On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, James Turner wrote:
On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining
why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core
developers, isn't practical, and won't make any
On 11 Sep 2012, at 16:29, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
I've created a wiki page collecting the reasons for not changing the license
in the following (protected) wiki article:
Thanks Stuart, this is much appreciated (at least by me!)
James
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:29:27 +0100, Stuart wrote in message
CAP3ntyu47bjEiAP_XdX=O=bzlpfag8xrxm9vnsuwv1bsiqr...@mail.gmail.com:
- Effectiveness. Re-distributors/forkers such as FlightProSim have
so far shown no interest in keeping up with the latest FlightGear
version, and any license
There remains this strange discrepancy between what people are outraged about
and what could potentially stand in court.
Wah. They're immoral scammers by any examination. They're suckering
people into not only buying free software, but public domain materials as
well!
I think the truth
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:16:47 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
k29bjv$6c7c$1...@osprey.mgras.de:
Ron Jensen wrote:
IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The
attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which
is a horrible idea on multiple levels.
Thorsten wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Renk [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
Sent: 06 September 2012 10:47
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
There remains this strange discrepancy between what people are outraged
about and what could
I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. ... not allowing any
commmercial use.
Why? Freedom Zero matters just as much for things other than code.
-- Chris
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive
On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote:
No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called.
I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code
should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any
commmercial use.
Disallowing commercial use means Linux
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote:
No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called.
I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code
should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any
commmercial
On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has
been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been
paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results
of which have been fed back into
While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective.
There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data)
that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar
as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims
as
Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott:
While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective.
There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data)
that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar
as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 12:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote:
Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott:
While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective.
There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data)
that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms
Scott wrote:
So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content
in scenery that must be GPL???
Under the this is no legal advice-clause I'd say it should allow
derived works to be published under the GPL.
BTW, I'm uncertain if we're having the same SRTM-1 in mind. The last
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:35 +, Martin Spott wrote:
Scott wrote:
So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content
in scenery that must be GPL???
Under the this is no legal advice-clause I'd say it should allow
derived works to be published under the GPL.
All
Scott wrote:
But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main
points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is
Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution.
It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text.
One of the - various - reasons
Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers.
(...)
Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not
allowing any commmercial use.
My two cents:
First of all, define your use of 'scammer' here. From Wikipedia, I get A
confidence trick is also known as a con
Renk Thorsten wrote:
FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote:
Renk Thorsten wrote:
FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
I
FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
Well, since there's always small-print (which I don't know) I would leave that
to the courts to
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Martin Spott wrote:
Renk Thorsten wrote:
FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
Nor do they comply with the GPL from
We haven't
been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl,
but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical.
They're immoral scammers, plain and simple.
It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I
am concerned, not
Thorsten,
I think you are over analyzing these guys and giving them far too much
credit. I think the truth is simpler. They only make sales by misleading
the customer into thinking they are getting something else. They cast a
wide net of shady tactics. So the situation (I believe) is closer to
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Renk Thorsten wrote:
We haven't
been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl,
but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical.
They're immoral scammers, plain and simple.
It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such
. If it was up to me, they'd
be tightly wrapped in wet leather and left in the hot sun as an example to
others considering similar things.
I'd be more than happy to assist you with that.
Syd
--
Live Security Virtual
..if these scammers feel slandered by that, scammers,
they are entitled to file lawsuits.
..the reason they don't, is they and their lawyers knows
the truth is an allowable and complete defense, and that
judges often award litigation costs to the prevailing
decent truthful people, and to
On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote:
Scott wrote:
But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main
points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is
Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution.
It really depends on the
Ron Jensen wrote:
On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote:
It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text.
One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear
Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says:
If you
licensing..should be easy?
--- On Mon, 9/3/12, Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
To: FlightGear developers discussions
flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Monday, September 3, 2012, 4:43 PM
On Mon, Sep 3
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Michael scrat_h...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi
saw this:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg
which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.
Will that go into default 3.0? Hence I would use the same license to keep off
Hi Michael,
that's just the screenshot's license that you see there. Images on the wiki can
fall under many different licenses.
The dialog is in git and licensed under the GNU GPL v2.
Cheers,
Gijs
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:27:20 -0700
From: scrat_h...@yahoo.com
To:
Looks like the dialog is GPL and the screenshot image is CC.
Torsten--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
Looks like the dialog is GPL and the screenshot image is CC.
The screenshot license is CC purely as this is the default for the
wiki upload. No political statement was intended :)
-Stuart
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
Erik Hofman wrote:
If this code is just used by a utility that is useful for developers
only (normalmap) then I'd move the code oevr to that specific directory
and leave it at that.
I had a few spare minutes and the code is moved over now.
Erik
Ron Jensen skrev:
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
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
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 this file
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:24 AM, 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 really
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 distributable, but not freely
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.
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
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!
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
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 really
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 a
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 have to
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
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 ... but
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 the
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 against
51 matches
Mail list logo
