Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. ... not allowing any commmercial use. Why? Freedom Zero matters just as much for things other than code. -- Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote: No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called. I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any commmercial use. Disallowing commercial use means Linux distributors can't include it in their distribution. You will never be able to convince every single developer that touched fgdata somehow to allow us to switch license. You won't convince me anyhow. Only change/add this to gpl, rename it flightgear scenery license or whatever. Dual licensing..should be easy? Dual licensing (two licenses for the same file) won't help you anything since it allows the user to choose the one that suits him best. Two licenses in one package is probably problematic too since it means the whole package (FlightGear) will fall under the most strict license. Erik -- http://www.adalin.com - Hardware accelerated AeonWave and OpenAL for Windows and Linux -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Compiling 2.8.0
hi, I am trying to package 2.8.0 in my Linux Mageia system, which already brings 2.6.0 in rpms. The 2.8 compilation fails with below error, any hints please? Is it a new build dependency? [ 4%] Building CXX object src/FDM/YASim/CMakeFiles/yasim.dir/FGFDM.cpp.o CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shContext.c.o: In function `vgRotate': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shContext.c:480: undefined reference to `sincosf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shGeometry.c.o: In function `shSubrecurseArc': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:173: undefined reference to `sincosf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shGeometry.c.o: In function `shStrokeJoinRound': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:431: undefined reference to `acosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:423: undefined reference to `sincosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:431: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:431: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shGeometry.c.o: In function `shStrokePath': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `acosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `cosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:648: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o: In function `shGenerateStops': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:275: undefined reference to `floorf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o: In function `shDrawLinearGradientMesh': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:431: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:429: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o: In function `shDrawRadialGradientMesh': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:648: undefined reference to `acosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:667: undefined reference to `ceilf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:506: undefined reference to `sincosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:506: undefined reference to `sincosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:685: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:551: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:620: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:605: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:605: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o:/home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:605: more undefined references to `sqrtf' follow CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shParams.c.o: In function `shValidInputFloat2Int': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shParams.c.o:/home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: more undefined references to `floorf' follow CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPath.c.o: In function `shTransformSegment': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:1026: undefined reference to `sincosf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPath.c.o: In function `shRealCoordToData': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next, updated. 1dbc2c83e5c0514b1a51eb0c2aee9f6dbe577492
On 4 Sep 2012, at 23:09, Flightgear-commitlogs wrote: commit 6745d27691039e2ce477b2e823dbae6c59bc5d00 Author: ThorstenB Date: Tue Sep 4 23:57:25 2012 +0200 #858: Fix loading issue with aircraft models in --fg-aircraft directories Something after FG 2.8.0 has broken loading aircraft models from --fg-aircraft directories. Issue is fixed by resolving the aircraft path in FGAircraftModel (though this module itself hasn't changed and things were working before...). I'm very suspicious of this - I don't think there's been any post 2.8 commit that could change such a core behaviour. (I don't read every single commit in detail, but I look at the summaries) The change is certainly valid, but I'd be much happier knowing why it worked before and what broke it. I'll take a quick look myself but any help would be appreciated. James -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] strange screen
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 22:14 +0100, Alasdair wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 21:58 +0100, Alasdair wrote: On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 22:34 +0200, Frederic Bouvier wrote: If you start FG with --log-level=debug --log-class=view you'll be able to see messages like : FGEventHandler::handle: RESIZE event 763 x 1338, resizable: 1 FGRenderer::resize: new size 1338 x 763 What are yours ? Regards, -Fred I see FGRenderer::resize: new size 1904 x 993 but no reference to FGEventHandler::? I already has a look at FGRenderer::resize, but the method doesn't seem to do anything, except issue the above message at debug level. Keep going, Fred! I have every confidence you can crack this problem. It's the FGEventHandler::handle that actually do the resize. So if you don't see it it explains what you see. BTW: What is your OSG version ? Regards, -Fred 3.0.1 I always used my own build, but also tried debian's deb (version 3.0.1-3 +b2) Alasdair I see : FGEventHandler::handle: RESIZE event 1002 x 1920, resizable: 1 FGRenderer::resize: new size 1920 x 1002 but _only after I click the maximize widget_ Screen reverts to small view if I click any menu item Alasdair Mind you, I don't see FGEventHandler::handle in the log for checkout prior to caeebdbd935015fd7b2bb3071e5f09b1b7815415 either, where the problem is not evident. Alasdair -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Compiling 2.8.0
Looks like its not bothering to link against libm (the system math library) On 5/09/2012 7:53 PM, zezinho lists.jjo...@free.fr wrote: hi, I am trying to package 2.8.0 in my Linux Mageia system, which already brings 2.6.0 in rpms. The 2.8 compilation fails with below error, any hints please? Is it a new build dependency? [ 4%] Building CXX object src/FDM/YASim/CMakeFiles/yasim.dir/FGFDM.cpp.o CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shContext.c.o: In function `vgRotate': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shContext.c:480: undefined reference to `sincosf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shGeometry.c.o: In function `shSubrecurseArc': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:173: undefined reference to `sincosf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shGeometry.c.o: In function `shStrokeJoinRound': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:431: undefined reference to `acosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:423: undefined reference to `sincosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:431: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:431: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shGeometry.c.o: In function `shStrokePath': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `acosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `cosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:648: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shGeometry.c:683: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o: In function `shGenerateStops': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:275: undefined reference to `floorf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o: In function `shDrawLinearGradientMesh': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:431: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:429: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o: In function `shDrawRadialGradientMesh': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:648: undefined reference to `acosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:667: undefined reference to `ceilf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:506: undefined reference to `sincosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:506: undefined reference to `sincosf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:685: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:551: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:620: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:605: undefined reference to `sqrtf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:605: undefined reference to `sqrtf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPaint.c.o:/home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPaint.c:605: more undefined references to `sqrtf' follow CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shParams.c.o: In function `shValidInputFloat2Int': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: undefined reference to `floorf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shParams.c.o:/home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shParams.c:171: more undefined references to `floorf' follow CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPath.c.o: In function `shTransformSegment': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:1026: undefined reference to `sincosf' CMakeFiles/ShivaVG.dir/shPath.c.o: In function `shRealCoordToData': /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference to `floorf' /home/jose/rpm/BUILD/flightgear-2.8.0/src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/shPath.c:316: undefined reference to `floorf'
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Erik Hofman wrote: On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote: No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called. I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any commmercial use. Disallowing commercial use means Linux distributors can't include it in their distribution. You will never be able to convince every single developer that touched fgdata somehow to allow us to switch license. You won't convince me anyhow. +1. (I suspect there is a very strong correlation between long term contribution and commitment to the GPL) On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results of which have been fed back into FG. Changing the license won't actually make any difference to FPS et al. They appear still to be selling v1.9.1, and given their advertising methods, I can see no reason why they would put any effort into updating their package. As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote: On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results of which have been fed back into FG. +1 Changing the license won't actually make any difference to FPS et al. They appear still to be selling v1.9.1, and given their advertising methods, I can see no reason why they would put any effort into updating their package. +1 As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? +1 :) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next, updated. 1dbc2c83e5c0514b1a51eb0c2aee9f6dbe577492
I can confirm that it (--fg-aircraft directories)was broken,and was about to investigate further when ThorstenB made it work again. Thanks. I think that the bug appeared very recently, perhaps within the last 2 weeks, but cannot be 100% sure when Alan -Original Message- From: James Turner Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:00 AM To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next, updated. 1dbc2c83e5c0514b1a51eb0c2aee9f6dbe577492 On 4 Sep 2012, at 23:09, Flightgear-commitlogs wrote: commit 6745d27691039e2ce477b2e823dbae6c59bc5d00 Author: ThorstenB Date: Tue Sep 4 23:57:25 2012 +0200 #858: Fix loading issue with aircraft models in --fg-aircraft directories Something after FG 2.8.0 has broken loading aircraft models from --fg-aircraft directories. Issue is fixed by resolving the aircraft path in FGAircraftModel (though this module itself hasn't changed and things were working before...). I'm very suspicious of this - I don't think there's been any post 2.8 commit that could change such a core behaviour. (I don't read every single commit in detail, but I look at the summaries) The change is certainly valid, but I'd be much happier knowing why it worked before and what broke it. I'll take a quick look myself but any help would be appreciated. James -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective. There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data) that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims as everything below. However at the end of the day it is not GPL, and so can not be used. Creative Commons seems to be very popular for content as oppose to code with organisations that don't do code. So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content in scenery that must be GPL??? cheers S. On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 09:32 +0100, James Turner wrote: On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote: On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results of which have been fed back into FG. +1 Changing the license won't actually make any difference to FPS et al. They appear still to be selling v1.9.1, and given their advertising methods, I can see no reason why they would put any effort into updating their package. +1 As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? +1 :) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott: While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective. There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data) that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims as everything below. However at the end of the day it is not GPL, and so can not be used. Creative Commons seems to be very popular for content as oppose to code with organisations that don't do code. Which national SRTM-1 do you mean is in CC ? I know only SRTM-1 in public domain. -Yves -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 12:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote: Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott: While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective. There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data) that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims as everything below. However at the end of the day it is not GPL, and so can not be used. Creative Commons seems to be very popular for content as oppose to code with organisations that don't do code. Which national SRTM-1 do you mean is in CC ? I know only SRTM-1 in public domain. The example is not important, but it is the Australian government data and includes SRTM and other data files. This is consistent with some other national agencies, though I can't recall exact examples right now. The point was how do we integrate data that is under the Creative Commons license in particular, that is broadly in the spirit of GPL but is not GPL? cheers S. -Yves -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Scott wrote: So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content in scenery that must be GPL??? Under the this is no legal advice-clause I'd say it should allow derived works to be published under the GPL. BTW, I'm uncertain if we're having the same SRTM-1 in mind. The last time I looked at the a public source of SRTM-1, it's been very noisy. Aside from that you're probably not gaining much by using SRTM-1, because upon Terrain generation most of the elevation points remain unused anyway - even with SRTM-3. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:35 +, Martin Spott wrote: Scott wrote: So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content in scenery that must be GPL??? Under the this is no legal advice-clause I'd say it should allow derived works to be published under the GPL. All free advice worth every cent :) But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution. BTW, I'm uncertain if we're having the same SRTM-1 in mind. The last time I looked at the a public source of SRTM-1, it's been very noisy. This is actually the nice thing about the national SRTM data, it has been cleaned by folks who have lots of other data to clean it up properly. They also provide SRTM-3 with the same license and has also gone through the same cleaning process. Aside from that you're probably not gaining much by using SRTM-1, because upon Terrain generation most of the elevation points remain unused anyway - even with SRTM-3. Yeah, ok, but it equally applies to other data files one can find around the place, many do seem to have CC license attached, things like texture files (used on objects), and shapefiles. But if the derived works allows it, what other points in a CC license would exclude it from GPL inclusion. many thanks S. Cheers, Martin. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Scott wrote: But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution. It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text. One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently similar, despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much different. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers. (...) Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any commmercial use. My two cents: First of all, define your use of 'scammer' here. From Wikipedia, I get A confidence trick is also known as a con game, con, scam, grift, hustle, bunko, bunco, swindle, flimflam, gaffle, or bamboozle. (...) A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. They seem to be actually getting a working copy of a flight simulation which is able to generate the advertized screenshots and has the advertized features. What they do is selling a product for a high price which is available elsewhere cheaper. Any consulting company will probably refer to this as a clever business strategy rather than a scam. I've noticed that I can buy newspapers on airports for a price which is somewhat higher than on the street. Usually the fact that I get the same newspaper for free once I enter the plane (or even at the gate in some airports) isn't advertized, I have to know. Would this make the newspaper vendors morally bad people (obviously it's not criminal to sell something which is available for free next door) or merely clever businessmen? Second, were is the damage? FlightProSim, as far as I can see, doesn't damage the Flightgear project in any way. It doesn't cost us money, after discovering that you get the product for free elsewhere, FlightProSim customers are as a rule not angry at Flightgear but at FlightProSim, so I fail to see how a changed license would benefit the project, as we're not after preventing damage for us here. There is arguably, from a certain moral perspective, damage done to FlightProSim customers since they pay for something they could have gotten for free. Note that this is not the same thing as fraud (see above), and note also that pretty much every supermarket sells products which we could get cheaper elsewhere. We (some of us) may feel that this is somehow morally wrong though. From this come two questions: * Can we all agree on moral standards what is 'right' and 'wrong' use of Flightgear? * If so, should we really take care to pre-empt all 'wrong' use? I seriously doubt we all agree on the same 'right' and 'wrong' - I've heard some voices arguing against any military simulation using Flightgear while others use it to write derived combat sims for instance. Suppose someone starts selling Flightgear with added customer service - so rather than the somewhat diffuse service offered in the forum, you get to talk to a service hotline in case something doesn't work. Is it morally justified to charge for this added service? If yes, how do we judge the standard of service and the price against what FlightProSim is (not?) offering? If no, would we not harm the project by preventing this service, as we are evidently not able to come up with a reliable customer service? I could go on a bit, the point is, once you actually start thinking about it, it's not a very clear-cut question. Which brings me to third, what damage do we do to the project by preventing commercial use? As has been mentioned, plenty - commercial use has in the past been used to contribute to the project, we'd not be included in Linux distributions, we'd prevent someone from offering a perfectly useful customer service,... And thus, in summary changing to a license preventing commercial use makes no sense. It doesn't prevent any damage done to the project, as no such damage exists. The idea is based on a perspective of 'right' and 'wrong' which is at best difficult to argue and for which we would not find any consensus among ourselves. The idea is further based on pre-empting 'misuse' of our work, which even if that could be defined and agreed upon, is difficult to establish in practice (do we for instance test every customer service and then only allow certified services to sell the product?). But a license change does clear and evident damage to the project. So we'd lose something but gain really nothing. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Renk Thorsten wrote: FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote: Renk Thorsten wrote: FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. I have heard of some people getting their money back, after quite a bit of difficulty. I have heard of many others who were in the process of trying to get their money back -- but I don't know the ultimate resolution -- just that it is far harder than the web site implies. These guys advertise with a combination of FSX, X-Plane, and Flightgear screen shots, and lately I've been seeing pictures of large commercial full cockpit sims. They advertise under a variety of names including names that are variations of Flight Simulator X. They blatantly rip images off our web site and crop the water marks. We haven't been able to pin them down on an obvious violation of our FlightGear license, but they will do and say just about anything. In addition, most of the advertising I've seen has been done under fake accounts. And even the identities on the official flight pro sim (and virtual pilot 3d) web pages are suspect. Oh, and they have been filling up the internet with fake reviews and piles of links to try to game the search engines. Typically when someone pulls the trigger and purchases the product, they get a download link only. They end up needing to pay an additional fee to get the software on DVD. It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. Unfortunately, there are new people signing onto the internet for their very first time every day, and a few of them do fall victim to some of these wonderful sounding scams. Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. Well, since there's always small-print (which I don't know) I would leave that to the courts to establish if that is actually fraudulent or not. Personally, I think accusing someone of fraud needs a case better than reports on this list. It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. Again, the problem of a business not meeting every expectation their advertizing creates is known to everyone booking a holiday package via a travel agency. My hotels somehow never seem to look exactly like on the websites... The problem seems to be finding clear-cut and watertight criteria distinguishing legitimate from other business. We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. Legitimate (as in legal) is a judgement I am not prepared to make. In my view, they're neither honourable nor particularly ethical, but that applies to many other businesses I know as well. Point being - to what length should I go to establish my ethical standards in the rest of the world? * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] strange screen
I have narrowed this problem down further. Comment out: instrumentation n=0 pathAircraft/c172p/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation in c172p-set.xml Similarly instrumentation pathAircraft/b1900d/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation -- in b1900d-set.xml and in the case of the SenecaII instrumentation pathAircraft/SenecaII/Systems/SenecaII-instruments.xml/path /instrumentation in SenecaII-base.xml The Calalyst view port problem disappears and the problem planes behave beautifully. Can someone with this problem confirm? Alasdair -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] strange screen
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Alasdair wrote: I have narrowed this problem down further. Comment out: instrumentation n=0 pathAircraft/c172p/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation in c172p-set.xml Similarly instrumentation pathAircraft/b1900d/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation -- in b1900d-set.xml and in the case of the SenecaII instrumentation pathAircraft/SenecaII/Systems/SenecaII-instruments.xml/path /instrumentation in SenecaII-base.xml The Calalyst view port problem disappears and the problem planes behave beautifully. Can someone with this problem confirm? That would make the aircraft use the generic instrumentation file that includes the wxradar instrument (which usually or, maybe, always masks the problem). You could also try adding radar namewxradar/name number0/number /radar in the aircraft's own instrumentation file. This, however, is just a work-around, not a solution. Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam WWW: http://gitorious.org/anders-hangar http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/ -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Martin Spott wrote: Renk Thorsten wrote: FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. Nor do they comply with the GPL from what I can tell. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck. [Cipher in a.s.r] -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] strange screen
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 15:47 +0200, Anders Gidenstam wrote: On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Alasdair wrote: I have narrowed this problem down further. Comment out: instrumentation n=0 pathAircraft/c172p/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation in c172p-set.xml Similarly instrumentation pathAircraft/b1900d/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation -- in b1900d-set.xml and in the case of the SenecaII instrumentation pathAircraft/SenecaII/Systems/SenecaII-instruments.xml/path /instrumentation in SenecaII-base.xml The Calalyst view port problem disappears and the problem planes behave beautifully. Can someone with this problem confirm? That would make the aircraft use the generic instrumentation file that includes the wxradar instrument (which usually or, maybe, always masks the problem). You could also try adding radar namewxradar/name number0/number /radar in the aircraft's own instrumentation file. This, however, is just a work-around, not a solution. Cheers, Anders Sort of back where we started really, but I noticed (as I guess you know) that it is not the contents of the instrumentation file, but its mere inclusion that causes the problem. Ie replace the instrumentation file with an empty(ish) xml file and the problem persists (and the darn instruments don't work). I will try your suggested fix, rather than trashing the instrumentation files. Thanks. Alasdair -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I am concerned, not okay. I think we have to clearly distinguish between two levels here - what we personally consider ethical behaviour, and how the societies we live in codify the sum of many such personal judgements in norms which apply to all of us beyond the personal level, i.e. what is legal. Fraud is a crime. In essence, calling someone a scammer is calling him a criminal. There's a principle in criminal justice which reads Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty. It means, if you suspect someone being a criminal, you have to gather evidence, take it to court and then a judge (a jury) decides if someone is guilty of a crime or not. It also means, if you haven't been able to pin them down on anything yet, you have to presume them legally innocent because you could not prove them guilty. I know the principle is sometimes difficult to swallow, because, heck, we all know they are guilty as hell, let's not get hung up with questions of procedure... That's just the digital equivalent of a lynch mob. It's not enough that you are personally convinced that someone is guilty, you actually need to have a real case and see it through in court. And there's a good reason for that. FlightGear is not a digital lynch mob. Now, the following depends on the country you are in, but in many places I know you are on the wrong side of the law if you claim someone is a criminal when there's no court decision that actually says so. So in calling someone a scammer without a legal 'guilty' verdict to back you up, you might be exposing yourself or the project to legal action from FlightProSim. That's my view on the legal side of it. As far as ethical behaviour is concerned, I think that's rather subjective. Just one more example, since Curt brought this up: It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. One of the things I consider unethical is setting up a situation that is suggestive, i.e. from which the other is led to a conclusion I know to be wrong. That's actually perfectly legal, a lot of advertizing business is done based on this principle - you can't legally lie outright to the viewer of a commercial, but you can lead him to draw a false conclusion himself. Now, in the screenshot gallery advertizing Flightgear 2.6, we had precisely that - screenshots showing the skydome shader with the horizon hidden by mountains or the cockpit. As far as I am concerned, a screenshot advertizing the simulation should show a more or less typical situation, not something that typically looks bad (because the horizon never matched) but can be engineered to look good by hiding the horizon. So the 2.6 gallery contains images which in my ethics book are false advertizing and hence unethical since they inevitably lead the viewer to the conclusion that he can expect the skydome shader to work without major graphical aretefacts, which is in fact not true because you can typically see the horizon during flight, i.e. you typically see rendering artefacts in 2.6. I don't mean to imply by this that Curt is an unethical person, but just that we see in this case that we evidently do not apply the same standards here as to what 'false advertizing' is. So, I rest my case here - please consider carefully if you really want to make any legally relevant statements, and if not, if your own ethical standards are so certain that you can really expect everyone to share them. Personally, I don't like FlightProSim Co, but after looking at a lot of evidence, working through GPL and investigating their website, I have decided that I have just to put up with them. Best, * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Thorsten, I think you are over analyzing these guys and giving them far too much credit. I think the truth is simpler. They only make sales by misleading the customer into thinking they are getting something else. They cast a wide net of shady tactics. So the situation (I believe) is closer to Gene's perspective. But we all see things from our own perspectives which can lead to slightly different conclusions and that's fair, and fine -- these guys weave a complex web in part to confuse, distract, insulate one part from another, and make it hard to pin anyone down on anything specific. Yet the sum total of their actions is a scam. In this case I think the simpler, and more obvious conclusion is actually more correct. :-) Curt. On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fiwrote: We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I am concerned, not okay. I think we have to clearly distinguish between two levels here - what we personally consider ethical behaviour, and how the societies we live in codify the sum of many such personal judgements in norms which apply to all of us beyond the personal level, i.e. what is legal. Fraud is a crime. In essence, calling someone a scammer is calling him a criminal. There's a principle in criminal justice which reads Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty. It means, if you suspect someone being a criminal, you have to gather evidence, take it to court and then a judge (a jury) decides if someone is guilty of a crime or not. It also means, if you haven't been able to pin them down on anything yet, you have to presume them legally innocent because you could not prove them guilty. I know the principle is sometimes difficult to swallow, because, heck, we all know they are guilty as hell, let's not get hung up with questions of procedure... That's just the digital equivalent of a lynch mob. It's not enough that you are personally convinced that someone is guilty, you actually need to have a real case and see it through in court. And there's a good reason for that. FlightGear is not a digital lynch mob. Now, the following depends on the country you are in, but in many places I know you are on the wrong side of the law if you claim someone is a criminal when there's no court decision that actually says so. So in calling someone a scammer without a legal 'guilty' verdict to back you up, you might be exposing yourself or the project to legal action from FlightProSim. That's my view on the legal side of it. As far as ethical behaviour is concerned, I think that's rather subjective. Just one more example, since Curt brought this up: It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. One of the things I consider unethical is setting up a situation that is suggestive, i.e. from which the other is led to a conclusion I know to be wrong. That's actually perfectly legal, a lot of advertizing business is done based on this principle - you can't legally lie outright to the viewer of a commercial, but you can lead him to draw a false conclusion himself. Now, in the screenshot gallery advertizing Flightgear 2.6, we had precisely that - screenshots showing the skydome shader with the horizon hidden by mountains or the cockpit. As far as I am concerned, a screenshot advertizing the simulation should show a more or less typical situation, not something that typically looks bad (because the horizon never matched) but can be engineered to look good by hiding the horizon. So the 2.6 gallery contains images which in my ethics book are false advertizing and hence unethical since they inevitably lead the viewer to the conclusion that he can expect the skydome shader to work without major graphical aretefacts, which is in fact not true because you can typically see the horizon during flight, i.e. you typically see rendering artefacts in 2.6. I don't mean to imply by this that Curt is an unethical person, but just that we see in this case that we evidently do not apply the same standards here as to what 'false advertizing' is. So, I rest my case here - please consider carefully if you really want to make any legally relevant statements, and if not, if your own ethical standards are so certain that you can really expect everyone to share them. Personally, I don't like FlightProSim Co, but after looking at a lot of evidence, working through GPL and investigating their website, I have decided that I have just to put up with them. Best, * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Renk Thorsten wrote: We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I am concerned, not okay. I think we have to clearly distinguish Wah. They're immoral scammers by any examination. They're suckering people into not only buying free software, but public domain materials as well! Frankly they're no better than spammers. If it was up to me, they'd be tightly wrapped in wet leather and left in the hot sun as an example to others considering similar things. They don't have customers, they have victims. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck. [Cipher in a.s.r] -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
. If it was up to me, they'd be tightly wrapped in wet leather and left in the hot sun as an example to others considering similar things. I'd be more than happy to assist you with that. Syd -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Compiling 2.8.0
Le 05/09/2012 10:06, Chris Forbes a écrit : Looks like its not bothering to link against libm (the system math library) Thank you, but how can I try to force this link? -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Fgrun and canvas demo
The current version of FGRun crashes when the C172p canvas demo aircraft is selected. Also Fgrun has moved from SVN to Git. However on the fg forum someone cannot git pull from git://gitorious.org/fg/fgrun.git. I have found that https://git.gitorious.org/fg/fgrun.git works fine. (All this with Windows 7, MSVC10) Alan-- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Compiling 2.8.0
Hi,
You can force it by changing the TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES definition
in src/Canvas/ShivaVG/src/CMakeLists.txt to
TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES(
ShivaVG
${OPENGL_gl_LIBRARY}
${OPENGL_glu_LIBRARY}
m
)
i.e. the line with the m on it.
But I am wondering why your libGL does not require libm.so.
Olaf
Am 05.09.2012 um 20:41 schrieb Jose Jorge lists.jjo...@free.fr:
Le 05/09/2012 10:06, Chris Forbes a écrit :
Looks like its not bothering to link against libm (the system math
library)
Thank you, but how can I try to force this link?
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] strange screen
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 15:06 +0100, Alasdair wrote: On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 15:47 +0200, Anders Gidenstam wrote: On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Alasdair wrote: I have narrowed this problem down further. Comment out: instrumentation n=0 pathAircraft/c172p/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation in c172p-set.xml Similarly instrumentation pathAircraft/b1900d/Systems/instrumentation.xml/path /instrumentation -- in b1900d-set.xml and in the case of the SenecaII instrumentation pathAircraft/SenecaII/Systems/SenecaII-instruments.xml/path /instrumentation in SenecaII-base.xml The Calalyst view port problem disappears and the problem planes behave beautifully. Can someone with this problem confirm? That would make the aircraft use the generic instrumentation file that includes the wxradar instrument (which usually or, maybe, always masks the problem). You could also try adding radar namewxradar/name number0/number /radar in the aircraft's own instrumentation file. This, however, is just a work-around, not a solution. Cheers, Anders Sort of back where we started really, but I noticed (as I guess you know) that it is not the contents of the instrumentation file, but its mere inclusion that causes the problem. Ie replace the instrumentation file with an empty(ish) xml file and the problem persists (and the darn instruments don't work). I will try your suggested fix, rather than trashing the instrumentation files. Thanks. Alasdair Clearly, as has been widely suggested, the inclusion of the radar stanza in the instrumentation file(s) does indeed mask this infuriating problem. It may be time to take this discussion off-list? I have no idea as to how to even _start_ to debug this problem, but I have the time, the resources, the will, and maybe even the skill to have a go. What I lack is the knowledge. Anyone wanting to contact me (maybe off-list) do not hesitate. We have some of the best coders in the world. Lend me a hand to get started, and I will give it my best shot. Alasdair -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] FlightGear at TU Delft
Hello all, Since this is my first post here, I'll quickly introduce myself. My name is Jan Comans and I am currently a PhD student at the Delft University of Technology with the Control and Simulation (CS) department. My main focus is on Human-Machine Interaction. Next to my main research, every now and then I spend some time on FlightGear. We have been looking at using FlightGear for a while, but haven't been using it a lot up until now. However, in the past couple of weeks ( after a graphics card update for our simulator) we started working with FlightGear 2.8. I was planning on sending a message about our work somewhere in the next weeks, but apparently somebody already picked up on our public Gitorious repository. So today I met with Gijs de Rooij. We showed him what we are up to and he gave us some insight into where FlightGear is heading. Afterwards, I figured that other people might also interested in what we do, so I'll try to give a short overview. Here at the CS department, among a number of facilities, we are operating a full motion research simulator which we call SIMONA ( http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/en/cooperation/facilities/simona/the-simona-research-simulator/). In terms of software, it is driven by a custom middle ware layer developed in-house. All simulation projects are built on top of this layer which mainly handles communication and activation. A lot of what we do doesn't require fancy graphics, but for some projects we need an actual descent outside visual. Up until now we mainly used a custom scene graph with a model of Schiphol surrounded by some patches of grass. About a year ago we started experimenting with FlightGear 2.4 for our outside visuals. This already improved the graphics quite a bit. Also around that time we met with a few people from FlightGear at the FS Weekend in Lelystad (we had an interesting talk with Mathias Frohlich I believe). But after this, we didn't really put any more time in. A few weeks ago now, we upgraded our three image generators that are responsible for the 180 degree wide outside visual. With this new hardware in place, we started to look at FlightGear again. About a week ago, we ran our first demo with FlightGear 2.8. I have some really bad cell phone pictures at https://picasaweb.google.com/102074366036110280261/FlightGear#. With all eye-candy on, we get a decent frame rate (50+) and amazing graphics. We did have one issue tough with our setup. Since we run three different instances on three different machines, we got clouds which weren't consistent across the screen. We fixed this with a small hack in the random number generator and the cloud rendering code. It's not pretty, but does the job for now. If you're interested, it is in my gitorious repository: https://gitorious.org/csflightgear. In the next few weeks, we will be fiddling a bit more with the setup and might do some further tweaking. If I have more problems, workarounds, tweaks, ... I'll let you know about it. And we are of course interested in feedback from you all should you should you see something you like or don't like. I guess that's more than enough for now. If there would be any questions or you would like more info don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Jan -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next, updated. 1dbc2c83e5c0514b1a51eb0c2aee9f6dbe577492
I'm very suspicious of this - I don't think there's been any post 2.8 commit
that could change such a core behaviour. (I don't read every single commit in
detail, but I look at the summaries)
The change is certainly valid, but I'd be much happier knowing why it worked
before and what broke it. I'll take a quick look myself but any help would be
appreciated.
I checked commit comments, but couldn't find anything related. Checked a
bit closer now: my best _guess_ is, it's related to the following
simgear change:
commit f1201eaebc3fbb8964e06b7ef158fd34a12901aa
Author: Mathias Froehlich
Date: Sat Aug 25 08:43:12 2012 +0200
scene: Reorganize stg loading.
Specifically, the diff contains:
SGReaderWriterXML::readNode(const std::string fileName,
{
+std::string fileName = osgDB::findDataFile(name, options);
+
osg::Node *result=0;
try {
SGPath p = SGModelLib::findDataFile(fileName);
The XML reader relies on osgDB to resolve paths now. If
osgDB::findDataFile cannot find the file, it returns , in which case
SGModelLib::findDataFile cannot search any additional directories.
So, maybe osgDB::findDataFile doesn't know about extra directories,
while SGModelLib::findDataFile was fg-aircraft aware. Not sure why the
change was applied in the first place.
Again, I haven't tested - it just looks plausible and somehow related.
Maybe you or Mathias can investigate if that's what triggered it and
whether anything else may still be broken now.
cheers,
Thorsten
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] [Flightgear-commitlogs] FlightGear branch, next, updated. 1dbc2c83e5c0514b1a51eb0c2aee9f6dbe577492
On 5 Sep 2012, at 21:13, ThorstenB wrote: The XML reader relies on osgDB to resolve paths now. If osgDB::findDataFile cannot find the file, it returns , in which case SGModelLib::findDataFile cannot search any additional directories. So, maybe osgDB::findDataFile doesn't know about extra directories, while SGModelLib::findDataFile was fg-aircraft aware. Not sure why the change was applied in the first place. Ah, that's exactly it - we need to use the SGModelLib to get the additional paths searched! Mathias, can you explain what was the problem here which required you to use the plain OSG version? My version is simply a wrapper which tries the aircraft-dir paths (and soon, some other data directories!) before the default osg paths. James -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
..if these scammers feel slandered by that, scammers, they are entitled to file lawsuits. ..the reason they don't, is they and their lawyers knows the truth is an allowable and complete defense, and that judges often award litigation costs to the prevailing decent truthful people, and to discourage the frivolous fraudulent scammer types from suing. ;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. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fgrun and canvas demo
Am 2012-09-05 21:03, schrieb Alan Teeder: The current version of FGRun crashes when the C172p canvas demo aircraft is selected. Should be fixed now. Tom -- Thomas Geymayer www.tomprogs.at / C-Forum und Tutorial: www.proggen.org Student of Computer Science @ Graz University of Technology --- Austria -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear at TU Delft
However, in the past couple of weeks ( after a graphics card update for our simulator) we started working with FlightGear 2.8. Thanks a lot for your report! It's really nice and motivating to see FlightGear being used for serious (research) projects and not just for fun/gaming. And a full motion sim certainly is a serious thing ;-). Also shows that FSWeekend is a worthwhile event (btw for everyone: this year's FSWeekend takes place on November 3rd/4th). cheers, Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fgrun and canvas demo
-Original Message- From: Thomas Geymayer Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:20 PM To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fgrun and canvas demo Am 2012-09-05 21:03, schrieb Alan Teeder: The current version of FGRun crashes when the C172p canvas demo aircraft is selected. Should be fixed now. Tom That was quick. Thanks Alan -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote: Scott wrote: But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution. It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text. One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently similar, despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much different. Cheers, Martin. IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which is a horrible idea on multiple levels. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html And has been pointed out, selling of flightgear does have a legitimate place. Ron -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Ron Jensen wrote: On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote: It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text. One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently similar, despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much different. IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which is a horrible idea on multiple levels. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html This GNU article is biased like hell and they're completely suppressing the well-founded reason for the clause they're agitating against. Therefore it doesn't help much to develop a balanced representation of the topic you/we are talking about. And has been pointed out, selling of flightgear does have a legitimate place. Aside from the above, CC BY-SA 2.0 (as well as BSD, of course) allow commercial use. They just require you to put the proper license tag onto the box (as does the GPL). The issue wrt. 'mixing' CC BY-SA 2.0 and GPL, for example, is the particular phrasing in the different licenses, which is incompatible. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
