John Check wrote:
Theres nothing abot the licensing terms of the base package
that would prevent the scenario of which he speaks.
FWIW Erik, I understand how you feel, but OTOH thats the GPL.
Yep, GPL covers almost anything, but I'm not so sure LGPL does.
Erik
Christian (and others):
The purpose of my two bits of text, which you quoted, was to
formally state on the mailing list what _my_ policy is for _this_ project.
I was not trying to tell anybody else how their patches/code should be
treated ... I wrote the message to avoid putting GPL
Erik Hofman wrote:
Okay, here's my view.
I've spent numurous hours of work into FlightGear (sometimes even almost
as a day job) not only for the fun of it, but also because it's Free
(for everyone). The fun would stop for me if I noticed my work ens up in
a commercial application as an easy
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
What I would like to propose for people's consideration, is the idea
of taking each of FlightGear's component libraries and converting them
to the LGPL license. The top level wrapper code (i.e. whatever is in
src/Main) would remain GPL.
Well, it doesn't matter what
about putting as much as possible under LGPL. At first I thought that
sounded like betrayal, but now I'm thinking it sounds good. It would
allow companies who sell a product to include part or (essentially) all
of Flight Gear in their product. They would still have an obligation to
Yes.
Even back in the early days when FlightGear was just starting out, I
thought it would be pretty great if someday I could get paid to work
on FlightGear full time. So far no one has stepped up to the plate
and offered to cover my salary simply for the pleasure of assisting an
open source project.
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
come along once in a while. As can be expected, anything that would
pay me or anyone else to work on FlightGear would most likely need
some sort of financial incentive. FlightGear would have to satisfy
some need they are trying to fullfill.
Like the
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
I know this is probably opening a can of worms, but I just thought I'd
throw this out to the list now so people could start thinking about
and/or discussing the issues.
Currently SimGear is a set of libraries, each of which is licensed
under the *L*GPL.
FlightGear
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
James A. Treacy writes:
You should get as close to 100% of the contributors to agree as you
can get. Flightgear needs to be prepared to remove any code written by
someone who disagrees or who couldn't be contacted and appears later
on.
FWIW, wine did this earlier this
Alex Perry writes:
See the article in Linux Journal recently. You legally cannot place
anything into the public domain, you merely get to assert that the
licensing you are assigning to your copyrighted work behaves as though
it is in the public domain. There is a subtle distinction,
David Megginson wrote:
Erik Hofman writes:
Well, to be honnest. I've been thinking of restricting some of my
contributions even more (configuration files, textures, etc) so it can
be used for non commercial purposes only.
Unfortunately, that would force their removal from
I should point out that my earlier message in this thread was to
recommend that Curt not pursue the relicensing because the benefits
are probably too small to outweigh both the non-trivial effort for
the developers and the fairly large risk of causing FGFS to fork.
However, that is independent
James A. Treacy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:15:08PM -0500, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Question: for a particular source file, if a person contributed a
minor patch or tweak to compile on a new platform, does that person
now have a full say in the future of that source, or are they
David Megginson wrote:
My understanding of the *gpl is keep the copyright as a legal
instrument to enforce the donation in court against those who
try to deny the public its donated good, which _makes_ it
legally enforceable. I don't see pd as being enforceable.
Not quite -- the
Alex Perry wrote:
I should point out that my earlier message in this thread was to
recommend that Curt not pursue the relicensing because the benefits
are probably too small to outweigh both the non-trivial effort for
the developers and the fairly large risk of causing FGFS to fork.
exactly
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 03:51:17PM +0200, Christian Mayer wrote:
If you want to change the licence you must ask every contributor. If one
doesn't answer or one rejects the change (you'll have to assume the
worst) you must roll these commits back before you change the license.
There's no
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Question: for a particular source file, if a person contributed a
minor patch or tweak to compile on a new platform, does that person
now have a full say in the future of that source, or are they giving
their changes to the author of that file to be placed under the
Alex Perry wrote:
There is a subtle distinction, which essentially means that, since
you do still have the copyright, people who retrieve the code also
have the right to sue you.
It's even more subtle: the right to sue you doesn't go with the
copyright. The copyright is a right that *you*
Erik Hofman writes:
I haven't, I still supose the base package falls under the GPL.
But I like to keep it GPL and nothing less restrictive.
Also not that none of my code contributions have an explicit copyright
in the header, which means they fall under the same license terms of
Curtis L. Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
James A. Treacy writes:
You should get as close to 100% of the contributors to agree as you
can get. Flightgear needs to be prepared to remove any code written by
someone who disagrees or who couldn't be contacted and appears later
on.
FWIW,
I know this is probably opening a can of worms, but I just thought I'd
throw this out to the list now so people could start thinking about
and/or discussing the issues.
Currently SimGear is a set of libraries, each of which is licensed
under the *L*GPL.
FlightGear is also mostly a set of
I don't see a real benefit of changing FGFS from GPL to LGPL ...
* The people who don't like GPL probably aren't much happier about LGPL
* They (or we) can add a shared-memory tunnel in SimGear for properties
* Most proprietary extensions can simply coexist as separate programs
Anything that
Alex Perry wrote:
I don't see a real benefit of changing FGFS from GPL to LGPL ...
* The people who don't like GPL probably aren't much happier about LGPL
* They (or we) can add a shared-memory tunnel in SimGear for properties
* Most proprietary extensions can simply coexist as separate
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:22:02PM -0500, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
- If we wanted to tweak the licensing terms for the FlightGear
project, could we? Who has authority to do this. If we can get
most authors/contributors to agree, is that good enough? Do we need
approval from 100% of
Curtis L. Olson writes:
I know this is probably opening a can of worms, but I just thought I'd
throw this out to the list now so people could start thinking about
and/or discussing the issues.
Currently SimGear is a set of libraries, each of which is licensed
under the *L*GPL.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:37:32 -0400,
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My opinion is already on the record, so I'll just restate it quickly:
I prefer Public Domain to LGPL (and LGPL to GPL), both because it
makes it easier for companies to use the code
Arnt Karlsen writes:
..public domain equals the author drops or donates his copyright
to the public domain?
It means that the work is released into the public domain. There is
no donation, because no one owns (or can own) copyright on their
original work, though people can copyright
James A. Treacy writes:
You should get as close to 100% of the contributors to agree as you
can get. Flightgear needs to be prepared to remove any code written by
someone who disagrees or who couldn't be contacted and appears later
on.
FWIW, wine did this earlier this year and they got all
Arnt Karlsen writes:
..public domain equals the author drops or donates his copyright
to the public domain?
See the article in Linux Journal recently. You legally cannot place
anything into the public domain, you merely get to assert that the
licensing you are assigning to your
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:15:08PM -0500, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Question: for a particular source file, if a person contributed a
minor patch or tweak to compile on a new platform, does that person
now have a full say in the future of that source, or are they giving
their changes to the
30 matches
Mail list logo
