Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Modeling and integrating the Cessna UC 78 Bobcat
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:45:46 -0500, Peter Brown smoothwater...@adelphia.net wrote: On Feb 25, 2011, at 10:27 AM, David Van Mosselbeen wrote: I forward this as it seems the flightgear-flightmodel isn't much active, and dunno if there's still some life in there. Original Message Subject: Modeling and integrating the Cessna UC 78 Bobcat Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:14:59 +0100 From: David Van Mosselbeen dvanmosselbeen@sun.pinguin.local To: flightgear-flightmo...@lists.sourceforge.net Hi all! I have modeled the Cessna UC 78 Bobcat with Blender (2.56) some time ago. It's still a wip, very low poly and not textured yet and it should be improved. You can find some screenshots here [1] [2] [3]. For the interest of learning blender and in the hope to find a practical path in my learn curve, i would like to integrate this in FGFS. Didn't found this aircraft in the repo and somehow, i hope nobody is modeling and integrating this one ;) Or if so please give a sign asap and will try some other one. [1] http://dvm.zapto.org:8080/~dvanmosselbeen/gallery/galleries/My_Blender_3d_stuff/cessna-uc-78-bobcat_0001.jpg [2] http://dvm.zapto.org:8080/~dvanmosselbeen/gallery/galleries/My_Blender_3d_stuff/cessna-uc-78-bobcat_0002.jpg [3] http://dvm.zapto.org:8080/~dvanmosselbeen/gallery/galleries/My_Blender_3d_stuff/cessna-uc-78-bobcat_0003.jpg Thanks, Kind regards, David Van Mosselbeen David, the Bobcat's a neat old plane. Did you complete just the model or build a complete model with fdm, so it's a flying model? Peter Hi Peter! :) It will be a complete model, well, it is already but in construction and it already fly :) Modeled with Blender (2.56), and used Gimp. Aircraft directory/file structure is based on the Skyvan of Helijah, and i take my chance now at the same time to thank Helijah for the support he provide during my experimentation's. I have put some temp screenshots here: http://dvm.zapto.org:8080/gallery/ Kind regards, David (aka Itchi) -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Why is Atlas protocol denied the magnetic variation?
Hi,
Sorry for the 'threading' confusion. Ron pointed out to
me off-list that it is BAD to [Reply] to 'old' messages,
just changing the topic, when creating a _NEW_ topic.
Shall avoid that in future ;=))
Ok, I have taken this a step further, and modified
Network/atlas.cxx to add the magnetic variation,
and found the flaw in the code snippet given ;=))
a missing '%' char!
And have tested this with Atlas. It is fully backward
compatible in that Atlas was totally ignoring this
field in the message, and was thus writing the same
dummy '000.0,E' when saving the track.
After correcting both parts of Atlas, the decode, and
the save, I now get a 'track' file that includes the
magnetic variation. I also have to check when Atlas
reads in an existing track file...
But attached is a FG source patch for this. I would
add it as a git merge request if I knew how ;=)) Maybe
someone can point me to some documentation on how
to do this, and I will try that next time...
But if thought fit, I hope this patch can make it
into git, to augment the atlas protocol output...
Regards,
Geoff.
attached: 0005-add-magvar.patch
Original Message :
Hi,
Is there any particular reason why the $GPRMC message
generated for Atlas protocol only has a 'dummy'
magnetic variation, '0.000,E' - in atlas.cxx,
about line 139
For example, the garmin message correctly gets the -
/environment/magnetic-variation-deg
when generating its $GPRMC message - in garmen.cxx,
lines 127-135.
I am trying to add some 'features' to Atlas, to further
aid in 'navigation', and the magnetic variation will
assist in these calculations...
The message heading given is magnetic -
/orientation/heading-deg
and the addition of the magnetic variation to the
Atlas $GPRMC message would allow the true heading
to be calculated and be used in SG geod distance
calculations, etc...
It would be as simple as duplicating the code from
the garmin.cxx, something like :-
char dir = 'E'; char magvar[10];
float magdeg = fgGetDouble(/environment/magnetic-variation-deg);
if (magdeg 0.0) {
magdeg = -magdeg;
dir = 'W';
}
sprintf( magvar, 05.1f,%c, magdeg, dir );
then add 'magvar' to the Atlas $GPRMC message...
Of course, Atlas could have code to 'calculate' its own
magnetic variation, like that in coremag.cxx, or use the
functions from that SG library, but hope not to have to
do that... especially since I think it 'should' be part
of the $GPRMC message...
Was this just an oversight, or was there a specific reason
why it was decided that the Atlas message should only
have a 'dummy' value?
If just oversight, then the above code could serve as a
patch to atlas.cxx... when someone has the time... and that
would be very much appreciated ;=))
Regards,
Geoff.
0005-add-magvar.patch
Description: application/mbox
--
Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in
Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data
generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual
or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business
insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Aircraft's jump when taking of on EBBR
Hi there, When i start from EBBR, the aircraft isn't placed on the right location, it is just before the piste, with consequence, need to start from the plain ground and then before reaching the piste it jump on a hidden hill. Kinda weird experience :D I get this with different aircraft's. Kind regards, David -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Hi, Just out of curiosity: anyone already asked for permissions? Regarding No answer from the TM holder I guess treating it as yes is our all risque. I must admit: I still can understand Jack very well when I browse through the Internet and see the many, many liveries made. I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders this weekend like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they react, but I also fear a bit the answers and consequences. Hmmm. Stuart wrote: snip I agree with Jon on this - ideally we should be pro-active about asking for permission, even if we don't like the answer. Very good points mentioned. Especially the point that this will increase FGs appearance on some radars. However lots of people are nowadays using Google so the debate has become public anyway. I would to point out that besides the two results yes and no there might be a third one worth considering which is: No answer from the TM holder. This might be treated the same as yes or no. In case of treating it as yes we should agree how to treat potential consequences ;) Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
* Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de: I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders this weekend like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they react, but I also fear a bit the answers and consequences. Severe tactical error a.k.a. shooting yourself in the foot. What if they (or some of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I better see my livery in the database lickity split! -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Hi, * Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de: I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders this weekend like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they react, but I also fear a bit the answers and consequences. Severe tactical error a.k.a. shooting yourself in the foot. What if they (or some of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. I thought about that, but hoped no one will raise this up The question is still: how to proceed? One of my liveries uses like Jack a copyrighted logo (taken from an own phto) and may not be used without permission. -- http://www.adac.de/impressum/default.aspx?ComponentId=6019SourcePageId=6729#ank6019-5 On the other side: there are many hundreds liveries with this Logo out there available. Feeling a bit helpless -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
I think that a key with all this is that none of the models will be sold for profit. You could argue that even if the models are on a cd that is sold for profit since they are also available freely that the models are not the source of the profit. Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de wrote: Hi, * Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de: I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders this weekend like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they react, but I also fear a bit the answers and consequences. Severe tactical error a.k.a. shooting yourself in the foot. What if they (or some of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. I thought about that, but hoped no one will raise this up The question is still: how to proceed? One of my liveries uses like Jack a copyrighted logo (taken from an own phto) and may not be used without permission. -- http://www.adac.de/impressum/default.aspx?ComponentId=6019SourcePageId=6729#ank6019-5 On the other side: there are many hundreds liveries with this Logo out there available. Feeling a bit helpless -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
* Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net: I think that a key with all this is that none of the models will be sold for profit. You could argue that [...] No, the key is that all the arguing will be between their lawyers and ours. Except, we don't have lawyers and can't afford them. ;-) m. -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
I agree with Melchior. In the most situations they will be obliged to say no. It's the easiest, safest, most proven course for them. It seems rare that someone in our community is approached by a copyright-holder and told to remove some objectionable element. Even if it does happen, it's likely that someone will get a letter from a law firm saying Take-XYZ-down-or-else. You shrug, comply, and move on. There's a saying in English about bearding the lion in his den. It's probably better to stay beneath the lion's radar. -Gary -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
26 feb 2011 kl. 19:37 skrev Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de: The question is still: how to proceed? Just pretend this discussion never was. That is, do whatever we did before the issue was raised. Are we prepared for the consequences of negative responses? Cheers, Jari-- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Staying beneath the radar might be effective but do you feel good about it? Is it the ethical thing to do? Unethical? Hoping that ignorance is bliss? Trying to ignore a perceived problem and wishing it would go away because it is too hard to do things the right way? OTOH even if a company feels that a violation is taking place they would surely make a friendly request first. Jon Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on ATT Gary Neely grne...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Melchior. In the most situations they will be obliged to say no. It's the easiest, safest, most proven course for them. It seems rare that someone in our community is approached by a copyright-holder and told to remove some objectionable element. Even if it does happen, it's likely that someone will get a letter from a law firm saying Take-XYZ-down-or-else. You shrug, comply, and move on. There's a saying in English about bearding the lion in his den. It's probably better to stay beneath the lion's radar. -Gary -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net wrote: Staying beneath the radar might be effective but do you feel good about it? Is it the ethical thing to do? Unethical? Hoping that ignorance is bliss? Trying to ignore a perceived problem and wishing it would go away because it is too hard to do things the right way? OTOH even if a company feels that a violation is taking place they would surely make a friendly request first. Jon I don't want to be misunderstood: I applaud Heiko's sentiment. But in this case, yes, I would feel good about it, and yes, I believe it's a reasonably ethical position for a loose collection of people who make non-commercial virtual aircraft and who are totally willing to comply with legal requests. -Gary -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Jari Häkkinen j...@flygarna.se wrote: Just pretend this discussion never was. That is, do whatever we did before the issue was raised. Are we prepared for the consequences of negative responses? We are trying to find a reasonable way forward, not forget about anything. No one wants to remove existing content from the FlightGear project, even though some of that same content would not be allowed to be submitted by some authors as it stand right now. Because it was submitted by other authors or was submitted in the past we are ok with it. Our consensus so far is not 100% internally consistent unfortunately. We have some arguing for a completely pristine do nothing without explicit permission approach. We have some arguing for a do whatever we can get away with approach. Think of the implications of doing nothing without written permission. We would literally do nothing in that case except for a few very rare cases where someone did manage to get written permission -- and we would need to remove most of the work that we have done to date. But those arguing for a more pristine policy, are unwilling to actually present a specific policy -- I believe because they realize to be logically consistent would require them to advocate removal of just about all FlightGear content. The implications of doing whatever we can get away with are equally bad. This sets us up as bad guys operating only in our own self interest and puts us in a position that we at least seem willing to break laws if we can get away with it. I think a reasonable way forward is to follow the commonly accepted standards in the simulation community: that it is fine to create virtual representations of real world vehicles, buildings, land marks, etc. and decorate them with the same markings they have in the real world. We are trying to have fun and create faithful representations of the real world. If a specific company has a specific issue, they are welcome to approach us and we will do whatever we can to accommodate their concerns. Our main constraint in creating content for the FlightGear simulator is that we make sure that our work is our own, or borrowed and adapted with proper permission. As many others have pointed out, we are creating an issue here where none existed and wasting a lot of time with it. The best we can do by pursing this issue is to shoot ourselves in the foot and harm our project. If we pursue this issue, and do not proceed in a pure, self-consistent manner, we also put ourselves in the position of knowingly violating our own policies or knowingly violating our own interpretation of the law ... that is the worst possible path we can take. As the project coordinator, I have *never* been contacted by any company with any concern that we have improperly used their logos or trademarks. I have never been contacted by any company with even the slightest concern or smallest question. Look at this another way: every man made object in the world is made by some person or company. Every building was designed by some architect and built by some company or group of companies. Every aircraft design is owned by someone, every vehicle, every livery, every logo. All those things that weren't built by specific companies were designed or built by governments or government sponsored groups. Can we not agree that it is ridiculous for people to suggest that we need to get written permission before we can model anything that has been designed, built, touched, altered by any individual, company, or government without their written permission? I know that a few out there will still assert that we need some permission from some companies to model some things. PLEASE!!! Tell me where you draw the line and how you draw the line; and if possible use LOGIC!!! Until then, I submit that we should be able to create realistic and fair representations of vehicles and buildings that are found in the real world including logos and trademarks. To disagree with this position means that you are advocating that we move a *HUGE* portion of the content of our simulator. Jon: I respect your position, but I humbly ask then that you please post or send me your letters for usage permission from Boeing, Airbus, Douglas, Lockheed, Aérospatiale, BAC, deHavilland, McDonnell, Cessna, Fokker, (New) Piper, etc. etc. all of which (and more) you have modeled in JSBSim and distribute on the official JSBSim web site. Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Heiko Hi, * Heiko Schulz aeitsch...@yahoo.de: I will write some Emails to some copyright-holders this weekend like Lufthansa, ADAC,... I'm curious to see how they react, but I also fear a bit the answers and consequences. Severe tactical error a.k.a. shooting yourself in the foot. What if they (or some of them) are well aware of our use, but they just decided not to care, pretending not to know officially, because it's a small, harmless, not-for-profit sim. But once you officially asked, they can no longer pretend. And the answer will be *no* in most cases. Then the silent gentlemen agreement is voided. By us! And now they *have* to take measures to protect their brand. They might think: You idiots! Why did you have to ask?! It's like asking a policeman if you may cross the street at red traffic light. He might have ignored you doing it. But he sure can't say go ahead, nor can he then tolerate you ignoring his order. m. I thought about that, but hoped no one will raise this up The question is still: how to proceed? One of my liveries uses like Jack a copyrighted logo (taken from an own phto) and may not be used without permission. -- http://www.adac.de/impressum/default.aspx?ComponentId=6019SourcePageId=67 29#ank6019-5 On the other side: there are many hundreds liveries with this Logo out there available. Feeling a bit helpless As Melchior said - or nearly said - let sleeping dogs lie. Vivian -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com] Jon: I respect your position, but I humbly ask then that you please post or send me your letters for usage permission from Boeing, Airbus, Douglas, Lockheed, Aérospatiale, BAC, deHavilland, McDonnell, Cessna, Fokker, (New) Piper, etc. etc. all of which (and more) you have modeled in JSBSim and distribute on the official JSBSim web site. Best regards, Curt. Curt, As you may recall, a few years ago myself and at least one other JSBSim developer did have an event that caused us to look over our operating procedures - and I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say that it was not a pleasant experience, although it turned out OK and in my case I was apologized to for the inconvenience. I never did figure out the exact reason why I was contacted and questioned. As you may also recall I did post the correspondence I received from Boeing IP personnel here in this thread a couple of weeks ago. It was that response that lead us to reevaluate our process and to withdraw some aircraft models from distribution for a while. We then added some disclaimers and statements in most of them and made sure that our data was traceable to public sources. We have it much easier than FlightGear does, since the reference to an aircraft type using the company name (such as Boeing 737) is far different than the use of a trademark or logo - particularly for a logo. I can't tell you guys what to do, but if it was me I would take maybe one of two approaches: 1) Make a README file that contains an appropriate disclaimer and distribute that with each model. I don't know what that disclaimer would state. 2) Continue as if nothing had changed, but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very carefully inform them of the project and ask them for permission. In any case, I strongly suspect that the worst that can happen is that if a company takes issue with the unauthorized use of its IP it will simply ask that further use be discontinued and that will be the end of it. Jon attachment: winmail.dat-- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Hi Jon, I apologize for being persnickety here, but I am searching for clarity and consistency on this issue. Has the JSBSim project asked permission from all the aircraft manufacturers that you create and distribute models for? If not, have you only dealt with Boeing in terms of asking for and receiving permission? If you've only received permission from one company, then why? I assume it's because they contacted you and forced this issue. In any case, why is it ok to proceed with explicit permission from Boeing, and at the same time ok to proceed *without* explicit permission from every other aircraft manufacturer on the planet? If it's ok for JSBSim to proceed without permission from most companies, then why suggest that FlightGear should get permission before we model aircraft from various manufacturers with logos representing various owners of specific aircraft? I don't understand. By my reading of your messages, I feel like you are making ethical comments (or perhaps suggestions would be a better word) related to the actions of the FlightGear project without applying that same standard consistently to the JSBSim project? I don't see how (from a logical perspective) that getting permission from one aircraft manufacturer exempts you from asking for permission (and not proceeding without it) for any other aircraft manufacturer. And this is my difficulty with everyone who is arguing that FlightGear should get permission before modeling any aircraft or liveries ... I don't see any consistent application of these suggestions or any way to consistently apply anything close to them without either (a) gutting our project, or (b) acting in ways that would be completely inconsistent with these hypothetical policies. I'm not trying to be a PITA here, just trying to understand ... Thanks, Curt. On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Jon S. Berndt wrote: As you may recall, a few years ago myself and at least one other JSBSim developer did have an event that caused us to look over our operating procedures - and I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say that it was not a pleasant experience, although it turned out OK and in my case I was apologized to for the inconvenience. I never did figure out the exact reason why I was contacted and questioned. As you may also recall I did post the correspondence I received from Boeing IP personnel here in this thread a couple of weeks ago. It was that response that lead us to reevaluate our process and to withdraw some aircraft models from distribution for a while. We then added some disclaimers and statements in most of them and made sure that our data was traceable to public sources. We have it much easier than FlightGear does, since the reference to an aircraft type using the company name (such as Boeing 737) is far different than the use of a trademark or logo - particularly for a logo. I can't tell you guys what to do, but if it was me I would take maybe one of two approaches: 1) Make a README file that contains an appropriate disclaimer and distribute that with each model. I don't know what that disclaimer would state. 2) Continue as if nothing had changed, but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very carefully inform them of the project and ask them for permission. In any case, I strongly suspect that the worst that can happen is that if a company takes issue with the unauthorized use of its IP it will simply ask that further use be discontinued and that will be the end of it. Jon -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
* Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net: [...] but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very carefully inform them of the project and ask them for permission. Such requests go to the legal department, right? Their job is to protect the company, so their response will almost certainly be no -- tbe safest and most protective answer they can give. And it doesn't matter one bit if they have a leg to stand on legally! It's probably a gray area in many jurisdictions, but isn't what we do sculpting and painting, hence *art*? So what you end up with is an almost certain questionable no. How much better is that than a questionable maybe? m.attachment: winmail.dat-- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
To be honest I think most companies would see their logo ending up on a virtual aircraft as a way to get free advertising; That is; as long as it's a genuine representation of their business. In this case I would therefore argue; Keep it real and stay out of trouble. I could easily see Red-Bull complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Hi, So, is there any ruling? Who's in charge right now? If there are already instances of the Red Bull logo in the database, why isn't my AH-1 getting committed? Why aren't the other logos getting deleted? I just want to see something done. Somebody just commit the aircraft and get it over with. I can assure the gates of hell will not open the moment it is committed. Thanks, Jack -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Erik Hofman wrote: To be honest I think most companies would see their logo ending up on a virtual aircraft as a way to get free advertising; That is; as long as it's a genuine representation of their business. In this case I would therefore argue; Keep it real and stay out of trouble. I could easily see Red-Bull complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Well I hope Red Bull doesn't see the following link. But hopefully they'll be so busy suing the jerks that painted their logo on a Cobra that they won't worry about us: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KYZKqfdOPt0/THfmWhBVvpI/ALQ/877pUiP9dtk/s1600/cobra+-+flying+bulls.jpg :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/ -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:08:32 -0600 Curtis Olson curtol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Erik Hofman wrote: To be honest I think most companies would see their logo ending up on a virtual aircraft as a way to get free advertising; That is; as long as it's a genuine representation of their business. In this case I would therefore argue; Keep it real and stay out of trouble. I could easily see Red-Bull complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Well I hope Red Bull doesn't see the following link. But hopefully they'll be so busy suing the jerks that painted their logo on a Cobra that they won't worry about us: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KYZKqfdOPt0/THfmWhBVvpI/ALQ/877pUiP9dtk/s1600/cobra+-+flying+bulls.jpg Interesting, I didn't know that an frankly I'm a bit surprised .. was that authorized by Red Bull? If so then I think FlightGear will be safe too. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Hi, That's their own heli- Red Bull owns it indeed! This are the new colors. -- http://www.hangar-7.com/de/the-flying-bulls/flugzeuge/ On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Erik Hofman wrote: To be honest I think most companies would see their logo ending up on a virtual aircraft as a way to get free advertising; That is; as long as it's a genuine representation of their business. In this case I would therefore argue; Keep it real and stay out of trouble. I could easily see Red-Bull complain about their logo on a assault helicopter and as a result want their logo removed from any aircraft in the database. Well I hope Red Bull doesn't see the following link. But hopefully they'll be so busy suing the jerks that painted their logo on a Cobra that they won't worry about us: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KYZKqfdOPt0/THfmWhBVvpI/ALQ/877pUiP9dtk/s1600/cobra+-+flying+bulls.jpg Interesting, I didn't know that an frankly I'm a bit surprised .. was that authorized by Red Bull? If so then I think FlightGear will be safe too. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos andlicensing
*facepalm* Are you telling me that you guys didn't know that Red Bull owns that aircraft? That's the whole reason I made the livery! To accurately recreate the newest addition to the Flying Bulls team, the AH-1! This is the Red Bull aircraft I based my livery off of: http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a280/the-red-baron/AH-1Cobra.jpg -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos andlicensing
*facepalm* Are you telling me that you guys didn't know that Red Bull owns that aircraft? That's the whole reason I made the livery! To accurately recreate the newest addition to the Flying Bulls team, the AH-1! This is the Red Bull aircraft I based my livery off of: http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a280/the-red-baron/AH-1Cobra.jpg Correct, that's the older painting. Nethertheless, the problem is that the red Bull belongs to the trademark and is protected. Many more trademarks used in FGFS are as well (to be honest: all ;-)) but Red Bull seems to be very agressive in protecting them -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Curtis Olson wrote: No one wants to remove existing content from the FlightGear project, even though some of that same content would not be allowed to be submitted by some authors as it stand right now. Because it was submitted by other authors or was submitted in the past we are ok with it. Curt, by repeating a wrong statement as often as you already did in this context, you don't make it a true statement. People _are_ concerned about some of the content in our Base Package, but, as I already wrote via private EMail (17th February), I consider removing controversial content from the Base Package as being much more ressouce-intensive as preventing new, controversial content to creep in. Because everyone's busy, as usual, sorting things out might take a while. Think of the implications of doing nothing without written permission. We would literally do nothing in that case except for a few very rare cases where someone did manage to get written permission -- and we would need to remove most of the work that we have done to date. But those arguing for a more pristine policy, are unwilling to actually present a specific policy -- I believe because they realize to be logically consistent would require them to advocate removal of just about all FlightGear content. I'm one of those who think that a written policy doesn't help in this context. Not because I'm generally against policies but, instead, because past experience has shown that this very FlightGear project doesn't have a good track record about dealing with people who are persistently ignorant about policies. Yes, I'm convinced that the FlightGear project is affected by 'social' issues. I also sense that identifying this sort of social issues might have been your most apparent blind spot over the past years I know that a few out there will still assert that we need some permission from some companies to model some things. PLEASE!!! Tell me where you draw the line and how you draw the line; and if possible use LOGIC!!! Might be quite easy: At least void those companies who are _known_ for being sensitive about using their trademarked content. Examples have been presented on this very list on the past one or two weeks. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos andlicensing
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:23:41 -0800 Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com wrote: *facepalm* Are you telling me that you guys didn't know that Red Bull owns that aircraft? That's the whole reason I made the livery! To accurately recreate the newest addition to the Flying Bulls team, the AH-1! Well, I didn't. No idea about the rest. Erik -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Jack: I don't have commit power, but I strongly recommend you include text along with the model which says Red Bull does not endorse your model or FlightGear. I'd also write why you think it's okay to use the trademark in this instance, which is to accurately reflect a real-life livery of a helicopter. That makes it less of an issue in my non-legal opinion because there's no confusion about why we're deciding to commit this - we're not incorporating their trademark for any commercial gain, but rather to simulate flight more realistically! To all currently arguing: Consider it is going to be difficult for whoever would sue us to show how we've cost them any financial damage. Likely, someone being aggressive with trademark infringement is probably going simply to ask us to stop distribution of whatever trademark we are using. Cheers John -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Feb 26, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Gene Buckle wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2011, Gary Neely wrote: There's a saying in English about bearding the lion in his den. It's probably better to stay beneath the lion's radar. Especially considering the rather top-heavy population of fuzzy bunnies we have around here. :D g. -- ROFLMAO -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
From: Curtis Olson Hi Jon, I apologize for being persnickety here, but I am searching for clarity and consistency on this issue. Has the JSBSim project asked permission from all the aircraft manufacturers that you create and distribute models for? If not, have you only dealt with Boeing in terms of asking for and receiving permission? If you've only received permission from one company, then why? I assume it's because they contacted you and forced this issue. In any case, why is it ok to proceed with explicit permission from Boeing, and at the same time ok to proceed *without* explicit permission from every other aircraft manufacturer on the planet? If it's ok for JSBSim to proceed without permission from most companies, then why suggest that FlightGear should get permission before we model aircraft from various manufacturers with logos representing various owners of specific aircraft? ... Curt, Actually, I contacted Boeing myself - and only Boeing. It was for no other reason than it's the only one (with the exception of the Fokker aircraft) that mention a company name. [I have no reason to believe that they were in any way responsible for the complaint that lead to the incident years ago.] The other aircraft names in the JSBSim CVS repository do not feature the company name or any other trademark, logo, or other proprietary material. The type names such as 172, 747, F4N, etc. are not proprietary or trademarked designations or anything, as far as I can tell. Nevertheless, we went beyond what was probably necessary and included a disclaimer in many (perhaps all?) of the aircraft in the JSBSim repository, taking the input from Boeing and proceeding with an excess of caution. To be safest we probably ought to rename the Fokker aircraft models as F100 and F50. Jon attachment: winmail.dat-- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely rather than demands and threats might work better ;) On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com wrote: I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I better see my livery in the database lickity split! -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
I'm no lawyer, and I'm certainly not up on the law around the world, but there's a concept in North American common law that one must take reasonable and prudent steps to avoid liability. With this concept in mind, I respectfully ask whether it is reasonable and prudent to explicitly take the position that we'll look the other way when a possible copyright infringements are occurring? Likewise, is the if we don't ask permission they can't say no position reasonable and prudent? If this *really* is the position the developers want to take on this issue, then my recommendation is that ALL discussion on this subject cease IMMEDIATELY, and someone go through the archives ASAP and delete all traces of this conversation having taken place! Otherwise, someday some ticked-off company is going to hang us by our own words! And, finally, if the it's okay as long as we can get away with it argument is a valid defence, then maybe we should also shut up about the folks over at FlightProSim. Respectfully submitted... Regards, Chris -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
