Re: [Flightgear-devel] Bug with Protocol handling String fields?
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. Thank you Csaba, I don't think I will report anything untill I can run a precompiled binary, I really never compiled FGFS and I don't think I will this time either (compiling this stuff is really far from my experience). Just tell me please if, when and where I can find a precompiled binary. Anyway, I appreciate the news, at least I know what's going on and can write my code acordingly. Now in order to avoid this bug I will use a workaround. I will comment extensively my code where this workaround has been used, so that in the future, when the bug will be wiped out off any FGFS binary, everyone (not just me) can erase it quickly and painlessly. Btw, it's the first time I ever programmed something that use a serial connection, I was wondering, who can I ask for suggestions. I just started reading stuff about it, and since I'm not using a physical serial connection (the Arduino board is connected to the PC with a usb cable, and the driver makes it appear to the system as a /dev/ttyACM0, it's a virtual serial port) much of the physical related aspects are non working. I'm reading about buffers, hardware control flow, synchronous and asynchronus data flow, there's a lot there and sometimes I can't discern what's related to my scenario and what's not. I have quite a few perplexity about all this stuff, and everything doc I find generally deals with physical serials. I could really use some help or at least some guide in order to avoid misunderstandings on my side. E.g. there's something not working quite right at this time regarding my serial data flow synchronization. I managed setting fgfs's serial input and Arduino's output at 30hz, that works relatively nice, but things get weird when FGFS expects data at 30Hz and Arduino sends it at different frequencies (variable in time, not fixed), it looks like FGFS sometimes reads it all with huge delay, some other freezes. I'd like to know more in order to get things done in a more elegant way. It's just a detail but I'm trying to figure out the whole panorama before committing to more complex interactions. -- 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
Heiko Or maybe Company A hasn't yet noticed that Company B is using the trademark without permission? I doubt that! X-Plane is very well known already, much more than FlightGear. Austin has laywers, he certainly knows what he is allowed to do. (on the contrary to us! ;-)) 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. What Vivian wants to say is, that there is certain degree of margin. Or do you want me to tell you are able drive exactly 55mph 100% exactly without tempomat anytime needed? The fact is: there are some Trademarks which can be used without any problems. Police, Post or Red Cross and a lot of others. I know one company which even put up a detailed set of their paint scheme including their Trademark for Download just for modelers. 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. If you would take a look into the forums of FlightGear, X-Plane, MSFS you would see that it is very popular to repaint aircrafts and that it is very attracting to fly their own aircraft. There is high number of payware addons companies who certainly don't pay any fee because they use any trademark for a livery. Ever heard of this sentence? An aircraft which looks good and pleasant, also does fly like that Of course mostly of their shape, but often the painting completes their well-designed shape. We have people flying aircraft in FGFS due to their flight behavior. We have people flying aircraft in FGFS due to their nice modelling. We have poeple flying aircraft in FGFS due to both. You have to acceppt that there are more people involved than just you. And yes, I fear also that we may loose attraction compared to other sims when we start to delete liveries with any trademark. 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! What's wrong with *make believe* icons? Depending on the owner of the real icon it can be that you still be sued for. There have been a lot of examples (especially Red Bull) like that. Juist google for Blue Bull. The fact is- no one, not you, not me, not anybody here does really know what we may, and what not. I discussed this issues with Oliver Off-list, and he pointed to me that we may have use in germany some trademarks just because they are part of the daily life. So it would be possible to use Lufthansa without any problems. And indeed: they just don't like VirtualAirlines with their name, but don't mind any repaint. And there are some examples more. Trademarks not of the daily life (like Red Bull) can't be used that easily. If someone wants still to use it, he is in the risque to be sued. Of course, this is in germany- how it is in UK? or in australia? In russia? Even in each country the different courts may decide different on the same issue. I can can only follow John Holden's statement: we should make us aware of what we are allowed to and what not. What are our rights? Nice summary: I think you have answered your own question :-). Your rights? You have copyright over anything that is your original work. Anything else, someone else probably has a right over. If not trademark, then copyright. They may chose not to exercise that right (yet), or give you permission. There is some latitude: Fair Dealing (where that exists) and as you mentioned above etc. Don't assume that because a trademark exists that it can't be used in a different context. That depends on the Class(es) in which it is registered. That's probably it. I thought I would do a bit of research over at X-Plane. I see that they have registered X-Plane as a trademark in the US - that would seem sensible. I don't see any reference to other trademarks or copyrights. I half expected to see something like All logos and trademarks are reproduced with the kind permission of their respective owners. I couldn't find anything. It's only a courtesy, so we can't read too much into that. One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On 06/03/11 23:42, Vivian Meazza wrote: One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've been involved - 2004 and probably longer. In that time we have not had a problem. Are we saying that no rights holder has ever noticed it anywhere? I find that a bit improbable; perhaps they aren’t looking or aren't bothered. Of course, I'm inviting disaster to strike us Monday morning. While we're on the subject of branding I've got some generic billboard models which are in need of some posters to go on them - so if anyone wants to design them (I thought it might be nice to have some flightgear themed ads on them) then feel free to drop me an email and I'll let you know the dimensions. It's tempting to do one that flips over to show different ads too. Jon -- 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
Vivian Meazza: wrote: 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. I have stated this before at various occasions- lawyers are able to approach an infringing party without being directly related to the trademark owner as soon as they are aware of an infringement. They simply have to seek permission to represent the trademark owner. Afterwards they can go own their own charging fees. For file sharing issues this procedure is applied daily. 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. The registrant of the web site, GIT server and scenery database. In other words: Every facility which is able to distribute the information to the public. Oliver -- 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
Vivian Meazza wrote: One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've been involved - 2004 and probably longer. In that time we have not had a problem. Are we saying that no rights holder has ever noticed it anywhere? I find that a bit improbable; perhaps they arent looking or aren't bothered. Of course, I'm inviting disaster to strike us Monday morning. Ah, yes, at night, I am sneaking into my neighbors garden and take photographs of her in her bedroom through the window. I do this since 2004 and she has never complained. So I believe it is ok to go on with that as proprably she finds this acceptable. Now back to that damn guy who regularly puts his trash in my can. I'll hit him with a large stick. Oliver P.S.: Noted the sarkasm? -- 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
