Curtis Olson wrote:
> Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that
> modification is fine? I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my
> machines for many years. I admire how carefully they follow through
> with these licensing issues ... but my word ... no wonder their
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 03:30 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote:
> o...@arcticnet.no skrev:
> > Ron Jensen skrev:
> >> http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb
> >
> > Yes, but it's in the "oldlibs" section. No current package in Debian use
> > it. Everything is linked
I haven't had a chance to contact Butterfly Media myself, but perhaps
someone here would be willing to pull lead on that?
http://www.butterfly-media.co.uk/index.htm
This weekend I was contacted by an ebay seller. I did a quick google search
and found that his ebay ads had ripped off our screensh
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:33 PM, wrote:
> ... [curt] no wonder their package versions are 4 years behind every other
> distribution.
>
> Oh, why is that?
That was said mostly in jest. Maybe I should have said, by the time Debian
finalizes a release, the kids who watched the pixar movie with th
Curtis Olson skrev:
> Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that
> modification is fine?
That's what I plan to do for now.
> I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my
> machines for many years. I admire how carefully they follow through
> with these licensing issues ...
Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that modification is
fine? I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my machines for many
years. I admire how carefully they follow through with these licensing
issues ... but my word ... no wonder their package versions are 4 years
behi
o...@arcticnet.no skrev:
> Ron Jensen skrev:
>> http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb
>
> Yes, but it's in the "oldlibs" section. No current package in Debian use
> it. Everything is linked against freeglut, which supersedes it.
Upon further examination, I'll h
Ron Jensen skrev:
> I think this 5 year old "bug" might help answer the question
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997
Hmm, thanks. I guess I can show them that, then, when I package simgear
up again. Hopefully it's enough.
> I am not sure if texture.{cxx,hxx} qualifies as
On Sunday 21 June 2009 19:30:32 James Turner wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2009, at 12:12, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> > Better with that added spaces past the '\' ?
>
> Sadly it made no difference - I already tried that fix locally.
Use a multi-line comment. /* and */, then the warning goes away. It can be
o
On 20 Jun 2009, at 12:12, Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
> Better with that added spaces past the '\' ?
Sadly it made no difference - I already tried that fix locally.
James
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 14:24 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote:
> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
> modifiable. Is this file r
I've tried to figure out the origin of that code, and it seems there's
consensus that Kilgard's code really cannot be modified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_Utility_Toolkit
"Kilgard's GLUT library is no longer maintained, and its license did not
permit the redistribution of modified version
Looking at the code it is heavily modified in the mean time, although
parts of the original texture loading code are still in place.
Erik
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Curtis Olson wrote:
> I don't see any thing in the license terms that states we cannot modify
> the code. Are we running on the assumption that we can only do what is
> expressly allowed? Perhaps Erik Hofman should address this. As I look
> at the code I see it's a full C++ class. But I'm p
Curtis Olson skrev:
> Are we running on the assumption that we can only do what is
> expressly allowed?
When it comes to someone else's copyright, it's not only an assumption.
It's the law. And Debian is adamant about following it... so, yes.
Thanks.
-
Tim Moore a écrit :
> Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>> Hi ?
>>
>> o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
>>
>>> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
>>> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
>>> it says that the code is "freely distributabl
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:24 AM, wrote:
> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
> modifiable. Is this file really under an Ope
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Hi ?
>
> o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
>> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
>> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
>> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
>> modifiable. Is thi
Hi ?
o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
> modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/data/Aircraft/MPCarrier
> In directory baron.flightgear.org:/tmp/cvs-serv18340
>
> Modified Files:
>help.xml
> Log Message:
> Update to reflect recent changes
Please excuse my curiosity: Isn't the number of consecutive empty lines
James Turner wrote:
> Okay, which leaves the other issue: ADF. Neither the generic adf.cxx
> nor kr87.cxx search ILS stations. Looking at this PDF:
>
>
> https://www.bendixking.com/servlet/com.honeywell.aes.utility.PDFDownLoadServlet?FileName=/static/brochures/pdf/kr87.pdf
>
> makes me
James Turner wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2009, at 14:42, Martin Spott wrote:
>
>> Yup - the "DME element of an [ILS,VORTAC,VOR-DME,NDB-DME]" is to be a
>> separate entity in the 'nav.dat' file by definition,
>
> Okay, which leaves the other issue: ADF. Neither the generic adf.cxx
> nor kr87.cxx search I
On 20 Jun 2009, at 14:42, Martin Spott wrote:
> Yup - the "DME element of an [ILS,VORTAC,VOR-DME,NDB-DME]" is to be a
> separate entity in the 'nav.dat' file by definition,
Okay, which leaves the other issue: ADF. Neither the generic adf.cxx
nor kr87.cxx search ILS stations. Looking at this PD
24 matches
Mail list logo