[Flightgear-devel] How to control the flightgear through TCP/IP with 6 dependencies
I am working on a project which should be able to read a file where the 6 dependencies are located and control the flight using the dependencies. Anyone could teach me something or recommend some resouces. Any answer would be appreciated... - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Patch for unexpected view size on reset (was Z-near problem with new code)
Hi, Though I can't confirm the bug that you mentioned yet but I made a patch to fix the problem I reported in the last post. The cause is that restoreInitialState() overwrites the width/height of gui and camera views with the values at the launch time. This patch will save the following two nodes : - /sim/rendering/camera-group/gui - /sim/rendering/camera-group/camera and then restore these after restoreInitialState() is called. I confirmed that it is fixed with fgfs with single camera and with three cameras. This save/restore thing might have to be written as functions or methods in CameraGroup.cxx instead of directly written in fg_init.cxx::reINit() since save/restore thing can be more complex when you specify a configuration with more than one camera and/or with more than one window. Anyway, it is fixed at this moment. Please check the attached patch on some configurations (single camera, and multiple cameras), and commit it if it works. Best, Tat On Nov 23, 2008, at 5:01 PM, Tim Moore wrote: Tatsuhiro Nishioka wrote: Hi, I have similar problem, but a bit different (on Mac OS X) When launching with non 800x600, the splash screen is centered. no problem. but when resetting after resizing window has a clipping problem. Here is the screenshot: http://macflightgear.sourceforge.net/wp-content/uploads/800x600bug.jpg I launched fgfs with 800x600. When on runway, I resized window and then reset. I used fg/cvs, sg/cvs, plib/svn, and osg/svn as of 11 hours ago. I made sure the version of CameraGroup.cxx is 1.7 (the latest) It seems that the screen size (view size?) is also reset to the one settled at the launch time. If I specify --geometry=1024x768 option, the view size on reset always goes to 1024x768 no matter what actual window size at rest is. I guess we need to update the view size on reset. Yes, there is a bug when the actual window size doesn't match the requested window size; for example, 1024x768 on my laptop is too tall for the window manager menu bars. A workaround for now is to supply dimensions that you will actually get. resizeOnResetBugfix.diff Description: Binary data - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
Hi, On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Tim Moore wrote: 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 binary works on at least some Macs, including ppc/intel and OS X 10.4/10.5. Probably it needs some weeks to collect feedbacks. I've just checked a change to configure.ac that checks for a minimum version of Boost, looks for it in all the right places, properly supports --with-boost, etc. I know that you don't use configure for the Mac builds, but this should ease the vast majority of problems for Linux users. Yes, and configure.ac doesn't affect anything on Mac binary. I also built fgfs with boost header, and there was no build problems. So I want to hear Tim's (and others') opinion about: (1) what are the pros in using Boost especially in FlightGear. If that doesn't give us any improvement in quality (like maintainability, testability, usability, response, performance or whatever you name it) or functionality in a clear way, we can live without it, at least until the next official release (or until the next release branch is made). I've stated this before, a couple of different times. It provides many advantages in terms of convenience and cross-platform compatibility. In terms of maintainability and testing, I consider it a great advantage to leave those things to a much larger community where possible. The use of Boost in the currently checked-in sources is completely gratuitous, but in the future it will not be. I think it's a reasonable first step, and is certainly shaking out problems :) That is a good idea. cross-platform compatibility can reduce the time for debugging / testing. I also saw your proposal again and understood. it is a reasonable choice to me. (2) Are we going to use boost libraries in the near future? Hope not until the next release. Certainly not until after the release. If a library (as opposed to a header file) is useful, we should use it and solve the build issues. Excellent. It saves my time in checking if it works on many Macs. Best, Tat - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009
I received this email today and am forwarding it to our devel list so all our UK based developers can see. Regards, Curt. -- Forwarded message -- From: John Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:17 AM Subject: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Sir, The reason for this mail is to advice you of a new company I have formed in the UK. Astrasim Expo Ltd. Our aim is to exhibit and promote flight simulation for enthusiasts. With more entertainment and more interactive activities. The main event next year is to be held at the Royal Air Force Museum Cosford, Shropshire. A full two day event has been plotted in with September 19th - 20th being the show dates. Conference facilities will be available and some of the interested parties who are scheduling new software/hardware releases next year are very interested in promoting their products in this style. Our remit is to hold one major event in the UK each year. By taking these events around the country gives an opportunity to all, who may not be able to make it to some of the places where shows have been held previously. Many of the leading companies in the UK have expressed great interest in this and exhibitor packs have already been ordered. If you would like more information on any of the topics briefly covered above please don't hesitate to contact myself. If interested in attending, I do have presentation pack's available for exhibitors, I can get one despatched out to you. Thanks for your time with this. -- Regards John Marshall Managing Director Astrasim Expo Ltd http://astrasimexpo.co.uk -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009
On 24 Nov 2008, at 20:30, Curtis Olson wrote: I received this email today and am forwarding it to our devel list so all our UK based developers can see. Assuming the packs are free, worth considering. We have enough people in the UK (or close to it). Depends if they're offering free space or paid space, however. Conference facilities will be available and some of the interested parties who are scheduling new software/hardware releases next year are very interested in promoting their products in this style. Better get a 2.0 release out the door for next September then, ;) (Seriously, thanks to Tat's projects and some screaming at Xcode I can run CVS reliably now, and I'm very pleased with the advances compared to 1.0, especially with Stuart's clouds and the improved reflections) James - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009
Curtis Olson wrote: I received this email today and am forwarding it to our devel list so all our UK based developers can see. Count me in. A brief look at their website shows an event at Sherburn aero club the month before too - and that's just up the road from here, so I'd be interested in doing that one too. Linux expo a lot of years ago when the royal navy museum lent us a helicopter was an absolute blast, and it's always nice to put faces to names. Who else is interested in either Cosford, Sherburn, or both? Jon - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009
Curtis Olson wrote: I received this email today and am forwarding it to our devel list so all our UK based developers can see. -- Forwarded message -- From: *John Marshall* [EMAIL PROTECTED] If interested in attending, I do have presentation pack's available for exhibitors, I can get one despatched out to you. Since it seems I'm not the only person interested before we bombard them with requests we should probably be a bit more organised :-) Who's gonna get the info pack? I'm happy to request it and scan it so it can be made available for anyone else wanting to attend. Jon - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009
Jon Stockill Curtis Olson wrote: I received this email today and am forwarding it to our devel list so all our UK based developers can see. -- Forwarded message -- From: *John Marshall* [EMAIL PROTECTED] If interested in attending, I do have presentation pack's available for exhibitors, I can get one despatched out to you. Since it seems I'm not the only person interested before we bombard them with requests we should probably be a bit more organised :-) Who's gonna get the info pack? I'm happy to request it and scan it so it can be made available for anyone else wanting to attend. Jon Since this is your backyard, I suggest you lead on this one. Vivian - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009
Vivian Meazza wrote: Since this is your backyard, I suggest you lead on this one. Sherburn is (it's about 20 miles - were I to find myself with enough cash to learn to fly then that's where it'd be). Cosford is about 120 miles away. Sherburn is only a small flying club - TBH I can't see it being a *huge* event there (but I'm willing to be proven wrong). If people are planning on travelling any distance to attend one of the events then I'd highly recommend the one at Cosford - the museum there is fantastic and well worth a visit on its own. Jon - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Further 3D Clouds updates
Frederic Bouvier wrote Attached is a small patch for 3D clouds. It provide the following: 1) Proper spherical distribution of sprites (previously they were distributed cylindrically - whoops) 2) Better shading, so the bottom of the cloud is darker than the top. 3) Fixed a couple of texture sizing bugs. I don't think any of these are controversial, so if someone would commit it, I'd be grateful. I applied your patch. I noticed this message being repeated endlessly when clouds are activated : Warning: detected OpenGL error 'valeur non valide' after RenderBin::draw(,) I also noticed that even in the Thunderstorm scenario, the cloud coverage is very sparse. Maybe the message tells us it doesn't draw every cloud instance. In fair weather, I have no clouds ( my cloud density is set at 100% in the rendering options ) I've just applied he latest Sg patch on Win XP/msvc9; builds without error. I still get: Warning: detected OpenGL error 'invalid value' after RenderBin::draw(,) RenderStage::drawInner(,) FBO status= 0x8cd5 And I have yet to see any 3d clouds. Any clues on where I should be looking (yes the box is checked :-)) Vivian - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] 3d-clouds- Texture updates
Hi, There is a lot of improvement left- some days ago I used for testing the cloudstextures from X-pLane, and they worked better. So we just need better textures. So I did my try and finished today the cl-cumulus textures, and added some first nimbustratus and stratos-textures. -Well with the last one I'm not satisfied- and there is still the issue with the ugly borders. But they only appear on near clouds- not on far distance clouds. Maybe a hint... -I still need to shape the clouds- If I had knowledge about using Phython I would make a script for Blender Here some pics: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/download/file.php?id=379 http://www.flightgear.org/forums/download/file.php?id=378 http://www.flightgear.org/forums/download/file.php?id=377 I didn't use the latest snapshots with the improvements, but there should be not much change. If someone want to play with it: http://www.hoerbird.net/cloudset.zip Comments negative/ positive and help are always welcome! Cheers HHS - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 3d-clouds- Texture updates
Heiko Schulz wrote: -I still need to shape the clouds- If I had knowledge about using Phython I would make a script for Blender There's already a cloud generation script for blender (possibly more than one). A quick search found this one: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Scripts/Manual/Wizards/Cloud_Generator Maybe it could be modified to output the data we need. Jon - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Further 3D Clouds updates
Hi, just to say that the detected OpenGL error is not new for me and is here from much more than one year (always built from cvs sources), I also remember that about one year later someone said to use grep -v to avoid the ugly output on the terminal, which I currently do with a launch bash script from this time (I think it was on IRC channel). best regards seb. Vivian Meazza wrote : Frederic Bouvier wrote I applied your patch. I noticed this message being repeated endlessly when clouds are activated : Warning: detected OpenGL error 'valeur non valide' after RenderBin::draw(,) I also noticed that even in the Thunderstorm scenario, the cloud coverage is very sparse. Maybe the message tells us it doesn't draw every cloud instance. In fair weather, I have no clouds ( my cloud density is set at 100% in the rendering options ) I've just applied he latest Sg patch on Win XP/msvc9; builds without error. I still get: Warning: detected OpenGL error 'invalid value' after RenderBin::draw(,) RenderStage::drawInner(,) FBO status= 0x8cd5 And I have yet to see any 3d clouds. Any clues on where I should be looking (yes the box is checked :-)) Vivian - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] 3d-clouds- Texture updates
There's already a cloud generation script for blender (possibly more than one). A quick search found this one: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Scripts/Manual/Wizards/Cloud_Generator Maybe it could be modified to output the data we need. Jon Wow- impressive- that's how I wished our clouds will look! I thought about creating boxes in blender which represent the boxes in cloudlayers.xml. Putting them together to the typical shapes of clouds will represent the orientation of the boxes on the layer. nice find Cheers HHS - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] screenshots: legal status
Melchior FRANZ ha scritto: There could be no doubt about the legal status of the screenshots displayed on our webpage. If there's no explicit license, then they are automatically protected by national copyright law in countries which signed the Berne Convention. But we *want* that they be used in articles and reviews about FlightGear, so we have to give explicit permission for that. I've written down on a wiki page what should IMHO be made clear in . I agree with what is written on that page, especially this part: Screenshots should only show features that are actually available to the public, not models that are private and can't be distributed due to a non-GPL-compatible, restrictive license etc. But I think that it would be much easier to impose a particular creative common license from these: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses (I think that by-nd should be reasonable good) or even using one of these: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload (You must be logged in to reach this page). -- Brisa Francesco Via Gabelli 16 22077 Olgiate Comasco (CO) http://brisa.homelinux.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ / / / / /___ ___ / / __/ / __ / / / __ \/ __ `__ \/ __ \ / /_/ / /___ /_/ / /___/ /_/ / / / / / / /_/ / \/_/\/\/_/ /_/ /_/\/ http://www.gl-como.it My public gpg key: http://minsky.surfnet.nl:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xC67DC12DC4361693 - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] dramatic drop in frame rate with either osg from svn or osg-2.7.5
Hi all, Over the weekend, I compiled osg from svn update, SimGear from cvs update, and FlightGear source from cvs update. My frame rate is now less than 10 fps and it was a solid 31 fps with --prop:/sim/frame-rate-throttle-hz=30 and 50 to 70 fps w/o the frame-rate-throttle. The before compile was for both fgfs and SimGear from cvs a week ago, but osg from svn at least a month old. I also tried recompiling against osg-2.7.5 and got similar low fps. The reason I updated osg from svn was to avoid the Z-near problem. I do have boost-1.34.1-15.fc9.i386 installed. Are others seeing a dramatic fps drop with recent updates or did I miss something required for the recent updates? - Dave P. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] dramatic drop in frame rate with either osg from svn or osg-2.7.5
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:10 AM, dave perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: less than 10 fps and it was a solid 31 fps with --prop:/sim/frame-rate-throttle-hz=30 and 50 to 70 fps w/o the frame-rate-throttle. The before compile was for both fgfs and SimGear from cvs a week ago, but osg from svn at least a month old. I also tried recompiling against osg-2.7.5 and got similar low fps. Yeah, I thought I was seeing similar effect here. But then I have compiled an older revision of fg and that turned out to be even slower! I have not tried to downgrade osg, though. -- Csaba/Jester - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] dramatic drop in frame rate with either osg from svn or osg-2.7.5
dave perry wrote: Hi all, Over the weekend, I compiled osg from svn update, SimGear from cvs update, and FlightGear source from cvs update. My frame rate is now less than 10 fps and it was a solid 31 fps with --prop:/sim/frame-rate-throttle-hz=30 and 50 to 70 fps w/o the frame-rate-throttle. Never mind. Problem went away when I opened the NVIDIA X Server Settings and then closed it w/o changing any settings. - Dave P. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] screenshots: legal status
On mardi 25 novembre 2008, francesco wrote: Melchior FRANZ ha scritto: There could be no doubt about the legal status of the screenshots displayed on our webpage. If there's no explicit license, then they are automatically protected by national copyright law in countries which signed the Berne Convention. But we *want* that they be used in articles and reviews about FlightGear, so we have to give explicit permission for that. I've written down on a wiki page what should IMHO be made clear in . I agree with what is written on that page, especially this part: Screenshots should only show features that are actually available to the public, not models that are private and can't be distributed due to a non-GPL-compatible, restrictive license etc. Yes if we are not restrictive to the FlightGear CVS distribution only, some models, could be out of CVS and however GPL compatible, and FlightGear compatible. But I think that it would be much easier to impose a particular creative common license from these: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses (I think that by-nd should be reasonable good) Not sure that the common Licenses, must be imposed, any Artist could choose his preferred license. or even using one of these: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload (You must be logged in to reach this page). Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] screenshots: legal status
I would suggest *NOT* making flightgear responsible for managing the licenses on the images in the gallery. I would suggest however that there be a requirement for the uploader to explicitly state the license that they want. It is a quagmire if you start placing restrictions beyond the standard Creative Commons clauses. Share-alike, deriviatives, commercial use... Each has their advantages and disadvantages, and enhances and diminishes the creator of the works rights. Consequently each person needs to make their own decisions about what they want their images are distributed under. I agree with Gerard's comment that each there should be a default that is implicitly applied if the uploader makes no other assertion. Regards... Matthew On 11/24/08, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There could be no doubt about the legal status of the screenshots displayed on our webpage. If there's no explicit license, then they are automatically protected by national copyright law in countries which signed the Berne Convention. But we *want* that they be used in articles and reviews about FlightGear, so we have to give explicit permission for that. I've written down on a wiki page what should IMHO be made clear in the future: - conditions for screenshot submitters, to which they have to agree - license terms on the screenshot page on flightgear.org, which explain how the screenshots may be used Consider that English isn't my first language, and that IANAL: http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Submitting_Screenshots Please comment and demand changes that you consider important. If we can come to a result that everyone can live with, then I'd like to let it be reviewed by the Free Software Foundation Europe. (Shane Martin Coughlan was so friendly to offer his help. :-) m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] screenshots: legal status
* Matthew Tippett -- Tuesday 25 November 2008: I would suggest *NOT* making flightgear responsible for managing the licenses on the images in the gallery. But that's exactly what you suggest: that everyone chooses his favorite license, and the project therefore has to manage all that and keep track of the load of licences. That's a lof of work with no gain. Simplicity rules. Yes, better just one license. And that's what the suggestion on the wiki was for. m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: Astrasim Expo Flight Simulation Shows 2009
On Nov 25, 2008, at 7:16 AM, James Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Seriously, thanks to Tat's projects and some screaming at Xcode I can run CVS reliably now, and I'm very pleased with the advances compared to 1.0, especially with Stuart's clouds and the improved reflections) My pleasure, and I'm very pleased that you finally built flightgear on your Mac Pro. Are there any changes in compiler/linker options? I wanna hear these if any. I also look forward to have a report of the show, including your running FG 2.0? on your powerful Mac Pro. A bit too early wish though ;-) Anyway, thanks to many mac users/developers including you, it is confirmed that FG/cvs runs on most of intel Macs on both OS X 10.4 and 10.5. Now I can confidently go prepare for the next release. Best, Tat - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] screenshots: legal status
IANAL, I have to agree with Melchior. The project should insist on a single license for the screenshots. I also agree with the basic aims of the suggested wiki license and offer the following suggestions: *** First *** The bullet: - The creator grants the FlightGear project a revokable and non-exclusive copyright, which permits the project: Should read: - The creator grants the FlightGear project a non-revocable, perpetual and non-exclusive copyright license, which permits the project: The submitter should not be able revoke the copyright license once granted. This is the same concept as the GPL. The project should not have to track down and destroy all copies of an image if a submitter becomes disgruntled. Once an image is shared under this license grant is should stay shared. *** Second *** 1. to use the screenshot in documentation and promotion of the FlightGear simulator, including the display on the FlightGear website and all authorized mirrors (including mirrors which are translated to other languages and may include additional services like forums), I suggest we either drop the word authorized from mirrors, or provide an expansive definition of the word authorized to make it an op-out authorization instead of an opt-in. That is, all mirrors are authorized unless explicitly unauthorized. Thanks, Ron On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 21:02 -0500, Matthew Tippett wrote: I am suggesting nothing more complex than a requirement for the description to include a license. No license information - no upload. Forcing a single license for something that is individual and clearly divisble is way too coarse. There should be no maintenance of the flightgear project's side. The issue with a catch-all license is that for someone to do what they want means they need to create an explict exclusion. Please ensure that you have worked through a few scenarios, the project effort to relicense after a mass-licensing is way higher than requesting all users determine what license they want - leaving the remainder to be relicensed if and only if they want to give it up all rights to the project. Regards... Matthew On 11/24/08, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Matthew Tippett -- Tuesday 25 November 2008: I would suggest *NOT* making flightgear responsible for managing the licenses on the images in the gallery. But that's exactly what you suggest: that everyone chooses his favorite license, and the project therefore has to manage all that and keep track of the load of licences. That's a lof of work with no gain. Simplicity rules. Yes, better just one license. And that's what the suggestion on the wiki was for. m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] screenshots: legal status
Some potential pitfalls. Who 'is' the flightgear project? Is it the leadership? Is it everyone by consensus? What if the project splits? What if you as an individual does not agree with the project leadership? You have lost your rights. Taking the case of flight sim pro as an example. By saying that 'the great simulator is built from flight gear' (which it does) - then although peope have been up in arms, the flight sim pro guys fulfil the requirement of promoting flight gear hence have access to all of the images on flight gear. Again, as a user you have given up rights and enshrined a subjective phrase in the triggers to permit use. To block the use of the images, you have then add 'explicit permission', then who gives explicit permission? What about if someone creates a fully compliant fork? Does the project licenses fork as well? Since there is no 'legal entity' called flightgear, what 'owns' the license and copyright? Flightsimpro is just a fork of flightgear by the GPL (with no value add at this stage), so where does that sit (considering it triggered the discussion). There are many rights you gain and lose with licensing. Occam's Razor applies. Keep it simple, keep it aligned to legal entities. Images are (more or less) indivisible, keep the license in the of the creator. Code is intermixed and an aggregate of many creators - use a common license. It is a *very* slippery slope that you have to go down to close all the loopholes. If any on the list have been through license negotations, the ones that are costly and mostly leave you unsatisfied are the ones with caveats and try to prevent an explicit past event. Nuff said from here, hope you guys make the right decision now, but also that decision still makes sense in another 12 months when there is a different pressure placed on the decison. Regards... Matthew On 11/24/08, Ron Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IANAL, I have to agree with Melchior. The project should insist on a single license for the screenshots. I also agree with the basic aims of the suggested wiki license and offer the following suggestions: *** First *** The bullet: - The creator grants the FlightGear project a revokable and non-exclusive copyright, which permits the project: Should read: - The creator grants the FlightGear project a non-revocable, perpetual and non-exclusive copyright license, which permits the project: The submitter should not be able revoke the copyright license once granted. This is the same concept as the GPL. The project should not have to track down and destroy all copies of an image if a submitter becomes disgruntled. Once an image is shared under this license grant is should stay shared. *** Second *** 1. to use the screenshot in documentation and promotion of the FlightGear simulator, including the display on the FlightGear website and all authorized mirrors (including mirrors which are translated to other languages and may include additional services like forums), I suggest we either drop the word authorized from mirrors, or provide an expansive definition of the word authorized to make it an op-out authorization instead of an opt-in. That is, all mirrors are authorized unless explicitly unauthorized. Thanks, Ron On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 21:02 -0500, Matthew Tippett wrote: I am suggesting nothing more complex than a requirement for the description to include a license. No license information - no upload. Forcing a single license for something that is individual and clearly divisble is way too coarse. There should be no maintenance of the flightgear project's side. The issue with a catch-all license is that for someone to do what they want means they need to create an explict exclusion. Please ensure that you have worked through a few scenarios, the project effort to relicense after a mass-licensing is way higher than requesting all users determine what license they want - leaving the remainder to be relicensed if and only if they want to give it up all rights to the project. Regards... Matthew On 11/24/08, Melchior FRANZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Matthew Tippett -- Tuesday 25 November 2008: I would suggest *NOT* making flightgear responsible for managing the licenses on the images in the gallery. But that's exactly what you suggest: that everyone chooses his favorite license, and the project therefore has to manage all that and keep track of the load of licences. That's a lof of work with no gain. Simplicity rules. Yes, better just one license. And that's what the suggestion on the wiki was for. m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
Re: [Flightgear-devel] screenshots: legal status
* Ron Jensen -- Tuesday 25 November 2008: I have to agree with Melchior. The project should insist on a single license for the screenshots. The problem with multiple, submitter-chosen licenses it: - you have to archive and understand all the licenses, and - you have to note which screenshot is under which license - you can (realistically) do *nothing* if someone infringes What are you going to do?! Write a sternly worded email like You have infringed on the copyright of 17 of our screenshots, namely the one with the ec135 with the container ship in the backgroup, the one [...]. You don't have permission to scale the one with the Concorde. You don't have permission to display the one with the Buccaneer in front of the hangar on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. [...] You can keep the one with the banked A-10 in front of the Nimitz, as it's Public Doman. A heck of a takedown notice! Guess what they'll do?! Remove the two ugliest screenshots and ask, is it OK now? This will then be a longer thread, and in the end we'll look like total fools and haven't achieved anything. :-P - The creator grants the FlightGear project a revokable and non-exclusive copyright, which permits the project: Should read: - The creator grants the FlightGear project a non-revocable, perpetual and non-exclusive copyright license, which permits the project: Hmm. This wasn't an accident. The code is under the GPL, and this guarantees that it remains free. But there's no such protection for the screenshots. What if Curt has to give up leadership for some reason, someone else takes over and slowly transforms the webpage into a very questionable direction. (Pink ponies everywhere. With swastikas. ;-) Then contributors can bail out. And if someone asks for removal without good reason? We even (cvs-)removed a whole, very well done (GPL'ed) aircraft because the author asked for it, even if we had no obligation to do so. How much hurts us the loss of a screenshot in comparison? I had thought that we can be generous here. It's a cheap gift. :-) The project should not have to track down and destroy all copies of an image if a submitter becomes disgruntled. Hmm, true. A submitter would have to agree to the submitter license *and* to the copyright notice anyway, and the latter says that anyone can use the shots for FlightGear promotion (under some conditions). So the whole mirror clause isn't necessary, and there's no need (and no possibility) to track all copies down. S/he could only revoke further display and distribution of the screenshots by flightgear.org. I suggest we either drop the word authorized from mirrors, [...] Agreed. Or, as said above, better drop the whole mirror thing and just add: the creator allows the FlightGear project to grant everyone these rights: [...] I'll edit the wiki page so that you can see what I mean. m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
