Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Erik Hofman]

Alexis Bory - xiii wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think all of these discussions drive us in the wrong way. Even if we 
> would have a different license, there would be a lot of people trying to 
> profit from our work by trying to copy it. That's only because our work 
> is good. And this work is good also because it has been done under GPL.
>   
I agree here, it's actually a compliment from the guy/company which has 
been discussed here more than they deserve to my opinion. I chose to 
ignore it and focus on making FlightGear better with every release to 
stay ahead of these attempts. So far FlightGear has come  a long way and 
has succeeded in doing so with every release. I can only say one thing 
to that; be proud of what is achieved!

I really can understand those who don't really like the idea of someone 
selling something of which they themselves have contributed a tiny part 
(most of the time with countless hours of work. but still a tiny part; 
others have done the same you know). But I can only say; don't spent too 
much time on something that is allowed by the GPL, its bad for your 
heallt and sleep :)

Seriously, be proud someone is interested in it. And then again; no one 
is preventing any of us to do the same in the end.

That said, they do claim certain thing that are a true lie (shame on 
them), are disrespectful to images from our site (shame on them, but 
these are outdated anyway) and mix Flightgear and MS FlightSimulator X 
(which they might going to regret at some time since the name is still 
owned by Microsoft).

For me personally; enough time spent on something that was hardly worth it.

Erik

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[leee]

On Sunday 25 Oct 2009, Vivian Meazza wrote:
[snip...]
> I'm afraid that there are just 2 options -
>
>   "Stop contributing if you don't like it."
>
>   "Change the license going forward."
>
> Note - you cannot withdraw your contributions to date from GPL.
> And since FG/SG is largely complete and released under GPL,
> trying to put cats back into bags is a pretty pointless exercise.
>
> Whilst I absolutely agree that Durk was well intentioned, his
> action was to amend the basis on which FG is distributed
> unilaterally, without the prior agreement of ALL the contributors
> to FG/SG, and to attempt to do it retrospectively. And whilst I
> have no big issue with WHAT has been done, I dislike intensely
> HOW it was done.
>
> If, and it's a big if, we wish collectively to change the license
> going forward, then so be it. Meanwhile, Durk's well intentioned,
> but inappropriate action, which makes us look stupid at best, and
> might be considered to be against the spirit if not the letter of
> the GPL at worst, should be withdrawn immediately while this
> issue is sorted.
>
> Vivian

I'm not sure that it would be practical to change the license for 
the FG software to a more restrictive one as it would require the 
explicit permission to do so from everyone that has contributed to 
the code because they retain copyright over their contribution.  An 
agreement between the current developers to change the license 
wouldn't be sufficient.

Basically, it's not going to happen because a) I doubt it would be 
possible to contact everyone who has contributed over the years, 
and b) many of those people will not want to change the license 
anyway.

Changing the license of the aircraft is more feasible as these would 
be considered as separate works and copyright is usually only held 
by a few people at most.  As mentioned previously though, the new 
license would not be retroactive and would only apply to subsequent 
development; the original GPL'd aircraft would still be GPL'd.

LeeE

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Detlef Faber]

Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 12:34 +0100 schrieb Alexis Bory - xiii:
> Hi all,
> 
> I think all of these discussions drive us in the wrong way. Even if we 
> would have a different license, there would be a lot of people trying to 
> profit from our work by trying to copy it. That's only because our work 
> is good. And this work is good also because it has been done under GPL.
> 
> Now we should really focus in promoting our job widely instead of 
> loosing our time addressing tinny problems that haven't anything to do 
> with our main concerns. No matter if there are some unfair people here 
> and there. I would like us to stay much higher than that.
> 
> What we should do now is continue the way which lead us to this stage 
> and make Flightgear world wide known. That's all.
> 
> My two cents,
> 
> Alexis
> 
Thanks Alexis, you saved my day. This is the Answer I hoped for.


--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Detlef Faber]

Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 11:30 + schrieb Vivian Meazza:
> Detlef Faber
> 
> > First:
> > 
> > 
> > We are all pretty capable of judging the end of a sentence by the usual
> > orthographic. There is really no need to express a sentence end by an
> > additional PERIOD.
> > 
> > 
> > Am Samstag, den 24.10.2009, 22:04 + schrieb Martin Spott:
> > > Erik Hofman wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...] If I were the guy or company we' re talking about I
> > > > simply would fork the project from right before this change and then
> > > > implement all changes to the code except this one.
> > >
> > > Well, Durk's 'patch' would have been an excellent probe to check if
> > > they are really serious about affording money for development, willing
> > > to maintain their own source and data trees or if the whole 'company'
> > > is nothing but an affiliated marketing department which is quick at
> > > building web sites and ripping off free software.
> > 
> > > But now this 'test' has been pretty much invalidated after just a few
> > > overly clever people couldn't resist initiating a storm in a teacup by
> > > crying "GPL violation" 
> > >
> > > What a wonderful world,
> > >
> > This is a serious issue and capable of causing severe damage to
> > FlightGear. Especially those "protecting" the GPL, fail to adress the
> > concerns of those contributors who are not comfortable with
> > FlightProSims business model.
> > I once was told to stop contributing to FG if I didn't like the license,
> > and I really considered doing so. I know there are a some contributors
> > thinking about leaving due to some jerk rebranding FG and selling it.
> > 
> > While this seems be perfectly within the limits of the GPL, most (non
> > lawyer) people feel that this is some kind of fraud.
> > 
> > There are some commercial Applications using FlightGear and there is
> > absolutely nothing wrong with it. Most of these Applications provide
> > additional Benefits for their Customers like specialized Hardware or
> > support FlightGear by contributing Code or Content. But with
> > FlightProSim I get the impression that there is no addition to FG at
> > all.
> > 
> > I sympathise with Durks intentions, at least he is trying to adress the
> > issues that gives a lot of FG devels a headache (including me).
> > 
> > Rather than shouting down his well intended move I would expect some
> > Suggestings how to deal with this appropriately.
> > 
> > So don't come up with a "Stop contributing if you don't like it"
> > solution. I'm sure there are alternatives.
> > 
> 
> I'm afraid that there are just 2 options - 
> 
>   "Stop contributing if you don't like it."
> 
>   "Change the license going forward."
> 
> Note - you cannot withdraw your contributions to date from GPL. And since
> FG/SG is largely complete and released under GPL, trying to put cats back
> into bags is a pretty pointless exercise.
> 
I know, I'm not going to try and I will not stop contributing. I came to
the conclusion that the benefit overwhelms the disadvantage.

> Whilst I absolutely agree that Durk was well intentioned, his action was to
> amend the basis on which FG is distributed unilaterally, without the prior
> agreement of ALL the contributors to FG/SG, and to attempt to do it
> retrospectively. And whilst I have no big issue with WHAT has been done, I
> dislike intensely HOW it was done.  
> 
> If, and it's a big if, we wish collectively to change the license going
> forward, then so be it. Meanwhile, Durk's well intentioned, but
> inappropriate action, which makes us look stupid at best, and might be
> considered to be against the spirit if not the letter of the GPL at worst,
> should be withdrawn immediately while this issue is sorted.
> 
> Vivian 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel


--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Victhor Foster]

> Some other people which at least heard of our project doesn't know  
> how old our project is and are seeing it as "fake" or even "cheap"  
> try to copy MSFS on Linux...
Yeah, I know a person that thinks that way...
...and he is a MSFS user.
:P

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Heiko Schulz]

Hi,



> Hi all,
> 
> I think all of these discussions drive us in the wrong way.
> Even if we 
> would have a different license, there would be a lot of
> people trying to 
> profit from our work by trying to copy it. That's only
> because our work 
> is good. And this work is good also because it has been
> done under GPL.
> 
> Now we should really focus in promoting our job widely
> instead of 
> loosing our time addressing tinny problems that haven't
> anything to do 
> with our main concerns. No matter if there are some unfair
> people here 
> and there. I would like us to stay much higher than that.
> 
> What we should do now is continue the way which lead us to
> this stage 
> and make Flightgear world wide known. That's all.
> 
> My two cents,
> 
> Alexis
> 

100% Agree to Alexis!

The FlightProSim-Issues shows, that very, very many people are still not aware 
of our project and our aiming. 
Some other people which at least heard of our project doesn't know how old our 
project is and are seeing it as "fake" or even "cheap" try to copy MSFS on 
Linux...

We all know that it isn't the case, so I have heavily agree to Alexis's last 
sentence.

I can understand Detlef and other developers- if we count all hours we spent on 
developing aircrafts, collecting informations about them for work etc. makes 
our work unpayable.
But FlightProSim wouldn't have this success, if all people would know our 
project- it isn't difficult recognize FlightGear behind FlightProSim...

Interestingly Blender doesn't have the same issue so strong- just because 
Blender is really known over the world...

Cheers
Heiko




  

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx , 1.32, 1.33

[Alexis Bory - xiii]

leee a écrit :

>  [...]
>  If individuals want to spend their time bounty-hunting (although
>  there's no ca$h bounty, of course) then they're welcome to do so, but
>  this should not be a concern of the FG project.  The only time that
>  this issue should concern the FG project is when someone tries to
>  stop or limit the redistribution of the FG project's work.
>  [...]

Completely agree, as on the remaining statements of Lee's post.

Alexis



--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Alexis Bory - xiii]

Hi all,

I think all of these discussions drive us in the wrong way. Even if we 
would have a different license, there would be a lot of people trying to 
profit from our work by trying to copy it. That's only because our work 
is good. And this work is good also because it has been done under GPL.

Now we should really focus in promoting our job widely instead of 
loosing our time addressing tinny problems that haven't anything to do 
with our main concerns. No matter if there are some unfair people here 
and there. I would like us to stay much higher than that.

What we should do now is continue the way which lead us to this stage 
and make Flightgear world wide known. That's all.

My two cents,

Alexis




Detlef Faber a écrit :
> First:
>
> 
> We are all pretty capable of judging the end of a sentence by the usual
> orthographic. There is really no need to express a sentence end by an
> additional PERIOD.
> 
>
> Am Samstag, den 24.10.2009, 22:04 + schrieb Martin Spott:
>   
>> Erik Hofman wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> [...] If I were the guy or company we' re talking about I 
>>> simply would fork the project from right before this change and then 
>>> implement all changes to the code except this one.
>>>   
>> Well, Durk's 'patch' would have been an excellent probe to check if
>> they are really serious about affording money for development, willing
>> to maintain their own source and data trees or if the whole 'company'
>> is nothing but an affiliated marketing department which is quick at
>> building web sites and ripping off free software.
>> 
>
>   
>> But now this 'test' has been pretty much invalidated after just a few
>> overly clever people couldn't resist initiating a storm in a teacup by
>> crying "GPL violation" 
>>
>> What a wonderful world,
>>
>> 
> This is a serious issue and capable of causing severe damage to
> FlightGear. Especially those "protecting" the GPL, fail to adress the
> concerns of those contributors who are not comfortable with
> FlightProSims business model. 
> I once was told to stop contributing to FG if I didn't like the license,
> and I really considered doing so. I know there are a some contributors
> thinking about leaving due to some jerk rebranding FG and selling it.
>
> While this seems be perfectly within the limits of the GPL, most (non
> lawyer) people feel that this is some kind of fraud.
>
> There are some commercial Applications using FlightGear and there is
> absolutely nothing wrong with it. Most of these Applications provide
> additional Benefits for their Customers like specialized Hardware or
> support FlightGear by contributing Code or Content. But with
> FlightProSim I get the impression that there is no addition to FG at
> all.
>
> I sympathise with Durks intentions, at least he is trying to adress the
> issues that gives a lot of FG devels a headache (including me).
>
> Rather than shouting down his well intended move I would expect some
> Suggestings how to deal with this appropriately.
>
> So don't come up with a "Stop contributing if you don't like it"
> solution. I'm sure there are alternatives.
>
>
> Greetings
>
>
>
> --
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>
>   




--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Vivian Meazza]

Detlef Faber

> First:
> 
> 
> We are all pretty capable of judging the end of a sentence by the usual
> orthographic. There is really no need to express a sentence end by an
> additional PERIOD.
> 
> 
> Am Samstag, den 24.10.2009, 22:04 + schrieb Martin Spott:
> > Erik Hofman wrote:
> >
> > > [...] If I were the guy or company we' re talking about I
> > > simply would fork the project from right before this change and then
> > > implement all changes to the code except this one.
> >
> > Well, Durk's 'patch' would have been an excellent probe to check if
> > they are really serious about affording money for development, willing
> > to maintain their own source and data trees or if the whole 'company'
> > is nothing but an affiliated marketing department which is quick at
> > building web sites and ripping off free software.
> 
> > But now this 'test' has been pretty much invalidated after just a few
> > overly clever people couldn't resist initiating a storm in a teacup by
> > crying "GPL violation" 
> >
> > What a wonderful world,
> >
> This is a serious issue and capable of causing severe damage to
> FlightGear. Especially those "protecting" the GPL, fail to adress the
> concerns of those contributors who are not comfortable with
> FlightProSims business model.
> I once was told to stop contributing to FG if I didn't like the license,
> and I really considered doing so. I know there are a some contributors
> thinking about leaving due to some jerk rebranding FG and selling it.
> 
> While this seems be perfectly within the limits of the GPL, most (non
> lawyer) people feel that this is some kind of fraud.
> 
> There are some commercial Applications using FlightGear and there is
> absolutely nothing wrong with it. Most of these Applications provide
> additional Benefits for their Customers like specialized Hardware or
> support FlightGear by contributing Code or Content. But with
> FlightProSim I get the impression that there is no addition to FG at
> all.
> 
> I sympathise with Durks intentions, at least he is trying to adress the
> issues that gives a lot of FG devels a headache (including me).
> 
> Rather than shouting down his well intended move I would expect some
> Suggestings how to deal with this appropriately.
> 
> So don't come up with a "Stop contributing if you don't like it"
> solution. I'm sure there are alternatives.
> 

I'm afraid that there are just 2 options - 

"Stop contributing if you don't like it."

"Change the license going forward."

Note - you cannot withdraw your contributions to date from GPL. And since
FG/SG is largely complete and released under GPL, trying to put cats back
into bags is a pretty pointless exercise.

Whilst I absolutely agree that Durk was well intentioned, his action was to
amend the basis on which FG is distributed unilaterally, without the prior
agreement of ALL the contributors to FG/SG, and to attempt to do it
retrospectively. And whilst I have no big issue with WHAT has been done, I
dislike intensely HOW it was done.  

If, and it's a big if, we wish collectively to change the license going
forward, then so be it. Meanwhile, Durk's well intentioned, but
inappropriate action, which makes us look stupid at best, and might be
considered to be against the spirit if not the letter of the GPL at worst,
should be withdrawn immediately while this issue is sorted.

Vivian 


 



--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[James Sleeman]

On 25/10/09 23:33, Detlef Faber wrote:
> Rather than shouting down his well intended move I would expect some
> Suggestings how to deal with this appropriately.
>
> So don't come up with a "Stop contributing if you don't like it"
> solution. I'm sure there are alternatives.
>   

I am not FG developer, but I am a developer of other open source stuff 
in my time (BSD and GPL both), I say the following on that basis.  I 
also say the following only considering only the distribution of 
FlightGear (renamed or not) here, not the copyright violations on 
screenshots/videos, that's a different issue.

FACT 1: FlightGear is GPL, the GPL permits the actions of ProFlightSim 
or whatever they call themselves today, and any other person or 
organisation who wishes in future to do the same.  Provided they follow 
all the clauses of the GPL.  This can not be argued.

FACT 2: It is not permitted for FlightGear to introduce restrictions 
further than the GPL if they are to continue to use the GPL.  I make no 
comment at this juncture if the recent commit could be viewed as such.

FACT 3: Developers of FlightGear are well aware that the contributions 
they make are distributed under the GPL.  If the developers contribute 
to FlightGear, they must accept that this is the case and accept that 
actions following the GPL be permitted in perpetuity.

FACT 4: If developers are now unhappy that ProFlightSim (and others?) 
are distributing the present FlightGear in the manner in which they are 
doing so, well it's unfortunate but there is nothing that can be done.  
The "cat is out of the bag", the code has been distributed, it's under 
the GPL, you can't retrospectively "pull" it back, that's WHY the GPL is 
there to ensure that what is free remains free (libre not gratis).  
FlightGear as it is today will always be "out there" and it will always 
be under GPL and will always be able to be redistributed and "rebranded" 
in this manner.

THEREFORE: Going forward there is only two solutions for developers who 
find this distribution of GPL software to be unacceptable;
  a) Stop contributing to FlightGear, or;
  b) FlightGear as a whole adopts a new license which prohibits all the 
actions that the developers decide they do not like.

Neither "solution" applies retrospectively, what's out is out, see FACT 4.

MY OPINION:

The recent commit probably doesn't cause any GPL violation. 

However it is distasteful.

It goes against the spirit of the GPL to introduce "countermeasures" to 
attempt to discourage a specific manner in which the GPL is being 
utilised, you are attempting to discourage partaking in one of the 
freedoms that the GPL gives.

It's like saying "this is under the GPL, but we're going to do 
everything we can to stop you using this bit of the GPL because we don't 
like it".

If that is the case, then ditch the GPL and go with something you like 
better, but don't try and circumvent the GPL, I believe it is simply 
disrespectful of the GPL to do so.



--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Detlef Faber]

First:


We are all pretty capable of judging the end of a sentence by the usual
orthographic. There is really no need to express a sentence end by an
additional PERIOD.


Am Samstag, den 24.10.2009, 22:04 + schrieb Martin Spott:
> Erik Hofman wrote:
> 
> > [...] If I were the guy or company we' re talking about I 
> > simply would fork the project from right before this change and then 
> > implement all changes to the code except this one.
> 
> Well, Durk's 'patch' would have been an excellent probe to check if
> they are really serious about affording money for development, willing
> to maintain their own source and data trees or if the whole 'company'
> is nothing but an affiliated marketing department which is quick at
> building web sites and ripping off free software.

> But now this 'test' has been pretty much invalidated after just a few
> overly clever people couldn't resist initiating a storm in a teacup by
> crying "GPL violation" 
> 
> What a wonderful world,
> 
This is a serious issue and capable of causing severe damage to
FlightGear. Especially those "protecting" the GPL, fail to adress the
concerns of those contributors who are not comfortable with
FlightProSims business model. 
I once was told to stop contributing to FG if I didn't like the license,
and I really considered doing so. I know there are a some contributors
thinking about leaving due to some jerk rebranding FG and selling it.

While this seems be perfectly within the limits of the GPL, most (non
lawyer) people feel that this is some kind of fraud.

There are some commercial Applications using FlightGear and there is
absolutely nothing wrong with it. Most of these Applications provide
additional Benefits for their Customers like specialized Hardware or
support FlightGear by contributing Code or Content. But with
FlightProSim I get the impression that there is no addition to FG at
all.

I sympathise with Durks intentions, at least he is trying to adress the
issues that gives a lot of FG devels a headache (including me).

Rather than shouting down his well intended move I would expect some
Suggestings how to deal with this appropriately.

So don't come up with a "Stop contributing if you don't like it"
solution. I'm sure there are alternatives.


Greetings



--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[James Turner]

On 24 Oct 2009, at 18:19, Tim Moore wrote:

> I'm very inclined to back out the commit in question. It won't  
> prevent real
> ripoff artists -- who wouldn't be violating any license if they  
> removed the
> code themselves -- and it is very much against the hacker ethic to  
> insert
> code that does nothing except annoy. However, I don't want to start  
> a commit
> war.

+1 on all counts.

James


--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Martin Spott]

Erik Hofman wrote:

> [...] If I were the guy or company we' re talking about I 
> simply would fork the project from right before this change and then 
> implement all changes to the code except this one.

Well, Durk's 'patch' would have been an excellent probe to check if
they are really serious about affording money for development, willing
to maintain their own source and data trees or if the whole 'company'
is nothing but an affiliated marketing department which is quick at
building web sites and ripping off free software.

But now this 'test' has been pretty much invalidated after just a few
overly clever people couldn't resist initiating a storm in a teacup by
crying "GPL violation" 

What a wonderful world,

Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Erik Hofman]

Martin Spott wrote:
> Don't get me wrong: I would not state that I really "like" Durk's move
> - in fact I personally didn't get to any final conclusion yet. I just
> think it's "acceptable" and, to be honest, I find it highly amusing how
> people are trying to attack Durk's move whithout having any substantive
> arguments at their hand 
>   
I did think about this for some time and came to the conclusion it's 
pointless anyhow. If I were the guy or company we' re talking about I 
simply would fork the project from right before this change and then 
implement all changes to the code except this one. It's perfectly legal 
(you should even give it another name /because/ it's a fork) and you 
will get all the latest updates.

So don't try to fool anyone and remove this code again.

Erik

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40 , 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 ma in.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx , 1.32, 1.33

[leee]

On Saturday 24 Oct 2009, Nicolas Quijano wrote:
[snip...]
> Really, really misguided, and it showcases a prevalent
> undercurrent with some of our members, who think the GPL means
> something else than it really does
[...] 

I think this really sums up the issue here.

The GPL isn't there to protect any supposed rights of the developers 
but to ensure the 'freedom' of the software: this is the point of 
the GPL.

The GPL is not concerned with the use of the work but with its 
distribution and it is addressed to the _receivers_ of software, 
not the developers or distributors (obviously, the developer has 
not received the work, as they are the originator, and a 
distributor must first receive the work before they can distribute 
it).

Once someone releases something under the GPL they have given up 
ownership of the work (but not the copyright of their personal 
work) and from that point have no 'rights' to dictate how or where 
it's used.

(copyright only deals with how others may copy and further 
redistribute the work, and not with who 'owns' the work.  As anyone 
may modify the work as they like, use it as they wish and cannot 
dictate conditions concerning modification or use upon others, the 
work is effectively ownerless)

The restrictions upon redistribution are not there to enforce any 
developer rights because there are none, but to ensure that if 
another developer builds upon the work of others, and then wishes 
to further redistribute it, they cannot add further restrictions to 
a work that is not solely their's to restrict; part of their 
redistributed work was created by someone else who has already set 
the restrictions, as specified by the GPL.

Ultimately, I think it needs to be remembered that the point of 
developing FG is to make a flight simulator and not to act as some 
form of ethical copyright police force.  The fact is though, that 
an awful lot of energy and emotion has been spent here on this 
list, and for all I know, in the forums and irc too, and it's all 
energy that could have gone into more productive work instead.

If individuals want to spend their time bounty-hunting (although 
there's no ca$h bounty, of course) then they're welcome to do so, 
but this should not be a concern of the FG project.  The only time 
that this issue should concern the FG project is when someone tries 
to stop or limit the redistribution of the FG project's work.

If someone wants to enforce conditions of use upon their work, or 
conditions beyond what GPL allows, then they _cannot_ use the GPL.

Some people really need to get their heads around this, so to 
reiterate: if you're not prepared to give up complete ownership of 
your work, then don't release it under the GPL.

FlightProSim, or FlighSimtPro, or ProFLightSim, or SimFlightPro, or 
whoever are perfectly entitled to take FG, call it what they like 
and then sell it, as long as they make the source code available 
for any parts of it that are covered by the GPL, including any work 
they've done that is based upon the GPL'd code.  If they also 
distribute another bit of software along with their modified 
version of FG, then provided that it is wholly theirs and is not 
built upon any GPL'd work, they can impose whatever conditions they 
like.  It is not a violation of the GPL to distribute non-GPL'd 
software along with GPL'd software, but while they can impose 
restrictions upon their software, those restrictions cannot and 
will not apply to the GPL'd content.

LeeE

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Martin Spott]

Bertrand Coconnier wrote:

> I am not. You are. By claiming that any modification to the program
> name makes it an "Invalid version" you are implying that the right to
> modify the program name is limited.

This is not my claim   I'm giving up, apparently it's a hopeless
case,

Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Tim Moore]

On 10/24/2009 05:30 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Heiko Schulz  > wrote:
> 
> Why has a such a serious project like FGFS no real support from
> lawyer in such things like Flight Pro Sim?
> 
> 
...
> Neither of these options has happened which is why we don't have quick
> access to real lawyer support when these discussions come up.  We have
> tried to contact FSF lawyers in the past, but again, without dropping a
> big bag of money on the table, all we've gotten is a very cursory look
> and a very generic opinion (which amounted to something like we haven't
> come close enough to the threshold to raise any of their alarm bells.)

And that is a pretty fair statement of recent FlightGear ripoffs: they're
sleazy, they probably violate copyrights on screenshots, but no one really
knows whether they live up to their GPL obligations or not and in any case,
they're very small beer. It shows a certain measure of success that people are
ripping us off, such as it is.

I'm very inclined to back out the commit in question. It won't prevent real
ripoff artists -- who wouldn't be violating any license if they removed the 
code themselves -- and it is very much against the hacker ethic to insert
code that does nothing except annoy. However, I don't want to start a commit
war.

Tim

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:32:17 -0400, Nicolas wrote in message 
<808354800910240732j3a31c2belb37bbcc2a50c8...@mail.gmail.com>:

> Erh, he just has to take out said code, and his customers will not be
> the wiser, since they won't see the message.
> He does read the list after all.
> 
> As Bertrand said, it's not going to achieve the desired result, not
> at all. And it's trying to work around the GPL, by doing something
> different if you don't respect someone's wishes on naming/re-branding.
> That's an usage restriction, or close enough, that we're starting to
> split hairs many times over.
> 
> If you want to go along a similar route, why not have the help menu
> go to the flightgear.org website, rather than a local copy of the
> manual ? Then you can control the content on said webpage and tell
> people about the bad folks at FPS.
> 
> But doing sneaky stuff that will affect people who might have
> legitimate reasons to rename FGFS without breaching the GPL just to
> counter one offender seems, well, simply misguided.

..what if this "bug" pops up a bug report form where the 
innocent end user may fill in all the gory details such 
as money paid to which pirate copyist, for disgorgement?

..that way, we can explain why we need to do this.  
More below.

> Cheers,
> Nic
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Spott
> wrote:
> 
> > Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
> >
> > > I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight
> > > Gear community wants to go ?
> >
> > These people at Flight Pro Sim are deliberately trying to decieve
> > the FlightGear devlopment 'crew' (just think of their ridiculous
> > attempt of calming the waves by offering this $250 reward, _after_
> > they got 'trapped') as well as their own customers. Therefore I
> > think it's acceptable to shed some light onto the story by telling
> > the truth to the respective buyers.
> >
> > > IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be
> > > the first step of many towards restriction of use.
> >
> > As far as I can tell this step is pretty well in compilance with the
> > GPLv2, the license that covers most of FlightGear. So where do you
> > spot a restriction ?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >Martin.

..note that a _failure_ to enforce the GPLv2, _can_ be construed 
as a license.  C&D letters can also be copied into the "known 
bugs" section, say with an invitation to join in on litigation 
and disgorgement from culprits like the "Flight Pro Sim" crew. 

..if e.g. Durk, Heiko and Curt sends a C&D letter to these ass 
holes, denying them any further license to their FG code under 
GPLv2 and Copyright Law, they must remove Durk's, Heiko's and 
Curt's FG code from "their" "Flight Pro Sim", and write their 
own code.  What _are_ you guys waiting for, their $250? ;o)

-- 
..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.

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Bertrand Coconnier]

2009/10/24 Martin Spott :
> Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
>
> Your problem, since you're the one who distributes this piece of
> software.

Nope see below.

>
>> which is obviously an illegal statement since :
>> 1. My copy is perfectly compliant with the GPL
>> 2. This statement is deliberately misleading which is illegal anyway
>> in most countries.
>
> Are you just about trying to add new features to the GPL ? Simply read
> the license text.

I am not. You are. By claiming that any modification to the program
name makes it an "Invalid version" you are implying that the right to
modify the program name is limited.

>
> "[...]
> TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
> [...]
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
>
> I'm unable to find any section in the GPL that writing out 'misleading'
> statements is a violation of the license,  [snip]

Quote from GPL :
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
   ^^^
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
^^
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License."

As far as I can tell "Invalid version" means that it is not valid (am
I patronising ?) which is a restriction on the user's right to modify
the program name which, in its turn, is not allowed by GPL.

Remove "Invalid version" and my claims will decrease from illegal to
pointless/childish/naive whichever suits you best.

Notice that the restriction that is implied by this commit also
applies to any user who choose to modify the program name because
let's say she wants to have several version of FlightGear on her PC
and decides to modify FlightGear by FlightGear-1.9.2 or whatever. This
is also in violation of the GPL. Not even mentioning that such users
will be delighted...

>neither that deliberately
> distributing misleading statements is illegal -  politicians,
> lobbyists,  ar doing this every day.

I am happy to see that you accept that this commit will issue
misleading statements, just as I am sure that you are not regarding
mislead or deceit of Flight Gear users as acceptable means or
collateral effects of enforcing Flight Pro Sim to comply with GPL.

>
> Don't get me wrong: I would not state that I really "like" Durk's move
> - in fact I personally didn't get to any final conclusion yet. I just
> think it's "acceptable" and, to be honest, I find it highly amusing how
> people are trying to attack Durk's move whithout having any substantive
> arguments at their hand 

Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas...

Cheers,

Bertrand.

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Heiko Schulz]

Hi,

 
> I don't know about Europe, but around here civil
> lawyers are not a free government provided entitlement, and
> they are really expensive!  (Probably even more expensive
> than ball room dancing instructors.) 

The same here- I hoped that it would be much easier in the USA.

> So our options are
> (a) some real lawyer volunteers to help us out or (b) some
> flightgear supporter (or group of flightgear supporters)
> pool together to purchase the services of a real lawyer.
> 
> 
> Neither of these options has happened which is why we
> don't have quick access to real lawyer support when
> these discussions come up.  We have tried to contact FSF
> lawyers in the past, but again, without dropping a big bag
> of money on the table, all we've gotten is a very
> cursory look and a very generic opinion (which amounted to
> something like we haven't come close enough to the
> threshold to raise any of their alarm bells.)
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Curt.

As long we don't have a foundation, financier like blender it sounds hard then 



  

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Martin Spott]

Bertrand Coconnier wrote:

> Let's say that I make a fork of Flight Gear by creating a new project
> "My Flight Simulator" under SourceForge, that I make a mirror copy of
> the Flight Gear CVS tree under my project and that the only commit I
> do is to change the name of the program.
> 
> Then I release everything under the GPL.
> 
> After a while (100 sessions) my (rare?) users will be surprised to see
> that "My Flight Simulator" is an "Invalid version" of Flight Gear

Your problem, since you're the one who distributes this piece of
software.

> which is obviously an illegal statement since :
> 1. My copy is perfectly compliant with the GPL
> 2. This statement is deliberately misleading which is illegal anyway
> in most countries.

Are you just about trying to add new features to the GPL ? Simply read
the license text.

"[...]
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
[...]
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

I'm unable to find any section in the GPL that writing out 'misleading'
statements is a violation of the license, neither that deliberately
distributing misleading statements is illegal -  politicians,
lobbyists,  ar doing this every day.

Don't get me wrong: I would not state that I really "like" Durk's move
- in fact I personally didn't get to any final conclusion yet. I just
think it's "acceptable" and, to be honest, I find it highly amusing how
people are trying to attack Durk's move whithout having any substantive
arguments at their hand 

Cheers,
Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Curtis Olson]

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Heiko Schulz  wrote:

> Why has a such a serious project like FGFS no real support from lawyer in
> such things like Flight Pro Sim?
>

I don't know about Europe, but around here civil lawyers are not a free
government provided entitlement, and they are really expensive!  (Probably
even more expensive than ball room dancing instructors.)  So our options are
(a) some real lawyer volunteers to help us out or (b) some flightgear
supporter (or group of flightgear supporters) pool together to purchase the
services of a real lawyer.

Neither of these options has happened which is why we don't have quick
access to real lawyer support when these discussions come up.  We have tried
to contact FSF lawyers in the past, but again, without dropping a big bag of
money on the table, all we've gotten is a very cursory look and a very
generic opinion (which amounted to something like we haven't come close
enough to the threshold to raise any of their alarm bells.)

Best regards,

Curt.
-- 
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Heiko Schulz]

...
> which is obviously an illegal statement since :
> 1. My copy is perfectly compliant with the GPL
> 2. This statement is deliberately misleading which is
> illegal anyway
> in most countries.
> 
> Hence Nicolas' statement.
> 
> Cheers,
> 

Agree!

Interesting though all are here in developement, has a lot of knowledge how to 
develope, programming etc. - but no idea what our choosed licence really allows 
and what not!

One of the rare intelligent quotes from the Forum:
"Isn't that something the aircraft devel'rs have to answer?
And some don't even KNOW about that at all!?!

For all here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html   --> 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Why has a such a serious project like FGFS no real support from lawyer in such 
things like Flight Pro Sim?





  

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Bertrand Coconnier]

Let's say that I make a fork of Flight Gear by creating a new project
"My Flight Simulator" under SourceForge, that I make a mirror copy of
the Flight Gear CVS tree under my project and that the only commit I
do is to change the name of the program.

Then I release everything under the GPL.

After a while (100 sessions) my (rare?) users will be surprised to see
that "My Flight Simulator" is an "Invalid version" of Flight Gear
which is obviously an illegal statement since :
1. My copy is perfectly compliant with the GPL
2. This statement is deliberately misleading which is illegal anyway
in most countries.

Hence Nicolas' statement.

Cheers,

Bertrand.

2009/10/24 Martin Spott :
> Nicolas Quijano wrote:
>
>> I'm flabbergasted : disregarding the GPL to protect the GPL ?
>                      
> Ah ? Please specify,
>
>        Martin.
> --
>  Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
> --
>
> --
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS:

[Martin Spott]

Nicolas Quijano wrote:

> I'm flabbergasted : disregarding the GPL to protect the GPL ?
  
Ah ? Please specify,

Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main

[Nicolas Quijano]

Erh, he just has to take out said code, and his customers will not be the
wiser, since they won't see the message.
He does read the list after all.

As Bertrand said, it's not going to achieve the desired result, not at all.
And it's trying to work around the GPL, by doing something different if you
don't respect someone's wishes on naming/re-branding.
That's an usage restriction, or close enough, that we're starting to split
hairs many times over.

If you want to go along a similar route, why not have the help menu go to
the flightgear.org website, rather than a local copy of the manual ? Then
you can control the content on said webpage and tell people about the bad
folks at FPS.

But doing sneaky stuff that will affect people who might have legitimate
reasons to rename FGFS without breaching the GPL just to counter one
offender seems, well, simply misguided.

Cheers,
Nic



On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Spott wrote:

> Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
>
> > I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight
> > Gear community wants to go ?
>
> These people at Flight Pro Sim are deliberately trying to decieve the
> FlightGear devlopment 'crew' (just think of their ridiculous attempt of
> calming the waves by offering this $250 reward, _after_ they got
> 'trapped') as well as their own customers. Therefore I think it's
> acceptable to shed some light onto the story by telling the truth to
> the respective buyers.
>
> > IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be the
> > first step of many towards restriction of use.
>
> As far as I can tell this step is pretty well in compilance with the
> GPLv2, the license that covers most of FlightGear. So where do you spot
> a restriction ?
>
> Cheers,
>Martin.
> --
>  Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
> --
>
>
> --
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>



-- 
Be Kind.
Remember, everyone is fighting a hard battle.
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33

[Nicolas Quijano]

I'm flabbergasted : disregarding the GPL to protect the GPL ?
How novel..
Really, really misguided, and it showcases a prevalent undercurrent with
some of our members, who think the GPL means something else than it really
does : when something is done that doesn't sit right with their vision of
the GPL, they sneakily delete content from cvs (been done before with
aircraft functionality, leaving them broken in my local copy without
warning)
No one has a say in how GPLed software or data is used as long as it's in
compliance with the license, no matter how distasteful it might be to one's
sense of propriety.
Trying to get around that, is a breach of the GPL, period.
Funny when the same people who do this kind of stuff, also think the GPL is
just fine for data, code, etc. as long as people abide by their vision of
the GPL.
There is no personal vision involved : it's a license, and quite clear to
boot as license goes. You either comply or you don't.
This is not complying.

Please roll that back, if the original author won't.
Thank you,
Nic

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Erik Hofman  wrote:

> Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight
> > Gear community wants to go ?
> >
> > As far as I understand the GPL, it is legal to rename an application
> > as long as the renamed application is still under GPL. So what is this
> > commit intended for ? Furthermore, do you honestly think that such a
> > simple trick has any chance to work ? And most importantly, under what
> > authority are we allowed to claim that a renamed copy of Flight Gear
> > is an "Invalid version" ?
>
> To be honest, I don't like it very much either.
>
> Erik
>
>
> --
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> ___
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>



-- 
Be Kind.
Remember, everyone is fighting a hard battle.
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main

[Martin Spott]

Bertrand Coconnier wrote:

> I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight
> Gear community wants to go ?

These people at Flight Pro Sim are deliberately trying to decieve the
FlightGear devlopment 'crew' (just think of their ridiculous attempt of
calming the waves by offering this $250 reward, _after_ they got
'trapped') as well as their own customers. Therefore I think it's
acceptable to shed some light onto the story by telling the truth to
the respective buyers.

> IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be the
> first step of many towards restriction of use.

As far as I can tell this step is pretty well in compilance with the
GPLv2, the license that covers most of FlightGear. So where do you spot
a restriction ?

Cheers,
Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33

[Erik Hofman]

Bertrand Coconnier wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight
> Gear community wants to go ?
> 
> As far as I understand the GPL, it is legal to rename an application
> as long as the renamed application is still under GPL. So what is this
> commit intended for ? Furthermore, do you honestly think that such a
> simple trick has any chance to work ? And most importantly, under what
> authority are we allowed to claim that a renamed copy of Flight Gear
> is an "Invalid version" ?

To be honest, I don't like it very much either.

Erik

--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

[Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33

[Bertrand Coconnier]

Hi all,

I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight
Gear community wants to go ?

As far as I understand the GPL, it is legal to rename an application
as long as the renamed application is still under GPL. So what is this
commit intended for ? Furthermore, do you honestly think that such a
simple trick has any chance to work ? And most importantly, under what
authority are we allowed to claim that a renamed copy of Flight Gear
is an "Invalid version" ?

FWIW I am the author of a few lines in the code of JSBSim and hence of
Flight Gear, and when I released my code under GPL, I really meant it.
If somebody tries to make money out of it then so be it, as long as
the software is sold under GPL. I am not doing that for a living but I
am all for enforcing Flight Pro Sim and the guys from eBay to release
their copies under GPL. However I will certainly not discourage them
from selling Flight Gear or whatever they call it in nice colourful
boxes.

IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be the
first step of many towards restriction of use.

Cheers,

Bertrand.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Durk Talsma 
Date: 2009/10/24
Subject: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx,
1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302
splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33
To: flightgear-cvsl...@lists.sourceforge.net


Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main
In directory baron.flightgear.org:/tmp/cvs-serv29220/Main

Modified Files:
       bootstrap.cxx fg_init.cxx main.cxx splash.cxx
Log Message:
Two patches:

1) Fix for the "use custom scenery airport data" property.
2) Make it a little harder for stupid people to make money behind our backs.


Index: bootstrap.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main/bootstrap.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.40
retrieving revision 1.41
diff -u -r1.40 -r1.41
--- bootstrap.cxx       10 Aug 2009 21:43:55 -      1.40
+++ bootstrap.cxx       24 Oct 2009 09:22:21 -      1.41
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@

 #include "main.hxx"
 #include "globals.hxx"
+#include "fg_props.hxx"
 #include "fgviewer.hxx"


@@ -249,10 +250,55 @@
    return 0;
 }

+void checkProgramIntegrity() {
+    int session = fgGetInt("/sim/session", 0);
+    string progName = fgGetString("/sim/startup/program-name", "FlightGear");
+    char *checkname = new char[26];
+
+    checkname[2] = 116;
+    checkname[5] = 47;
+    checkname[1] = 116;
+    checkname[0] = 104;
+    checkname[21] = 46;
+    checkname[10] = 46;
+    checkname[15] = 104;
+    checkname[20] = 114;
+    checkname[23] = 114;
+    checkname[3] = 112;
+    checkname[12] = 108;
+    checkname[24] = 103;
+    checkname[16] = 116;
+    checkname[13] = 105;
+    checkname[4] = 58;
+    checkname[11] = 102;
+    checkname[19] = 97;
+    checkname[9] = 119;
+    checkname[8] = 119;
+    checkname[7] = 119;
+    checkname[6] = 47;
+    checkname[18] = 101;
+    checkname[14] = 103;
+    checkname[25] = 0;
+    checkname[17] = 103;
+    checkname[22] = 111;
+
+
+    if (session > 100) {
+        if (progName != string(checkname)) {
+              cerr << " Invalid version: See " << checkname << " for
more information " << endl;
+#ifdef _MSC_VER
+             cerr << "Hit a key to continue..." << endl;
+             cin.get();
+#endif
+        }
+    }
+}
+
 // do some clean up on exit.  Specifically we want to call alutExit()
 // which happens in the sound manager destructor.
 void fgExitCleanup() {

+    checkProgramIntegrity();
    if (_bootstrap_OSInit != 0)
        fgSetMouseCursor(MOUSE_CURSOR_POINTER);


Index: fg_init.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main/fg_init.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.239
retrieving revision 1.240
diff -u -r1.239 -r1.240
--- fg_init.cxx 24 Oct 2009 08:31:40 -      1.239
+++ fg_init.cxx 24 Oct 2009 09:22:22 -      1.240
@@ -1440,6 +1440,7 @@
    //     = fgGetNode("/sim/presets/latitude-deg");
    // static const SGPropertyNode *altitude
    //     = fgGetNode("/sim/presets/altitude-ft");
+
    SG_LOG( SG_GENERAL, SG_INFO, "Initialize Subsystems");
    SG_LOG( SG_GENERAL, SG_INFO, "== ==");


Index: main.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main/main.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.301
retrieving revision 1.302
diff -u -r1.301 -r1.302
--- main.cxx    24 Oct 2009 08:31:41 -      1.301
+++ main.cxx    24 Oct 2009 09:22:22 -      1.302
@@ -770,7 +770,9 @@
                                         fgGetInt("/sim/startup/ysize") );

        fgSplashProgress("loading scenery objects");
-
+        int session = fgGetInt("/sim/session",0);
+        session++;
+        fgSetInt("/sim/session",session);
    }

    if ( idle_state == 1000 ) {

Index: splash.cxx
===

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[Torsten Dreyer]

> On 09/12/09 10:08, James Turner wrote:
> > I was wondering if we should increase the GS range cutoff  to 1.2 *
> > range-fom-nav.dat  (or 1.4, or 1.8, or 2.0 ... essentially give a
> > margin of reception beyond the published limit)
> >
> > I guess it depends what the nav.dat value should be taken as : a
> > published maximum, or a guaranteed (with a tolerance) reception area,
> > or something else?
> >
> > Otherwise I think we'll have to edit a very large number of entries in
> > nav.dat.
>
> Why do you think it will be a "large number" of edits?
> How many approaches do you know of that require
> intercepting the glideslope more than 5 or 6 miles out?
> As of today, I know of two, namely the one that Torsten
> alluded to this morning, and Jackson Hole:
>   http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/00504ILY19.PDF
>
> I reckon there are more than two total, but not a very
> large number.
Hmm - almost every standard ILS in Germany starts out of roughly 3000ft GND on 
a 3deg slope resulting in approx. 10NM final. I can't actually remember a 
single ILS I flew in Europe having less than 6 NM for the FAF to the 
threshold.
A quick check at airnav.com showed me 
KSFO 28L: 7.3 NM
KMYF 28R: 7 NM
KLAS 1L: 9.3NM
>
> I know of several approaches with expanded LOC volumes,
> but GS is a horse of a different color.
>
> > I was wondering if we should increase the GS range cutoff  to 1.2 *
> > range-fom-nav.dat

Some time ago, I added a simple (very simple) decay function to the VOR 
reception, reducing the signal-quality by distance-squared beyond it's range.
It's definitely not the best radio-signal-decay model on earth, but probably 
better than a binary on/off at the boundary of the service volume.
Maybe just drop
 if (gsDist > (_gs->get_range() * SG_NM_TO_METER)) {
return;
  }
and let the gsNeedleDeflection drop with distance from the station, which is 
already imlemented some lines below:
 _gsNeedleDeflection *= signal_quality_norm;

This might also be useful for reduced signal strengths of side lobes.

Thanks for working on and improving the navradio code. It's highy appreciated!

Torsten

--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[John Denker]

On 09/12/09 10:08, James Turner wrote:

> I was wondering if we should increase the GS range cutoff  to 1.2 *  
> range-fom-nav.dat  (or 1.4, or 1.8, or 2.0 ... essentially give a  
> margin of reception beyond the published limit)
> 
> I guess it depends what the nav.dat value should be taken as : a  
> published maximum, or a guaranteed (with a tolerance) reception area,  
> or something else?
> 
> Otherwise I think we'll have to edit a very large number of entries in  
> nav.dat.

Why do you think it will be a "large number" of edits?
How many approaches do you know of that require
intercepting the glideslope more than 5 or 6 miles out?
As of today, I know of two, namely the one that Torsten 
alluded to this morning, and Jackson Hole:
  http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0909/00504ILY19.PDF

I reckon there are more than two total, but not a very
large number.

I know of several approaches with expanded LOC volumes, 
but GS is a horse of a different color.

> I was wondering if we should increase the GS range cutoff  to 1.2 *  
> range-fom-nav.dat  

I suggest not doing that.  There are far more important 
things to be working on.  At the very least, please wait
a week or so, to see if there is really any demand for
it.

If you feel you must do that, please please please make
the fudge factor configurable via the property tree, on 
a per-instrument basis, representing "extra sensitivity" 
to fringe signals.  For training purposes, I would
insist on setting the fudge factor back to 1.0 instead 
of 1.2.

If somebody wants to propose a more sophisticated model
of fringe-area reception, that would be wonderful.  But
just applying a fudge factor = 1.2 is not necessary or
even desirable.

It would be kinda ironic to remove a factor of 5 that
wasn't doing anybody any harm, and then stick in a
factor of 1.2 that actually does cause problems.


--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[James Turner]

On 12 Sep 2009, at 17:25, John Denker wrote:

> I've been using my version of navradio.cxx for years.
> Whenever I find a service volume that needs to be
> extended, I just edit my copy of nav.dat and send
> the diff to Robin.
>
> Bottom line:  I suggest you edit your nav.dat and
> extend the range a few nm.

I was wondering if we should increase the GS range cutoff  to 1.2 *  
range-fom-nav.dat  (or 1.4, or 1.8, or 2.0 ... essentially give a  
margin of reception beyond the published limit)

I guess it depends what the nav.dat value should be taken as : a  
published maximum, or a guaranteed (with a tolerance) reception area,  
or something else?

Otherwise I think we'll have to edit a very large number of entries in  
nav.dat.

Cheers,
James


--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[James Turner]

On 12 Sep 2009, at 14:06, Torsten Dreyer wrote:

> I only had time for a single ILS approach at my home base with the  
> Seneca. I
> felt pretty comfortable with the new implementation. I noticed two  
> little
> glitches:
> The has-gs property does not go to false if you switch from an ILS  
> frequency
> to a VOR frequency. Probably something like
> has_gs_node->setBoolValue(false);
> is needed near line 802 in navradio.cxx.

Cheers, that's a simple bug, I'll get it fixed.

>
> And the glideslope indicator quickly (many times per second) moves  
> between
> to-high and to-low indication when you are very close to the antenna  
> below
> 50-100ft above threshold. I havn't investigated this in detail but  
> these are
> probably the modeled side lobes which are naturally very close to  
> each other
> so close to the station? I think this part needs some tuning,  
> because I have
> never observed something like that in reality.

Yeah, the behaviour close to the ground is weird, but partly related  
to the penaltyForNav problem of the reverse ILS being selected. It's  
not the only problem though.

Thanks for the testing!
James

--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[John Denker]

On 09/12/09 08:17, Torsten Dreyer wrote:

> The glideslope updates are abruptly terminated at the configured range. This 
> does not match my experience. The configured range for the ILS at my home 
> base is 10NM as in nav.dat. This is within the standard instrument approach 
> procedure, so I don't get a glideslope indication beyond 10NM in FlightGear 
> (I do get one in RL). The point of descent is at 9.6NM which enables my 
> glideslope only 0.4 miles before descending, which is bad :-(

I agree, that's bad, and it needs to be fixed.

However, I suspect that the problem is not in navradio.cxx
but rather in nav.dat.  I suspect the GS you are using has
an extended service volume in real life, but this is not
yet reflected in nav.dat.

This is exactly the sort of bug we expect to see during
the transitional phase.  The phases are:
 Initial:  navradio ignores nav.dat.  Bugs in nav.dat 
   do not matter and are not detectable.
 Transitional:  navradio looks at nav.dat.  Bugs in
   nav.dat are now apparent. <-- You are here.
 Final:  nav.dat has been fixed to match real life.

The range info in nav.dat is not currently authoritative;
it's just guesswork.  Robin is working on getting 
authoritative range data, but the results are not yet 
there.

I've been using my version of navradio.cxx for years.
Whenever I find a service volume that needs to be
extended, I just edit my copy of nav.dat and send
the diff to Robin.

Bottom line:  I suggest you edit your nav.dat and
extend the range a few nm.


--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[Torsten Dreyer]

> > Begin forwarded message:
> > > Modified Files:
> > >   navradio.cxx navradio.hxx
> > > Log Message:
> > > Various LOC/GS improvements from John Denker, adapted to trunk by me
> > > (hopefully not introducing too many bugs along the way). Includes:
> >
> > A note for anyone trying out the new code - if you're not in one of
> > the aircraft I fixed the GS sensitivity for last week (which is only a
> > handful right now), then your GS indication may still be incorrect.
> > Aircraft that assumed the range was -3.5 .. 3.5 on gs-needle-
> > deflection will report correctly, aircraft that assumed any other
> > range (especially -10 .. 10) will be wrong (but still usable). If in
> > doubt, check where the GS needle/pointer is when the clamped
> > properties (gs-needle-deflection-deg or gs-needle-deflection-norm) are
> > on the peg.
>
> I only had time for a single ILS approach at my home base with the Seneca.
> I felt pretty comfortable with the new implementation. I noticed two little
> glitches:
> The has-gs property does not go to false if you switch from an ILS
> frequency to a VOR frequency. Probably something like
> has_gs_node->setBoolValue(false);
> is needed near line 802 in navradio.cxx.
>
> And the glideslope indicator quickly (many times per second) moves between
> to-high and to-low indication when you are very close to the antenna below
> 50-100ft above threshold. I havn't investigated this in detail but these
> are probably the modeled side lobes which are naturally very close to each
> other so close to the station? I think this part needs some tuning, because
> I have never observed something like that in reality.
>
> I'll try to do some more testing during this weekend.
>
> Torsten
One more remark:
The glideslope updates are abruptly terminated at the configured range. This 
does not match my experience. The configured range for the ILS at my home 
base is 10NM as in nav.dat. This is within the standard instrument approach 
procedure, so I don't get a glideslope indication beyond 10NM in FlightGear 
(I do get one in RL). The point of descent is at 9.6NM which enables my 
glideslope only 0.4 miles before descending, which is bad :-(
I think the meaning of the range of a navaid is "only use the indication 
withing this range. If your distance is greater than the given range, 
indications _might_ be unreliable".

And another:
I think the side lobes are to strong. Currently they allways exist and the 
signal strength is as strong as the original lobe, which shouldn't be the 
case unless one has a really bad antenna. When side lobes are used instead of 
the original one, the range and the signal strength should be adjusted by a 
significant magnitude.

Hope this helps

Torsten


Torsten

--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[Torsten Dreyer]

> Begin forwarded message:
> > Modified Files:
> > navradio.cxx navradio.hxx
> > Log Message:
> > Various LOC/GS improvements from John Denker, adapted to trunk by me
> > (hopefully not introducing too many bugs along the way). Includes:
>
> A note for anyone trying out the new code - if you're not in one of
> the aircraft I fixed the GS sensitivity for last week (which is only a
> handful right now), then your GS indication may still be incorrect.
> Aircraft that assumed the range was -3.5 .. 3.5 on gs-needle-
> deflection will report correctly, aircraft that assumed any other
> range (especially -10 .. 10) will be wrong (but still usable). If in
> doubt, check where the GS needle/pointer is when the clamped
> properties (gs-needle-deflection-deg or gs-needle-deflection-norm) are
> on the peg.
>
I only had time for a single ILS approach at my home base with the Seneca. I 
felt pretty comfortable with the new implementation. I noticed two little 
glitches:
The has-gs property does not go to false if you switch from an ILS frequency 
to a VOR frequency. Probably something like
has_gs_node->setBoolValue(false);
is needed near line 802 in navradio.cxx.

And the glideslope indicator quickly (many times per second) moves between 
to-high and to-low indication when you are very close to the antenna below 
50-100ft above threshold. I havn't investigated this in detail but these are 
probably the modeled side lobes which are naturally very close to each other 
so close to the station? I think this part needs some tuning, because I have 
never observed something like that in reality.

I'll try to do some more testing during this weekend. 

Torsten

--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

[Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Instrumentation navradio.cxx, 1.43, 1.44 navradio.hxx, 1.23, 1.24

[James Turner]

Begin forwarded message:

> Modified Files:
>   navradio.cxx navradio.hxx
> Log Message:
> Various LOC/GS improvements from John Denker, adapted to trunk by me  
> (hopefully not introducing too many bugs along the way). Includes:

A note for anyone trying out the new code - if you're not in one of  
the aircraft I fixed the GS sensitivity for last week (which is only a  
handful right now), then your GS indication may still be incorrect.  
Aircraft that assumed the range was -3.5 .. 3.5 on gs-needle- 
deflection will report correctly, aircraft that assumed any other  
range (especially -10 .. 10) will be wrong (but still usable). If in  
doubt, check where the GS needle/pointer is when the clamped  
properties (gs-needle-deflection-deg or gs-needle-deflection-norm) are  
on the peg.

Regards,
James


--
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/GUI property_list.cxx, 1.22, 1.23

[Melchior FRANZ]

* Ron Jensen -- Tuesday 07 April 2009:
> And when the gentleman who has been responsible for
> building and maintaining that complexity stands up and cries out:

That wouldn't be me, though. That's mostly David MEGGINSON's work,
with contributions by Erik, Fred, Csaba, Mathias and me (and probably
a few others). But I'm pretty sure that David, the designer of
the framework, would be *horrified* about the idea of aggregate
property types! I'm tempted to ask him ...

m.  :-}

--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/GUI property_list.cxx, 1.22, 1.23

[Ron Jensen]

On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 10:31 -0500, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Ctrl-Shift-click on the "." entry in the property browser fires all
> the listeners of the parent node.
> 
> Each property can have multiple listeners tied to it.  There are
> various types of listeners (read, write) and various modes of
> operation.
> 
> When a listener's trigger conditions are met, it then executes the
> associated nasal code.  (Is it possible to also trigger C code?
> Probably, but I don't know if that is done or not.)
> 
> So to activate this newly added behavior in the property browser,
> simply cd to the property node parent, and ctrl-shift click on the "."
> entry in the children list.  Then the parent's changevalue listener
> will be fired.
> 
> I point this out not to be critical (which might be assumed because my
> prior message was somewhat critical) ... this is all *very* useful
> functionality.  But I want to point out that there are some very
> complex interactions between the property systems, these things called
> "listeners" which fire when a property is accessed in any number of
> ways, and the nasal code that is triggered as a result.  And then this
> functionality is leveraged in a variety of subtle ways by the 3d
> modeling system, multiplayer system, instrument panels, systems
> modeling, etc.  We have a large complex network of code snippets that
> are executed as a side effect of changing (or even viewing) values in
> the property system.
> 
> Not every aspect of our property system is simple and self
> documenting ... again, not to be critical, complex tasks often require
> complex solutions, but I say this to balance out the occasional claim
> that the property system is entirely self documenting ... yes at some
> levels, but not on many other levels.
> 
> Curt.

Curt,

This is exactly the point here.  The underpinnings of the property tree
are complex.  And when the gentleman who has been responsible for
building and maintaining that complexity stands up and cries out:

  "STOP, go back! This way lies monsters"

It is not wise to shout him down with "damn the torpedoes full speed
ahead." 

Thanks,

Ron



--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

[Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/GUI property_list.cxx, 1.22, 1.23

[Curtis Olson]

Ctrl-Shift-click on the "." entry in the property browser fires all the
listeners of the parent node.

Each property can have multiple listeners tied to it.  There are various
types of listeners (read, write) and various modes of operation.

When a listener's trigger conditions are met, it then executes the
associated nasal code.  (Is it possible to also trigger C code?  Probably,
but I don't know if that is done or not.)

So to activate this newly added behavior in the property browser, simply cd
to the property node parent, and ctrl-shift click on the "." entry in the
children list.  Then the parent's changevalue listener will be fired.

I point this out not to be critical (which might be assumed because my prior
message was somewhat critical) ... this is all *very* useful functionality.
But I want to point out that there are some very complex interactions
between the property systems, these things called "listeners" which fire
when a property is accessed in any number of ways, and the nasal code that
is triggered as a result.  And then this functionality is leveraged in a
variety of subtle ways by the 3d modeling system, multiplayer system,
instrument panels, systems modeling, etc.  We have a large complex network
of code snippets that are executed as a side effect of changing (or even
viewing) values in the property system.

Not every aspect of our property system is simple and self documenting ...
again, not to be critical, complex tasks often require complex solutions,
but I say this to balance out the occasional claim that the property system
is entirely self documenting ... yes at some levels, but not on many other
levels.

Curt.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Melchior Franz
Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Subject: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/GUI property_list.cxx, 1.22,
1.23
To: flightgear-cvsl...@lists.sourceforge.net


Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/GUI
In directory baron.flightgear.org:/tmp/cvs-serv3280/src/GUI

Modified Files:
   property_list.cxx
Log Message:
Ctrl-Shift-click on the '.' entry fires listeners of the parent node.
This can be used to validate atomic branches after individual members
have been changed.

(This is useful no matter how the discussion on aggregate property types
ends, and not meant to enforce/accelerate a decision.)

Index: property_list.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/GUI/property_list.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.22
retrieving revision 1.23
diff -u -r1.22 -r1.23
--- property_list.cxx   3 Dec 2008 20:18:15 -   1.22
+++ property_list.cxx   7 Apr 2009 15:05:57 -   1.23
@@ -195,7 +195,9 @@

if (prop_list->_dot_files && (selected < 2)) {
if (src[0] == '.' && (src[1] == '\0' || src[1] == ' ')) {
-if (mod_ctrl)
+if (mod_ctrl && mod_shift)
+prop_list->_curr->fireValueChanged();
+else if (mod_ctrl)
prop_list->toggleVerbosity();
else if (mod_shift)
dumpProperties(prop_list->_curr);


--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
___
Flightgear-cvslogs mailing list
flightgear-cvsl...@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-cvslogs



-- 
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel