On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 18:37 -0600, Jon S. Berndt wrote:
To be safest we probably ought to rename the Fokker aircraft models as F100
and F50.
I hardly believe that's necessary. I've never heard any complaint about
using the Fokker name in any flight simulator. In fact the Fokker
project for
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 01:57 -0500, Chris O'Neill wrote:
I'm no lawyer, and I'm certainly not up on the law around the world, but
there's a concept in North American common law that one must take
reasonable and prudent steps to avoid liability. With this concept in
mind, I respectfully ask
Erik wrote
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hofman [mailto:e...@ehofman.com]
Sent: 27 February 2011 09:09
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 01:57 -0500, Chris O'Neill wrote:
I'm no lawyer, and I'm
J. Holden wrote:
To all currently arguing:
Consider it is going to be difficult for whoever would sue us to show how
we've cost them any financial damage. Likely, someone being aggressive
with trademark infringement is probably going simply to ask us to stop
distribution of whatever
Erik Hofmann wrote
To be honest I don't see any legal difference between creating an
accurate livery for a virtual aircraft or publishing a photograph of the
real aircraft.
Then you have missed various points in legal trademarking ;)
Repainting a trademarked item is an explicit reproduction
Hi everybody,
I'm fooling around with Arduino and FGFS, in order to create a few
physical instruments.
Since I felt like using an intermediate piece of software that manages
data transfers between Arduino and FGFS (Instead of connecting them
directly one to the other) and every crazy thing
syd adams a écrit :
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely rather than demands and
threats might work better ;)
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
better see my livery in the
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 14:06 +0100, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm fooling around with Arduino and FGFS, in order to create a few
physical instruments.
Since I felt like using an intermediate piece of software that manages
data transfers between Arduino and FGFS (Instead of
Alexis wrote
-Original Message-
From: Citronnier - Alexis Bory [mailto:alexis.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 February 2011 14:01
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
syd adams a écrit :
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the association concept.
Shouldn't have asked.
In the same sense as FlightProSim did not ask to use the IP of others and
violate their license?
Oliver
--
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
Vivian Meazza wrote:
Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the association concept.
Shouldn't have asked.
In the same sense as FlightProSim did not ask to use the IP of others and
violate their license?
Oliver
No, not in your
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm fooling around with Arduino and FGFS, in order to create a few
physical instruments.
Very cool Roberto! Don't forget to get yourself a Centipede Shield or
two. They're $20 each and give you 64 i/o channels each.
Since I
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely rather than demands and
threats might work better ;)
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull today. If I get the green light, I
better
On 27.02.2011 15:48, Geoff McLane wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 14:06 +0100, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
Well, it works ... but the telnet connection is very slow
and that slows down every intercation, it makes it far less than realtime
I quickly added some 'timing' to my telnet access,
through a
Am Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011, um 16:23:47 schrieb Peter Brown:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
No, not in your twisted logic. FG is not creating income based upon others
work. FG is representing the environment and aircraft created in a
realistic manner. A proper analogy
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 16:41 +0100, ThorstenB wrote:
fgfs . --telnet=foo,bar,100,foo,,bar
Hi Thorsten,
Absolute genius ;=)) Should have looked
at the source myself before belching...
Now have :-
OVER LAN: WIN32 - Ubuntu
39 accesses 0.835 secs, 0.0214 secs per access
39 accesses
On Feb 27, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
Am Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011, um 16:23:47 schrieb Peter Brown:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
No, not in your twisted logic. FG is not creating income based upon others
work. FG is representing the environment and
Gene Buckle a écrit :
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Vivian Meazza wrote:
Just a thought , but maybe asking nicely rather than demands and
threats might work better ;)
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Jack Mermod jackmer...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm planning on contacting Red Bull
It has been very frustrating to watch this community repeatedly trip over legal
issues. This has finally become a great enough source of frustration to me
where all I can say is good luck in the future and enjoy the scenery (whenever
it comes out).
Yours
John
Peter Brown wrote:
By this definition FG would cease to exist.
Legislation does not define values, and commercial trademarks are just
that, commercial. The purpose of enforcing them is to protect their
_commercial_ business. It has nothing to do with personal moral, unless
you direct it in
Hi,
It has been very frustrating to watch
this community repeatedly trip over legal issues. This has
finally become a great enough source of frustration to me
where all I can say is good luck in the future and enjoy the
scenery (whenever it comes out).
Yours
John
Really?
I find this
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:41:56 +0100, ThorstenB wrote in message
4d6a70c4.2070...@gmail.com:
On 27.02.2011 15:48, Geoff McLane wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 14:06 +0100, Roberto Inzerillo wrote:
Well, it works ... but the telnet connection is very slow
and that slows down every intercation,
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hi,
It has been very frustrating to watch
this community repeatedly trip over legal issues. This has
finally become a great enough source of frustration to me
where all I can say is good luck in the future and enjoy the
scenery (whenever it comes out).
Yours
I believe what John is saying is that it is frustrating to
see how people just
step over legal issues without caring.
If one day we have to move away the debris then it will be
But how should we
have known
Oliver
Well, looking at other sims I'm not sure about. X-Plane,
I find this interesting- wasn't it you (beside Martin) telling us that Google
Earth can't be used anymore for scenery models due to legal issues?
Yes. The Google Maps/Google Earth license is not compatible with the GPL. If
you are interested in this OpenStreetMap has a good discussion of the
Hi,
That is one of the rare instances where
we have been able, as a community, to figure out what we can
or can't do legally and apply the reasoning consistently.
Exactly that's what I want to know in this case.
There's a general we should avoid
litigation vibe here, but part of avoiding
On Sunday 27 February 2011 10:05:21 Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..depending on what data you drop into or ask for from the fdm,
speeding up telnet _may_ also make you speed up the fdm so it
_can_ properly solve the problems you feed it:
--model-hz=n Run the FDM this rate (iterations per second)
Well, until now you didn't say much about in this topic here. But as I can
see, you are the one in the whole Project who does understand much more of
laws and legal issues than anyone others here.
I cannot tell if this is sarcasm but in defense I have done a lot of reading to
try and figure
Hi,
Another problem is contributors come from all over the
world so reading the Lanham Act won't necessarily help us if
the angered corporation and data contributors are German.
That's why we need a community effort to figure out what to
tell Jack when he's presenting his next model to
This is the code section I've found so far, 1114(1)(a) is the most relevant:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1114000-.html
I don't know much about this but it does appear the confusion, mistake, or
deception part at the end is the important part. I'll have to
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:05:58 -0600, Curtis wrote in message
AANLkTi=XWzb=20e8kWWHb=cn7z90qa696eq0tp7qp...@mail.gmail.com:
We are trying to find a reasonable way forward, not forget about
anything. No one wants to remove existing content from the FlightGear
project, even though some of that
On 2/27/2011 12:06 PM, John Holden wrote:
This is the code section I've found so far, 1114(1)(a) is the most relevant:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1114000-.html
I don't know much about this but it does appear the confusion, mistake, or
deception part at
John Holden wrote
This is the code section I've found so far, 1114(1)(a) is the most
relevant:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_1114
000-.html
I don't know much about this but it does appear the confusion, mistake, or
deception part at the end is the
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:51:54 +0100 (CET), Melchior wrote in message
11311.7445.1298757114543.javamail.r...@warsbl214.highway.telekom.at:
* Jon S. Berndt jonsber...@comcast.net:
[...] but contact the various trademark/logo owners and very
carefully inform them of the project and ask them for
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, J. Holden wrote:
It has been very frustrating to watch this community repeatedly trip
over legal issues. This has finally become a great enough source of
frustration to me where all I can say is good luck in the future and
enjoy the scenery (whenever it comes out).
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Oliver Fels wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:
By this definition FG would cease to exist.
Legislation does not define values, and commercial trademarks are just
that, commercial. The purpose of enforcing them is to protect their
_commercial_ business. It has nothing to do
On 27.02.2011 21:18, Gene Buckle wrote:
I for one, do NOT welcome our new Vichy FlightGear Overlords. Zey hav
vays of makingink you comply.
Until you mouth-breathing back-biters understand the concept of no harm,
no foul, I don't want to have a thing to do with you.
*« Bravo, vous avez gagné 1
Hey Erik!
Erik wrote:
It might also be a good time to make installing new liveries a lot
easier.
Please let me know whenever something is undertaken on this part. I'd like to
make sur we'll end up with
something in cooperation with http://liveries.flightgear.org which I maintain
a look at the sources shows that a fixed polling interval is used for
telnet - default is 5Hz. So it cannot process more than 5 commands per
second. That's why it's slow. There's better methods of implementing
socket communication instead of polling, but I haven't looked into the
module and
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Roberto Inzerillo rob...@gmx.net wrote:
a look at the sources shows that a fixed polling interval is used for
telnet - default is 5Hz. So it cannot process more than 5 commands per
second. That's why it's slow. There's better methods of implementing
socket
too many emails to read but if i understand Tim , I happen to
agree that there's no reason for every aircraft to be inserted into
the fgdata repository . Why not keep them separate from the main FG
project and leave the onus on the content creators ? There the one's
bringing the undesired
Hi guys ,
I modelled a c172j , the aircraft i trained in , and got the fdm
working pretty accurately (except for slipstream effect) , but noticed
that the yasim piston engine burned about 11 gallons per hour , about
3 gallons an hour more than the real one does full rich.
Would it be possible for
Syd,
I had to fix fuel usage for the Goose to drop fuel usage to about 65%
of YASim's guestimate. I generally replace the default nasal fuel
system with my own version these days, and as part of that, at least
in the Goose, I included a fuel-scalar that reduced the fuel-consumed
amount.
43 matches
Mail list logo
