habit for biting 
you on the back-side when you least expect it (not that I ever 
actually find myself expecting to be bitten on the bum).

If a work is created by someone there is no intrinsic need for a 
licence to allow other people to benefit from the work (except 
of course, where safety is likely to be an issue).  I could make 
a paper aeroplane and give it to you for you to fly - you won't 
need a licence.  All you will need is for me to give it to you.  
But if I think that you will stick it up my sleeve and set fire 
to it, I won't give it to you.

I can see why some people like that way of operating, even though 
I'm personally happy with the GPL.


  Personally, while I'm happy with the protection that the GPL
  gives me with regard to credit for the work and the lack of
  control over the work once released under the license, I
  can't

 ..you control your own work, and not anyone elses, under the
 GPL.

I control what I'm doing and what I've done but I have no control 
over what anyone else does with what I've released under the 
GPL.


  criticise the people who don't want to give up that control.
 
  Just for the record, I wouldn't have any problems about
  linking to pay-ware either.  No one is forcing anyone to buy
  anything, so it's take it or leave it.

 ..not a problem with GPL payware, _maybe_ under other payware
 licenses, this depends on the license's small print
 language.

  I think the GPL is great for many things but if applied to
  everything exclusively it becomes a tool of force and people
  can no longer do what they want.

 ..the only problem with the GPL in that regard is when you
 wanna deny other people the rights you yourself has been given
 by the original authors, before you jumped in.  Your own
 code is and remains your own, and you license it as you damned
 well pleases.  Other peoples code can be thrown in legally
 too, _if_ they give you a license to do so, and wise people
 will tell you Riiight, I'll consider it if you can
 convince RMS and Eben Moglen to get that into GPLv3.  ;-)

The problem I see with it is when people say that something 
_should_ be licenced under the GPL, or whatever licence one 
fancies.  If someone decides to release it under an 'open' or 
'free' licence, then all well and good - everyone benefits - but 
if you start saying that it _should_ be so licenced then the 
person actually doing it has no choice and you've entered the 
realm of compulsion.

LeeE

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[David Megginson]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
  have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
  then?
 
 The authors would have no recourse then.

Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of
the sounds: that violates the GPL.The redistributors either have
to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any
README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it --
that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff
for free, so unless they're adding some other kind of value, they're
not going to make any money.


All the best,


David

-- 
http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Lee Elliott]

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:42, David Megginson wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I think the user community will stomp out that kind of
   thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking.  It looks
   very newbie and shareware-ish.
 
  Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get
  stomped out and/or are newbie and shareware-ish.

 Vanity licensing clauses.  Outside of little shareware
 communities, the world pretty much wants some kind of standard
 open source license or public domain, or it shrugs and moves
 on -- it gets way too hard to keep track when n packages end
 up with n different kinds of licenses (OK, lets see: package
 #1023 is for non-violent use only, package #56 is for use only
 by Wiccans and those who agree not to persecute them, package
 #337 is banned for use in Israel, package #5529 is banned for
 use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use
 only by Ralph Nader supporters).


 All the best,


 David

Wiccans  chuckle :)

While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't 
force people to use a licence.  One can't tell people what to 
do...

...even when they're being daft.

LeeE

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Dave Martin]

On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:59, David Megginson wrote:
 The redistributors either have
 to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any
 README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it --
 that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff
 for free, so unless they're adding some other kind of value, they're
 not going to make any money.


 All the best,


 David

Thats a good example.

If someone were to stick *all* of FG onto CD / DVDs and sell it, there is 
added value in terms of the bandwidth saved (What is FG now? 12GB or more inc 
scenery?)

Of course, anyone doing so would need to make clear that FG is GPL software 
and freely available on-line. This is rather like the Open-Office.org 
resellers guidline policy.

Whether it would even be profitable or wothwhile to do such a thing is another 
matter; it must surely be a shrinking market with the uptake of broadband.

Dave Martin

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Chris Metzler]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:

 The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
 their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
 use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed

Just for clarification, you have to be careful about that last bit.
The GPL allows this because you copyright your creation and you write
a copyright notice in your name.  The GPL requires that all the copies
come with a copyright notice.  However, things like CREDITS files
and so forth are not protected under the GPL; the GPL does not require
that credit not be removed, apart from protecting the copyright notice.
In fact, the GPL prevents such a restriction from being placed on a work
released under it.  That fact was at the heart of the conflict over the
new XFree86 license; most Linux distributions have dumped XFree86 over
its subsequent incompatibility with the GPL.

-c

-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove snip-me. to email)

As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear


pgpHLfFFDbENV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Chris Metzler]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:07 -0500
David Megginson wrote:

 Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of
 the sounds: that violates the GPL.

Yes, if the credit they're changing is in the accompanying copyright
notice.  No, if it's some statement of credit in an accompanying
CREDITS or THANKS or README file.


 The redistributors either have
 to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any
 README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it --
 that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff
 for free,

Yes, and this is the protection against monkey business like I
mention above.  However, lots of recipients won't realize or
discover they can do this, even if a copy of the GPL and directions
to the original content come with the redistribution.

-c


-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove snip-me. to email)

As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear


pgp4LV2isSt9Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Dave Martin]

On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 21:21, Chris Metzler wrote:
 On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +

 Dave Martin wrote:
  The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
  their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
  use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed

 Just for clarification, you have to be careful about that last bit.
 The GPL allows this because you copyright your creation and you write
 a copyright notice in your name.  The GPL requires that all the copies
 come with a copyright notice.  However, things like CREDITS files
 and so forth are not protected under the GPL; the GPL does not require
 that credit not be removed, apart from protecting the copyright notice.
 In fact, the GPL prevents such a restriction from being placed on a work
 released under it.  That fact was at the heart of the conflict over the
 new XFree86 license; most Linux distributions have dumped XFree86 over
 its subsequent incompatibility with the GPL.

 -c

I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is often 
added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating Author's 
name.

 one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does.
 Copyright (C)   name of author

I was always under the impression that was the notice to remain intact?

Cheers

Dave Martin


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[David Megginson]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
 force people to use a licence.  One can't tell people what to
 do...

I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a
strawman to argue against.  The only suggestion I've seen is using the
flightgear.org web site to promote only models that are GPL or freer. 
 I think that makes sense -- think of the extra, free publicity as a
carrot for the people who are willing to go open source or better.

As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.


All the best,


David

-- 
http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Chris Metzler]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:18 +
Dave Martin wrote:

 I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is
 often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating
 Author's name.
 
  one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does.
  Copyright (C)   name of author
 
 I was always under the impression that was the notice to remain intact?

Yes, that's exactly right.  But a lot of packages these days go out
with a file with a name like CREDITS that lists who did what.  For
example, the FlightGear source distribution comes with a file called
Thanks that lists various people and what they've contributed.
That file is fair game under the GPL; if someone redistributing FG
wanted to edit it to say different things about who did what, the
GPL does not restrict that.  Of course, their new claims would
be flatly contradicted by the original; and if they're continuing
to obey the GPL, then their redistribution should contain or point
to the original where people can see the truth about the credits.
But most people won't go and look.

-c


-- 
Chris Metzler   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove snip-me. to email)

As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I
have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear


pgpcXHWRz5L72.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Jim Wilson]

David Megginson said:

 use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
 Ralph Nader supporters).
 

That's it!  From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18.  I wonder if he
uses debian on his laptop.  Probably not.  Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someone googles wiccans for ralph nader.

Best,

Jim


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Jim Wilson]

David Megginson said:

 use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
 Ralph Nader supporters).
 

Thats it!  From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18.  I wonder if Ralph
uses debian on his laptop.  Probably not.  Well at least now flightgear will
come up when someone googles wiccans for ralph nader.

Best,

Jim


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Jim Wilson]

Jim Wilson said:

 David Megginson said:
 
  use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by
  Ralph Nader supporters).
  
 
 That's it!  From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18.  I wonder if he
 uses debian on his laptop.  Probably not.  Well at least now flightgear will
 come up when someone googles wiccans for ralph nader.
 

Hmmm...I think I hear an echo...  (mailer trouble).

Best,

Jim


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Paul Surgeon]

On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
 As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
 for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
 to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.

There is still place for non-GPL addons.

There are guys who code addons for flightsimulators for a living and will not 
release their products under GPL otherwise someone can just copy it as much 
as they like and they don't get a cent in return.

Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you 
charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as 
GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat.

It takes months of work with a team of 5 or 6 people to create one top notch 
aircraft like what Phoenix Software Simulations put out.

GPL is not the be all and end all when it comes to software licensing 
although it is a nice license.

Paul

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Curtis L. Olson]

Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote:
 

As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote
for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend
to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy.
   

There is still place for non-GPL addons.
There are guys who code addons for flightsimulators for a living and will not 
release their products under GPL otherwise someone can just copy it as much 
as they like and they don't get a cent in return.

Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you 
charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as 
GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat.

It takes months of work with a team of 5 or 6 people to create one top notch 
aircraft like what Phoenix Software Simulations put out.

GPL is not the be all and end all when it comes to software licensing 
although it is a nice license.
 

Interestingly, this thread started out as a debate over linking or not 
linking to external aircraft sites which might distribute non-free 
aircraft.

I take a view that is similar to Debian.  For the core FG distribution, 
everything needs to be GPL compatible.  But recognizing that some people 
might prefer to release/distribute their work under other licensing 
terms (which they have every freedom to do) I have no problem linking to 
those sites.  Are we to remove all links to all sites that aren't fully 
100% gpl compatible?

Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please 
continue to do so. :-)

Curt.
--
Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project  http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[Dave Martin]

On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:

 Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
 continue to do so. :-)

 Curt.

I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume 
their offspring.

Dave Martin

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)

[David Megginson]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:20:57 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you
 charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as
 GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat.

Sure -- that's no problem.  We're just talking about not giving them
free advertising on flightgear.org, not about trying to ban them.


All the best,


David

-- 
http://www.megginson.com/

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Ampere K. Hardraade]

On January 19, 2005 06:00 pm, Enrique Vaamonde wrote:
 It would be nice to sort the aircrafts by categories in the main a/c
 download page, for example airliners, military/jet, commuters, gliders etc.
 It will have to be done eventually when more a/c are designed, imho.

May be we should just use their layout and options when displaying downloads:
http://www.airliners.net

Ampere

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Christian Mayer]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

the web page is comming along nicely!

There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
normal sized picture should open.

It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
plane as well.

CU,
Christian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB7Xn9lhWtxOxWNFcRAsK7AKC9BXKP7D84/fDG7lGHV2z6S7wHrQCgvcS/
IatYStdya8WuDCb5aH7inWM=
=vtLk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Oliver C.]

On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote:
 Hi,

 the web page is comming along nicely!

 There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
 normal sized picture should open.

 It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
 plane as well.

 CU,
 Christian

And some information data and text about the aircraft itself.
This could be also usefull later for a in game menu.

Best Regards,
 Oliver C.
 

___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Curtis L. Olson]

Christian Mayer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the web page is comming along nicely!
There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
normal sized picture should open.
It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
plane as well.
 

Maybe for the *next* release!
Curt.
--
Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt
HumanFIRST Program  http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/
FlightGear Project  http://www.flightgear.org
Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Oliver C.]

On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote:
 Hi,

 the web page is comming along nicely!

 There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
 normal sized picture should open.

 It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
 plane as well.

 CU,
 Christian


One thing more, that i have forgotten in my last message.

A way to filter the aircrafts on the webpage by their status, fdm
and aircraft type.

Best Regards,
 Oliver C.


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads

[Durk Talsma]

On Tuesday 18 January 2005 22:05, Christian Mayer wrote:
 Hi,

 the web page is comming along nicely!

 There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
 normal sized picture should open.

 It also would be great if there'd be a thumbnail of the cockpit for that
 plane as well.


Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones 
made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to 
these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?

Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence incompatibilities...

Cheers,
Durk


___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d