Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
Syd wrote But definitely: The designer should take the risk for it - and if too young: The parents should support it - that is standard in any legal business matter for youngsters! I agree here ... being mainly a 'content creator' , I think I'm responsible for content I create , and dumping problems in the fg communities lap is not my intention.I've also noticed that most aircraft designer's already have their own webpages to distribute what is in the git repository already.Cleaning up the Aircraft directory could be a major task though , and I don't feel too concerned about the whole issue , but if it comes to it , I hope those with write access wont hesitate to remove any of my work. If I might wrap this one up by summarizing my research and our interesting and valuable discussion here: 1. Trademarks. We might or might not infringe a particular trademark depending on the terms of the registration. I have given examples across the spectrum. 2. Copyright. I wasn't going to address this one on the assumption that we aircraft developers, as copyright holders ourselves are well aware of the law, but: Copyright is infringed where either the whole or a substantial part of a work is used without permission, unless the copying falls within the scope of one of the copyright exceptions. The exceptions do not apply to us. Copyright does not have to be registered, it exists if the work is original. 3. Enforcement. In the event of an infringement, rights have to be enforced by the trademark/copyright holder. In the first instance, this is most likely to be an instruction to remove the offending item. If we comply that is likely to be the end of it, but it is open to the rights holder to go to court and seek damages. Some legislations (certainly the US and UK) have the concept of Fair Dealing, There is no strict definition of what this means but it has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use. Where the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as fair dealing. 4. Permission. A developer may seek permission from a rights holder. I would assess that would be more likely to succeed if permission were sought under copyright to reproduce the logo, rather than use their trademark since: a. that describes most accurately what we do and b. trademarks are a valued resource and not lightly given away or licensed. You could then put reproduced with the kind permission of ... on your work. However, we have been informed very unofficially by one company that if we do ask they will have to say no, but they are unlikely to enforce their rights. If you ask, and get the answer no, then I think you are duty-bound not to go ahead regardless. 5. Scope. This affects a relatively small number of items in our data, principally, but not exclusively, the logos or trademarks of extant airlines. 6. Way Ahead. When I use the term we or us I really mean Curt, since it his name which appears on our website. So over to you, Curt. Enough already. I now know more than I wanted to about trademarks, but I have enjoyed the intellectual exercise. Now what was that about FlightPro Sim ... Vivian -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] list of aircraft that don't load in fgdata
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 09:23 +0100, Erik Hofman wrote: On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 08:51 +0100, Erik Hofman wrote: On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 13:51 -0500, Peter Brown wrote: http://www.mediafire.com/file/zo967hk164bjkzq/OV10%2020110303.zip The files are set to private so I'm unable to retrieve them. Odd, the link from the forum does work, anyhow I'm downloading now. That version has been pushed to GIT. Let me know if it's up-to-date or if this was a (slightly) older version. Erik -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] No liveries
Hi all,
I have a long standing issue with my installation of FlightGear. Here is
how it's set up:
* git cloned sources under /home (i.e. /home/{simgear,flightgear,fgdata})
* compilation of simgear and flightgear from the sources
cd /home/{simgear,flightgear}
git pull
./autogen.sh
./configure --prefix=/usr
make install
* data refreshed from git and terrasync
cd /home/fgdata
git pull
terrasync -v -S -d /home/terrasync
The box is running ArchLinux. Now when I start fgfs
FG_ROOT=/home/fgdata/ fgfs --fg-scenery=$FG_ROOT/Scenery/:/home/terrasync
and select the Select Livery item from the menu, the list is always
empty, no livery is available, whatever plane I choose. I've tried
softlinking /home/fgdata to /usr/share/FlightGear/data, avoiding FG_ROOT
variable, moving fgdata to /home/fgdata/data, nothing helps.
Probably related side effect: if I choose the ufo aircraft, the Select
Model panel opened by hitting the space key, only shows two items
(marker.ac and sign.ac) from the UFO model, nothing else is listed.
Is my installation wrong? Any idea where the problem could come from?
Thanks in advance
--
bug
--
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You
This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details
its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative
solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Bug with Protocol handling String fields?
I don't know if it's a bug or it's me (I think it's a bug), so I ask you for comments about that. I'm fooling around with an Arduino board that sends data to FGFS with a serial protocol: fgfs --generic=serial,in,30,/dev/ttyACM1,9600,arduino_serial_basic_input The protocol input sections is this: input line_separatornewline/line_separator var_separatortab/var_separator chunk nametemp_int/name typeinteger/type node/sim/arduino_integer/node /chunk chunk nametemp_string/name typestring/type node/sim/arduino_string/node /chunk /input Arduino sends data this way command: Serial.print(1\ta\n); Well, when I look in FGFS Property browser I see this: /sim/arduino_integer = '1' (int) /sim/arduino_string = 'a\n' (string) That's obviously wrong, there should be no \n after the a string! -- Strangely enough that does work right if I switch the integer and the string input chunks, so that the string field is received first. In fact, if I use this protocol: input line_separatornewline/line_separator var_separatortab/var_separator chunk nametemp_string/name typestring/type node/sim/arduino_string/node /chunk chunk nametemp_int/name typeinteger/type node/sim/arduino_integer/node /chunk /input And this Arduino output: Serial.print(a\t1\n); I get a correct property assignment, without any \n. /sim/arduino_integer = '1' (int) /sim/arduino_string = 'a' (string) - What am I missing (if that's the case)? Is it FlightGear not parsing correctly the string input? Maybe attaching to it any \n it receives as a part of the string? Or is it me still not understanding how Arduino sends those strings out on the serial line? - n.b. if I don't add a \n in Serial.print() fgfs gets confused because Arduino's Serial.print() doesn't add any \n by default. -- GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:21 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: 1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright? A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK. I'm glad you recognize that because, in your first quiz you focused strictly on copyright and didn't mention trademarks. I just wanted to make sure folks recognize that they're two totally different things. 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* do. A and B. Precedent is important. If Company A does not pursue Company B for unlicenced use of their trademark or copyright then it is reasonable to assume: a. Company A doesn't care about such unlicenced use, or indeed might see it as free advertising Or maybe Company A hasn't yet noticed that Company B is using the trademark without permission? Orb. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna above) Or maybe Company B did, indeed, get permission to use the trademark? Actually, my correct answer, at least from a moral point of view, was C... what matters most is what *we* do and not what others do. I'm trying to point out that just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't mean I should be able to say, Well *they* are doing it and use that to justify doing the same (wrong) thing. 3. Scenario: It's against the law to drive 60 mph (100 kph) in a 30 mph (50 kph) zone. I drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone but I always: (a) make sure there are no police around, and (b) don't ask the police if I can do this. Which of the following statements is true? D. It is however tacitly accepted that it is OK to drive at an _indicted_ 79 mph on UK motorways (the unwritten 10% + 2 rule). Same as the answer above. LOL! No fair adding answers! ;) Btw, while 99.9% of the time the cops will look the other way for speeding just slightly above the posted limit, it's *still* against the law and you *could* get pulled over and at least get a warning. So, no, unwritten rules don't change the law, they just change how the law is enforced... two totally different concepts. 3. Scenario: The FlightGear Project decides they will only distribute aircraft with liveries containing trademark icons if the trademark owner grants permission. This means there are very few liveries containing trademarks in the distribution package. However, anyone wanting to have liveries with trademarks can easily obtain them by Googling flightgear liveries and then going to a multitude of independent sites that have livery repositories. Which of the following statements is true? A. That will spell the end of the FlightGear Project B. That would work So we would have to ask our users to add dodgy liveries to our AI aircraft? I don't accept that having an aircraft that doesn't include a trademark on the livery makes that aircraft (or livery) dodgy. Personally, I don't fly an aircraft because of the livery it has but, rather, because I like the way the aircraft flies. I know there are those who say that the FG Project will be ruined if we don't include trademarks in the liveries, but personally I doubt that would be the case. Secondly, you're assuming that if we ask trademark owners if we can use their trademark in FG that the answer will 100% always be, No! While it's true that some (maybe even a lot) of trademark owners would deny the request (in which case I maintain we *shouldn't* be using the trademark), it's possible there will be some trademark owners who will, as you said, see it as free advertising or won't object because, as has already been pointed out, the FG Project isn't a for profit endeavour. And, finally, if it's really the case that FG simply *must* have symbols on our aircraft liveries, what's wrong with *make believe* icons? Is it *really* such a disaster if we don't have Red Bull, Macdonalds, Guinness, United Airlines, TWA, or any other trademarked symbol on our aircraft? Frankly, i think not! If they are classed as FlightGear Liveries, and we take no steps to object to other websites use of our name/logo, could we not also be guilty of a infringement of the law by association? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but if someone else makes a livery that includes a trademark symbol and offers that via their own web site repository, I don't see how the FG Project can be held accountable if they're using the FG name/logo merely to inform people that the livery is for the FG flight simulator. However, if they use the name/logo to imply (or explicitly state) that their site (and therefore the livery) are associated with or endorsed by the FG Project, then their breaching the FG Project's copyright rights, and we should get darned snotty about
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 19:31 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..in some jurisdictions, trade marks need merely be established, to become enforceable. In others, established trade marks needs to be registered before they become enforceable. Can of worms indeed. All the more reason for the FG Project to take the high road and only allow trademarks in liveries where it can be explicitly shown that the trademark owner has agreed to the use. Regards, Chris -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Chris O'Neill chrison...@yahoo.ca wrote: Wait a minute! If we're going to look the other way and breach someone else's trademark rights, then why would we get snotty with someone who breaches our copyright? It seems a bit hypocritical to me. I don't know, I haven't researched it, but shoveling a problem around is not solving it. I agree, but removing trademarks from the official FG distribution doesn't shovel the problem but, rather, removes the Project's risk and places it exactly where it should be placed... solely on the author of the livery. If Mack Jermod (or anyone else for that matter) wants a Red Bull (or any other trademark) on their livery, then so be it but let Mack Jermod (and the others) distribute it themselves and assume any and all risk, not the FG Project! ... Regards, Chris The man's name is Jack Mermod. While I may not declare for any position here, when taking a position it seems discourteous, unnecessary and counter-persuasive to make sport of someone's name. -Gary aka Buckaroo -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Chris O'Neill chrison...@yahoo.ca wrote: the livery. If Mack Jermod (or anyone else for that matter) wants a Red Bull (or any other trademark) on their livery, then so be it but let Mack Jermod (and the others) distribute it themselves and assume any and all risk, not the FG Project! Chris, I would have thought that poking fun at someone's name would have been below you at your age. If you are unsure of someone's name, find out... It doesn't take long and make you look less puerile, even if making a cheap gag wasn't your intent. Regards George -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug with Protocol handling String fields?
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Roberto Inzerillo rob...@gmx.net wrote: Is it FlightGear not parsing correctly the string input? Maybe attaching to it any \n it receives as a part of the string? Yes. That code could use some cleanup. First, it calls the simgear io channel function readline() which simply uses \n as delimiter, not knowing about the line separator specified in the protocol file. Then, the \n is left in the buffer and thus processed with the last chunk. -- Csaba/Jester -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] No liveries
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:09:08 +0100, Guy wrote in message
20110305140908.ga2...@unistra.fr:
Hi all,
I have a long standing issue with my installation of FlightGear. Here
is how it's set up:
* git cloned sources under /home
(i.e. /home/{simgear,flightgear,fgdata})
..that means you have /home/plib, /home/OpenSceneGraph,
/home/simgear, /home/fgfs, /home/flightgear, /home/fgdata etc?
.._dead_ wrong, you have users plib, simgear et al fight turf
wars over things you should have in your own /home/guy/FG tree.
Arch etc Linux are multi-user OS'es, you have set up multiple
users to build FG, which is your strategic blunder.
..I could see a point in doing that multi-user stunt to e.g.
auto-build _several_different_versions of FG from git, e.g.
with /home/no-plib, /home/no-OSG, /home/git-OSG etc, I've only
taken that as far as setting up users for different purposes,
e.g. gas for gasifier development, njus for newsgroup
reading, knoppix for knoppix remastering, but I've never
actually got around to log in as pol or njus to do
anything political or read newsgroups, it got too messy
and I'm to lazy. ;o)
* compilation of simgear and flightgear from the sources
cd /home/{simgear,flightgear}
git pull
./autogen.sh
./configure --prefix=/usr
..use /usr/local, unless you are making ArchLinux etc packages
for your distro. Other alternatives include /opt and /home/$USER/bin
make install
* data refreshed from git and terrasync
cd /home/fgdata
git pull
terrasync -v -S -d /home/terrasync
The box is running ArchLinux. Now when I start fgfs
FG_ROOT=/home/fgdata/ fgfs
--fg-scenery=$FG_ROOT/Scenery/:/home/terrasync
and select the Select Livery item from the menu, the list is always
empty, no livery is available, whatever plane I choose. I've tried
softlinking /home/fgdata to /usr/share/FlightGear/data, avoiding
FG_ROOT variable, moving fgdata to /home/fgdata/data, nothing helps.
Probably related side effect: if I choose the ufo aircraft, the
Select Model panel opened by hitting the space key, only shows two
items (marker.ac and sign.ac) from the UFO model, nothing else is
listed.
Is my installation wrong? Any idea where the problem could come from?
Thanks in advance
..see above for why yes. Fix: Move all your FG users
stuff into _your_own_ /home/guy/FG tree, then chown it
all with e.g. 'chown -r guy.guy /home/guy/FG ' before
your next update, avoids a lot of ownership error whine.
..http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Building_FlightGear_-_Linux
..scripting your builds, is easier with Debian or Ubuntu:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Scripted_Compilation_on_Linux_Debian/Ubuntu
http://geoffmclane.com/fg/fgfs-052.htm
http://www.gitorious.org/fg/fgmeta/blobs/raw/master/download_and_compile.sh
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
--
What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You
This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details
its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative
solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:58:18 -0500, Chris wrote in message 1299358698.2186.105.camel@Chris-Laptop: On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:21 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: So we would have to ask our users to ...not...? add dodgy liveries to our AI aircraft? I don't accept that having an aircraft that doesn't include a trademark on the livery makes that aircraft (or livery) dodgy. ..I agree, I either read Vivian 180 degrees wrong, or he lost a not in his message. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 22:03:02 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message ikjqem$s86a$1...@osprey.mgras.de: Oliver Fels wrote: What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the liveries in the distribution but provides further web space for separately downloading those. This still puts the maintainer(s) of the respective download- or mirror-servers at the risk of getting into trouble. To my opinion the only sane solution would be to let creators of disputable content host this stuff at their own responsibility. ..yes, and on their own servers. A little less convenient for us auto-builder script-runners, but safer for FG.org. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug with Protocol handling String fields?
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Csaba Halász csaba.hal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Roberto Inzerillo rob...@gmx.net wrote: Is it FlightGear not parsing correctly the string input? Maybe attaching to it any \n it receives as a part of the string? Yes. That code could use some cleanup. First, it calls the simgear io channel function readline() which simply uses \n as delimiter, not knowing about the line separator specified in the protocol file. Then, the \n is left in the buffer and thus processed with the last chunk. Just committed a quick fix which: 1) warns if given line separator doesn't end with a newline, and adds it 2) warns if any input data doesn't end with the expected line separator 3) strips the line separator from the input Ideally, we'd have to pass down the line separator to simgear, but that's for another time. Report if I have broken something. -- Csaba/Jester -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
