Comments within. (I am personally uncomfortable including the GPL
violations people until we have a clear direction from the leadership of the
flightgear project as to the direction the project would like to go).
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> ..
Hi,
..I apologize, this case or these cases should probably have gone to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but
flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net is also a public forum.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:51:38 -0500, Matthew wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Still, the question is
Hi,
>From Mac OS side, there seems no problem in using headers of any
version of Boost as long as FlightGear works fine. I'll just grab it
and build FG with boost headers. No difficulties. However, if we're
going to use boost libraries before the next official release, I need
to make sure the bina
Sure. It is involved and complex, so I didn't want to bother people
unless they wanted the information.
First, get a compiler built via crosstool -
http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/ That allows you to low-bar the
baseline glibc and gcc (and hence libstdc++).
Then build the out-of-distro packages
Matthew Tippett wrote:
> As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a
> set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be
> an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package
> that can be made broadly compatible.
>
> If people are inter
Hi,
..my apologies to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the FlightGear
top-mix posts fw'd and cc'd to you, FlightGear strives to be
multi-platform. ;o)
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:02:06 +0100, Arnt wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PR
Still, the question is if this company is violating the GPL. We have
no proof of that. (The gpl-violations.org guys go after people who
are not honoring the release of source for both distributed and
derived works - typically in embedded systems. Usually they settle
when the company honors the G
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who
> have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain
> rights are gained, others are given up.
>
> The best we can hope for i
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0700, Ron wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 15:43 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote:
> > Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the
> > category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to
> > get some more eye
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:16:34 -0500, Matthew wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some
> absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is
> honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that
Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who
have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain
rights are gained, others are given up.
The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a part
of a community, the worst we should expect is that
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:47:46 -0500, Matthew wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a
> set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be
> an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package
>
They use our screenshots, not even taking the time to make their own.
I wonder what licensing applies to them?
The mac version advertised on ebay also uses our screenshots, but with
their copyright message! That smells illegal to me...
And if you look closely, you can find this gem: "Box is illust
Hi,
For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But
I do care if that affects our project in either technically or
emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the
forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current
situation.
I
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 15:43 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the
> category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to
> get some more eyes on it.
>
> http://flight-aviator.com/
>
> Best regards,
>
> Curt.
> --
http:
As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a
set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be
an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package
that can be made broadly compatible.
If people are interested in a recommended approach for
One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some
absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is
honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that
the FG community can do to prevent it happening.
The GPL enshrines those rights to the r
A quick review of the site doesn't indicate they are doing anything
fundamentally wrong. The acknowledge that it is derived from Flight
Gear and that FG is an Open Source project.
I am not saying that the way they are presenting it is a nice way to
do it. But it is not fundamentally different th
On Nov 21, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>
> One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include
> "www.flightgear.org
> " prominently in the startup screens, in the
> same way that we include "initializing sub-systems",
> "initializing scenery".
The
On Thursday 20 November 2008, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the
> category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here
> to get some more eyes on it.
>
> http://flight-aviator.com/
>
> Best regards,
>
> Curt.
One clear issue: I c
On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, gerard robin wrote:
> On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, Csaba Halász wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See
> > > boost.org or your favorite distribution
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Csaba Halász <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that
> debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to
> upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well.
For the record: Tim pointed out on I
On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, Csaba Halász wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See
> > boost.org or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34,
> > but the latest (1.37)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See
> boost.org
> or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but the latest
> (1.37) should be fine too.
Okay, I know I am kind of late wit
Hello,
Just in case, if somebody is interested on it:
During the past weeks i have included to F-8E, some carrier features.
That model is JSBSim FDM.
1/ the usual Carrier capabilities ( the same we have years ago with YASim)
=> the arrester Hook which operate on wires .
That feature is
--- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into
> the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link
> here to get some more eyes on it.
>
> http://flight-aviator.com/
>
One way to discourage this sort of thing would be t
I've now turned props.initNode() into a props.Node method.
initNode is a rather new function that creates (if necessary)
and returns a node initialized (if necessary) to the given
value and set (if necessary) to the given type. If the node
does already have a type, then the type won't be changed.
A
> Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into
> the category of
> just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to
> get some more eyes
> on it.
>
> http://flight-aviator.com/
>
> Best regards,
>
> Curt.
> --
> Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
>
> Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into
> the category of
> just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to
> get some more eyes
> on it.
>
> http://flight-aviator.com/
>
> Best regards,
>
> Curt.
> --
> Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
>
Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of
just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes
on it.
http://flight-aviator.com/
Best regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
-
On jeudi 20 novembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> gerard robin wrote:
> > On mercredi 19 novembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> > > Tim Moore wrote:
> > > > Seriously, I imagine that people don't mind needing OSG SVN. There
> > > > isn't currently an autoconf test for the OSG version; that would
> > >
gerard robin wrote:
> On mercredi 19 novembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote:
> > Tim Moore wrote:
> > > Seriously, I imagine that people don't mind needing OSG SVN. There isn't
> > > currently an autoconf test for the OSG version; that would probably be
> > > useful.
> >
> > Indeed - and for the Boost
"Csaba Halász" wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martin Spott wrote:
> > and probably add a warning that people have to remove lines 25-27
> > in the basic 'CMakeLists.txt' of OpenSceneGraph (2.7.3) if they don't
> > use at least CMake vers
Modified Files:
view.nas aircraft.nas geo.nas globals.nas
Log Message:
make constants D2R, R2D, M2FT, FT2M global
Is there anything modified within geo.nas ?
Is there any consequence when using it ?
Thanks
--
Gérard
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/
J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce
34 matches
Mail list logo
