Re: [Flightgear-devel] OpenStreetMap Open Database License
Hi Rob, Rob Oates wrote: Why not simply ship scenery compiled with the osm data under a different license? A lot of what ends up in our Scenery is covered by the GPL and personally I don't feel like having our own license debate about how to deal with this stuff. This alone is, from my perspective, a reason strong enough not to even think about changing the license under which we're going to ship the Scenery aside from the simple fact that I'm not inclined to change _our_ license because _others_ didn't manage to get it right. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
- Ron Jensen a écrit : On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a hypothetical question. Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Murky waters here. And a slippery slope to be on. Let's say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo system This is distributing. If there were no changes simply pointing to the FG source at cvs.flightgear.org would be sufficient. However, as they distributed a modified executable, they owe the community the modified sources to that executable. That is simply the cost of using flightgear. to a couple different potential customers and say, Hey what do you think. They haven't rolled out an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has paid any money for the copy of the system. Has the GPL been violated? Probably. From the GPL v2 license preamble: Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. You above refers to both company A and the potential customers that received flightgear from company A. Company A has the freedom to sell copies of a modified flightgear. The potential customers have a right to the modified source code, and the freedom to further distribute the modified sources and binary. You above also applies to anyone who receives a copy of the modified flightgear. So if company A is distributing a modified binary copy of flightgear without offering the modified sources, they have violated the GPL. If I can wear my Devil's advocate hat : What if the receiver of the modified software doesn't require the sources ? Does the GPL require that the modified source should be distributed to people that shouldn't use the modified source ? -Fred -- Frédéric Bouvier http://my.fotolia.com/frfoto/ Photo gallery - album photo http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/ FlightGear Scenery Designer -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
Ron Jensen wrote: On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 20:30 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a hypothetical question. Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Murky waters here. And a slippery slope to be on. Let's say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo system This is distributing. If there were no changes simply pointing to the FG source at cvs.flightgear.org would be sufficient. However, as they distributed a modified executable, they owe the community the modified sources to that executable. That is simply the cost of using flightgear. to a couple different potential customers and say, Hey what do you think. They haven't rolled out an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has paid any money for the copy of the system. Has the GPL been violated? Probably. I'd go further, and say yes, but IANAL either. Providing the software to a third party, whether a demo or not, and whether money has changed hands or not, is still distributing the software, so you must include the source. I'm sure you've already thought about it, but just in case this isn't a completely hypothetical situation, you could just give them access to a computer with the (binary) software running on it. The computer is yours, so you are not distributing anything. Alternatively, just rip out half the function to produce your demo, and include the source. -Stuart -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [RFC] ac3d and materials
Hi Martin, On Monday 16 March 2009 21:25:06 Martin Spott wrote: Now, we already have approx. 1k5 3D Scenery models, so chances are high that quite a few are affected by such a change and I'd be happy to apply an automated conversion if this is technically possible. Attached is the script I have tried for some models. But be careful! We have many models that look better without material modification. What are we going to do about the users of our Scenery. Should we: a) leave the Scenery 3D models unchanged until the next software release, thus leaving users of FlightGear/CVS with strange-looking 3D models; b) convert the Scenery 3D models _now_ together with the software at the risk of unsatisfied users of the latest official software release; Note that, if you change any ac model, this change will *not* show up in the official release of flightgears viewer since the amb parameter in the material is *just* *ignored* with the past official release. You can only see that change if we remove that post processing step in model loading as proposed. Greetings Mathias color-change.sh Description: application/shellscript -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [RFC] ac3d and materials
Hi Tim, On Monday 16 March 2009 22:43:22 Tim Moore wrote: I'm working on something that might completely ignore the material settings in the .ac file, but I think that's OK. I'm adding support for effects files that specify, in addition to the material and parameter properties we have now in the .ac file, shaders, uniform parameters for the shaders, fallbacks for environments that don't have shaders. So far I've been working with the terrain, but my idea for models is to associate an effect with a material in the .ac file by using the material's name. Ok! How does this handle scenery wide settings like fog or changes to the fog settings? How does this interact with the proposed changes of Robert Osfield to plug together shader programs from some fixed pipeine state attributes together with custom parts of the scenegraph user? Did you follow this discussion on osg-users? There will more to comment on when I check in the first effects stuff later this week. I am curious! :) So what files/parts are you working on. I have some time this week, as you might have noticed. I do not want to introduce unnecessary (CVS) conflicts with your work ... Greetings Mathias -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] About YASim Documentation
Hello there, In the YASim source code I found a mention to a TeX documentation. I was not able to find it on the Wiki, and googling gave no result. Does it exist, and where could I find it, please ? Cheerio, JB -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
James Sleeman ha scritto: Curtis Olson wrote: Has the GPL been violated? Probably, [...] I absolutely agree with James: money, or demo releases are not kept in consideration when considering GPL Violation such Curtis scenario: If you legally obtain the binary you have the right to obtain (Or know how to download) the source code. Even if you make a media, where FG is just an additional software (Which can be removed as well) you must provide the source code of FG or the way to obtain it. IMHO all the other cases are GPL Violation. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a hypothetical question. Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo system to a couple different potential customers and say, Hey what do you think. They haven't rolled out an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has paid any money for the copy of the system. Has the GPL been violated? You don't have to provide sources with the binaries to comply with the GPL, you just have to make them available if the a recipient of the binary asks for them. In this case company A better have a plan in place for when an eventual paying customer asks for the source. I mean this in the sense that your business model shouldn't depend on keeping source code secret if you're using GPL'ed code. Tim -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
There are some things we need to know that aren't described below. Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be distributing an existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All they need do is mention where FlightGear source can be obtained. If they have modified source code to FlightGear, then they should make the source code available (if requested) to anyone who asks. That doesn't mean anyone would want it. I also would not have a problem with source code to a demo NOT being released if the intent was to keep (at this time) potentially dysfunctional code from escaping into the wild, as long as the eventual production code was made available, if requested, and if potential customers were made aware of that right to the source code. You've got to ask, really, is FlightGear made to be used or not? Is a usage good for the long term, or not? How persnickety do you really want to get? As we've discussed before, money is not the issue, but whether the customer is aware of the fact that the source code is available (and perhaps that the program can be downloaded freely from the FlightGear web site). Is FlightGear GPL or LGPL? Jon From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:31 PM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question Here's a hypothetical question. Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo system to a couple different potential customers and say, Hey what do you think. They haven't rolled out an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has paid any money for the copy of the system. Has the GPL been violated? Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:30:55 -0500, Curtis wrote in message ef5fc9920903161830o1416048dva02c4d7090ec8...@mail.gmail.com: Here's a hypothetical question. Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo system to a couple different potential customers and say, ..give away, or, loan out, with a return deadline? (One way to do return deadline is a bomb timer.) Hey what do you think. They haven't rolled out an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has paid any money for the copy of the system. Has the GPL been violated? ..depends, did the customers get the source too? Add to that pile the gory details on linking GPL code to non-GPL code etc. Curt. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:08:02 +1100, George wrote in message 5b12e0960903161908h699b16a5n40dca9d26ef94...@mail.gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a hypothetical question. Let's say some company A builds an internal product prototype that incorporates FlightGear as part of a larger aggregate system. Let's say they even make a few small changes to FlightGear. Now they give away a demo system to a couple different potential customers and say, Hey what do you think. They haven't rolled out an actual product, they haven't had any actual sales. No customer has paid any money for the copy of the system. Has the GPL been violated? Hi Curt, I believe that as the software has not been released, this would be the same as an software developer extending some software. As long as the product hasn't been provided to the customer then everything is okay. It's only when you have sold the software that you are required to provide access to the software to that customer. ..money is irrelevant to the GPL and copyright law, it's the code transfer|distribution|conveyance that counts. Having said that, if the company above are supplying the demo on installation media, ..installation media _may_ contain all sources and will then qualify compliance to the GPL. then the above doesn't apply and the GPL has been violated. Regards George -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:09:55 +0100 (CET), Frederic wrote in message 26870652.2296231237277395051.javamail.r...@spooler4-g27.priv.proxad.net: - Ron Jensen a écrit : If I can wear my Devil's advocate hat : What if the receiver of the modified software doesn't require the sources ? ..irrelevant, the offer must still be made. Does the GPL require that the modified source should be distributed to people that shouldn't use the modified source ? ..yes. (_Another_ question is the wisdom in using the binaries from those modified sources, like Wintendo virus eaters. ;o)) -Fred -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote: There are some things we need to know that aren’t described below. Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be distributing an existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All they need do is mention where FlightGear source can be obtained. If they have modified source code to FlightGear, then they should make the source code available (if requested) to anyone who asks. That doesn’t mean anyone would want it. I also would not have a problem with source code to a demo NOT being released if the intent was to keep (at this time) potentially dysfunctional code from escaping into the wild, as long as the eventual production code was made available, if requested, and if potential customers were made aware of that right to the source code. You’ve got to ask, really, is FlightGear made to be used or not? Is a usage good for the long term, or not? How persnickety do you really want to get? As we’ve discussed before, money is not the issue, but whether the customer is aware of the fact that the source code is available (and perhaps that the program can be downloaded freely from the FlightGear web site). Is FlightGear GPL or LGPL? FlightGear is GPL. FlightGear is of course made to be used. In the hypothetical situation I am describing, I have not had any hypothetical contact with the hypothetically alleged GPL infringer so I have very little information to go on (hypothetically.) The consensus is that only distributing a demo or free copy of a modified binary does not exempt someone from honoring the terms of the GPL. That makes perfect sense and it's good to cut away that potential distraction. It is also good to be reminded that distributing a modified binary isn't necessarily a violation in and of itself. The violation would technically happen when someone who received the modified binary asked for the modified source code and was refused. Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code? I appreciate all the feedback. Thanks, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:23:09 -0500, Jon wrote in message 00a201c9a6ea$60534dc0$20f9e9...@net: There are some things we need to know that aren't described below. Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be distributing an existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All they need do is mention where FlightGear source can be obtained. ..they _also_ need to offer the source themselves, say on an ark load of clay tablets to encourage more modern ways. ;o) If they have modified source code to FlightGear, then they should make the source code available (if requested) to anyone who asks. ..not if they keep it all in-house and _never_ distribute|sell|give|convey|transfer|etc it. this may have been an original intention, _but_ once a demo is being offered, the sources must follow that offer. Best way is put it on the same media. That doesn't mean anyone would want it. ..correct, however the offer must still be made to comply to the license. I also would not have a problem with source code to a demo NOT being released if the intent was to keep (at this time) potentially dysfunctional code from escaping into the wild, as long as the eventual production code was made available, if requested, and if potential customers were made aware of that right to the source code. ..another slippery slope there, the point with the GPL requirements of full sources and relevant build scripts, is securing the copyrights, not the functionality of the code. You've got to ask, really, is FlightGear made to be used or not? Is a usage good for the long term, or not? How persnickety do you really want to get? ..enough to make sure we never need to dodge 6 years of SCO type litigation seen at http://groklaw.net/ . As we've discussed before, money is not the issue, but whether the customer is aware of the fact that the source code is available (and perhaps that the program can be downloaded freely from the FlightGear web site). Is FlightGear GPL or LGPL? ..GPLv2-and-Later, some bits may be GPLv2-only, and the only good reason to stop at v2, is the ability to deny a violator a license for life, for everything else, GPLv3 gives us better protection. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code? In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any rights for the whole world, but just for the users. This makes the GPL a perfectly acceptable license even for work with only one intended customer. Stefan -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:34:19 -0500, Curtis wrote in message ef5fc9920903170534s75b2f92bo4352f46a742e0...@mail.gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:23 AM, Jon S. Berndt wrote: There are some things we need to know that aren’t described below. Was the FlightGear source modified? If not, then they would be distributing an existing FlightGear that anyone can download. All they need do is mention where FlightGear source can be obtained. If they have modified source code to FlightGear, then they should make the source code available (if requested) to anyone who asks. That doesn’t mean anyone would want it. I also would not have a problem with source code to a demo NOT being released if the intent was to keep (at this time) potentially dysfunctional code from escaping into the wild, as long as the eventual production code was made available, if requested, and if potential customers were made aware of that right to the source code. You’ve got to ask, really, is FlightGear made to be used or not? Is a usage good for the long term, or not? How persnickety do you really want to get? As we’ve discussed before, money is not the issue, but whether the customer is aware of the fact that the source code is available (and perhaps that the program can be downloaded freely from the FlightGear web site). Is FlightGear GPL or LGPL? FlightGear is GPL. FlightGear is of course made to be used. In the hypothetical situation I am describing, I have not had any hypothetical contact with the hypothetically alleged GPL infringer so I have very little information to go on (hypothetically.) The consensus is that only distributing a demo or free copy of a modified binary does not exempt someone from honoring the terms of the GPL. That makes perfect sense and it's good to cut away that potential distraction. It is also good to be reminded that distributing a modified binary ..modified only adds a requirement to offer their own source, along with ours, and compliance can be done with a pointer to git|svn|cvs.fgo and their own patch(es) from their own site and a threat of FG source on human readable clay tablets. isn't necessarily a violation in and of itself. The violation would technically happen when someone who received the modified binary asked for the modified source code and was refused. ..yup, assuming the source offer was made. If it isn't made, that failure becomes the violation. Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code? ..this is _one_ reason I prefer the GPLv3, avoids that litigation bait trap in GPLv2, it is _too_ open to interpretion_s_. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] maketg and makefg scripts
Hi Arnt,
Without reviewing the maketg logs of the form templogNN.txt,
..doh! You still want my 1.0.2 logs?
No, but it will always help on some items, to be able
to 'see' the current log(s) if more errors. The 'log' you
included with your 3rd email, seems to be from using maketg
v 1.0.2??? The 'NN' number increments each time you use
maketg...
I have now put up versions 1.0.4 which -
(a) Outputs which version it is to the log, and date...
(b) Drops the lsb_release stuff, which I was NOT using anyway.
Get these, and _DELETE_ all others...
http://geoffair.net/tmp/maketg
http://geoffair.net/tmp/makefg
Other matters...
And remember the script 'installs' the final TG executables
in $HOME/bin,
..sure? And not /opt/bygg/tg/install nor
/opt/bygg/tg/install/bin in my case???:
a...@a45:/opt/bygg/tg $ ll $HOME/bin
ls: cannot access /home/arnt/bin: No such file or directory
Yes, I AM SURE! The 'install' process CREATES directories
when they do not exist...
export PATH=${PATH}:$HOME/bin
You MUST change the script if you want them installed
elsewhere...
..ok, for my 2 (fg tg) trees, I will need
export PATH=${PATH}:/opt/bygg/fg/install/bin and
export PATH=${PATH}:/opt/bygg/tg/install/bin ?
Unh... NO!
1. Running FG:
=
If you 'really' wanted the 'fgfs' executable to be in
your path then you would need something like -
export PATH=${PATH}:/opt/bygg/fg/install/fgfs/bin
BUT this alone would NOT work, because 'fgfs' needs
access to the OSG shared libraries, which by the script, are
installed in /opt/bygg/fg/install/OpenSceneGraph/lib64
but there is a link created to it from -
/opt/bygg/fg/install/OpenSceneGraph/lib
So to be able to run fgfs from anywhere, which is the sole
reason for putting it in your PATH, then you would always need to
preceed it with -
~$ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/bygg/fg/install/OpenSceneGraph/lib
~$ fgfs [OPTIONS]
or you could set up the LD_LIBRARY_PATH in a 'shell' rc file,
but then it effects ALL other compiles - NOT GOOD!
Note, the makefg script creates a run_fgfs.sh, thus it seems easier
to enter the fg folder, assumed /opt/bygg/fg in your case, and
use it...
/opt/bygg/fg$ ./run_fgfs.sh [OPTIONS]
Or use ./run_fgrun.sh that is there also... or will be when you
get through the makefg script...
2. Running TG:
=
Terragear is a group of some 25 or so utilities, NOT a single
application, so it makes sense to have these 'executables'
available where ever you are building your scenery at the
time.
That is why they are all installed in a SINGLE location, and at
present the maketg script uses $HOME/bin. And that is why the
suggest .bashrc, or bash_aliases entry of :-
export PATH=${PATH}:$HOME/bin
is much more appropriate...
..later, maybe make and install .deb's, .rpm's etc packages?
Do understand this?
distcc ccache ccontrol dmucs
These seems off topic to maketg and makefg ;=))
compile farm ... ok
recompiling only on the new source edits.
The auto make file system already does this!
..offloading the work load so I can fly during compiles. ;o)
You can always 'fly' while compiling, and anyway if I really
want separation, I just start up different machines... ;=))
I found a new bug with your maketg-1.0.3:
No, it is just that your '/bin/sh' did NOT expand the TAB (\t),
nor the new line (\n) characters...
These lines in your email show me that -
\nCFLAGS = -O -g
\trm -f $@
These scripts MUST be run in a shell that does expand tabs
and new lines. You will note at the top of the scripts
#!/bin/sh
#/bin/bash
Try reversing these, and try using 'bash'
#!/bin/bash
#/bin/sh
but NOT sure this will work...
Or configure or change your 'bin/sh' to one that DOES these
expansions... my system has :-
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 100856 2009-03-09 14:18 /bin/dash
version 0.5.4-8ubuntu1.1 - POSIX-compliant shell
As with _ALL_ scripts, there can be 'shell' incompatibilities,
but this nl/tab expansion should NOT be one of them!!!
Try running -
#!/bin/sh
# test-tab - test TAB expansion
MKFIL=/tmp/temptt.txt
echo # test tab expansion
echo \trm -f \$@ $MKFIL
echo # test new line expansion
echo \n\tar cr \$@ \$ $MKFIL
xxd $MKFIL
rm -f $MKFILE
echo Above should be -
echo 000: 0972 6d20 2d66 2024 400a 0a09 6172 2063 .rm -f \...@...ar
c
echo 010: 7220 2440 2024 3c0a r \$@ $.
Note first line of the dump begins with 09, not '\t', and has
two 0a...
If your shell does not do this, then GET ANOTHER ONE ;=))
And the automated 'gpc' stuff is not well suited to 'restarts'
so you should at least trash the gpc232 folder...
We seem to be getting close ;=)) remember, delete all previous
versions and only use 1.0.4, and maybe clean out the 'tmp'
log files now and again...
Since it is all SO automated, I often just 'trash', or rename
my current 'work' folder, and start again, and go
have coffee while it happens...
Regards,
Geoff.
--
Apps built with the
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote: On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code? In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any rights for the whole world, but just for the users. This makes the GPL a perfectly acceptable license even for work with only one intended customer. Stefan Stefan's answer would allow company A to restrict the potential customer's freedom to redistribute flightgear. Anticipated and specifically addressed in GPL v2 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid Quote: What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what? If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it. If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code? In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any rights for the whole world, but just for the users. This makes the GPL a perfectly acceptable license even for work with only one intended customer. Stefan I don't think this is correct. Once GPL, always GPL. Everyone must have access to the source code. A first user cannot use FlightGear and force more stringent requirements on the release of source code. That's expressly forbidden by the GPL. The answer to Curt's question, therefore, is, Yes!. Jon -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
On Tuesday 17 March 2009 14:11:38 Ron Jensen wrote: On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:43 +0100, Stefan Seifert wrote: On Tuesday 17 March 2009 13:34:19 Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code? In short: no. The GPL doesn't require any rights for the whole world, but just for the users. This makes the GPL a perfectly acceptable license even for work with only one intended customer. Stefan's answer would allow company A to restrict the potential customer's freedom to redistribute flightgear. Anticipated and specifically addressed in GPL v2 Bottomline: no matter how often I read that darn license, I'll always forget important part when feeling the need to answer questions about it. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for clearing that up. Just a note: if the demo already contains the source code, then there does not have to be a written offer (or the referal to the written offer) for any third party, which would indeed be the case, I incorrectly simplified it to. Stefan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
* Jon S. Berndt -- Tuesday 17 March 2009: Everyone must have access to the source code. Only those who got the binary, directly or indirectly. From the FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource: | My friend got a GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply source, and | made a copy for me. Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source? | | Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the | binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend must | give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary—so you can | take advantage of it. Of course, nobody is obliged to give you the binary. m. PS: While a judge in a lawsuit may not agree with the FAQ, it's still the most authoritative source. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [RFC] ac3d and materials
Mathias Fröhlich wrote: Hi Tim, On Monday 16 March 2009 22:43:22 Tim Moore wrote: I'm working on something that might completely ignore the material settings in the .ac file, but I think that's OK. I'm adding support for effects files that specify, in addition to the material and parameter properties we have now in the .ac file, shaders, uniform parameters for the shaders, fallbacks for environments that don't have shaders. So far I've been working with the terrain, but my idea for models is to associate an effect with a material in the .ac file by using the material's name. Ok! How does this handle scenery wide settings like fog or changes to the fog settings? That needs to be handled in the shader program. The OpenGL fog parameters are available as uniforms in shaders. How does this interact with the proposed changes of Robert Osfield to plug together shader programs from some fixed pipeine state attributes together with custom parts of the scenegraph user? Did you follow this discussion on osg-users? I have been following that. I think that work applies to a situation where you don't have a fixed function pipeline anymore -- like in OpenGLES 2.0 and OpenGL 3.x -- and want to keep OSG programs that use state sets running. Eventually, as we use shaders more ourselves and want to run in these new environments, we'll need to worry about being compatible, but for now it's not an issue. There will more to comment on when I check in the first effects stuff later this week. I am curious! :) So what files/parts are you working on. I have some time this week, as you might have noticed. I do not want to introduce unnecessary (CVS) conflicts with your work ... I don't think we'll conflict. I've made a bunch of changes to SGExpression.hxx, some hacks to the property system, and files in scene/material. Tim -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] hypothetical gpl question
Curtis Olson wrote: Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the modified program don't care to ask for the source code? Anybody who gets the binary is under the GPL entitled to the source - gets the binary is the operative phrase here. As Melchior pointed out above me nobody who gets the binary (or source) is required to distribute it further, and if they don't do so, they don't need to give the source (or offer thereof) to anybody. However from memory you also can't restrict the right of people TO distribute it if they get it, so you can't say here's the software, it's GPL, but you must sign this other agreement which says you won't distribute it to anybody. -- Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
