Oliver wrote:
But what about nasal script code in a xml file that is written from
scratch but makes use of flightgear's nasal implementation?
That should rise no problems, just as PHP and java scripts don't inherit
the interpreters license.
Erik
--
http://www.ehtw.info (Dutch)Future
Mathias Fröhlich wrote:
From my point of view that is the same with gcc. The compiler is GPL, but the
programs compiled with gcc do not need to be gpl. The runtime libraries used
by gcc compiled codes is a little less than LGPL.
I think that you can do properitary aircraft with flightgear.
Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there.
Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within the
FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger system that includes
FlightGear + that aircraft.
In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Curtis L. Olson schrieb:
Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there.
INAL but your case looks to me like that that person wants to use FGFS
just as an (complex) viewer/interpreter program for his proprietary
content(*).
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 18:52, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there.
Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within the
FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger system that includes
FlightGear + that
Am Dienstag, den 06.06.2006, 19:48 +0200 schrieb Christian Mayer:
(*) I'm assuming that the proprietary aircraft doesn't derive of any
preexisting material (like textures) in FGFS.
This might become complex
with the cofiguration XML files as they must be written from scratch
IMHO.
But what
In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our source
code, but not content created with or used by that code
(except for things like the base package which is explicitely
licensed as GPL.)
In my mind, that is one reason why the approach taken by FlightGear and
associated projects lke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oliver schrieb:
Am Dienstag, den 06.06.2006, 19:48 +0200 schrieb Christian Mayer:
(*) I'm assuming that the proprietary aircraft doesn't derive of any
preexisting material (like textures) in FGFS.
This might become complex
with the cofiguration
Have to check the gpl.
Most address the issue of expansion of the code.
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 2:02 pm, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out
there.
Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within
the
FlightGear system,
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 17:52, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts
out there.
Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft
within the FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger
system that includes FlightGear + that
10 matches
Mail list logo
