On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:32:47 +0100, joac...@gmx.de wrote in message
20120215203247.3ae11bce@Lenotebook:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:38:34 +0100
Jan Mattsson jan...@gmail.com wrote:
The concept of ownership does not work well with GPL.
..disagreed, and agreed, the idea is, whenever things does
All people need to know that 60% (or more... it's approximate) of
aircraft available for flightgear are created by helijah.
More than 80% of them are totaly crappy ! They aren't a good point for
FlightGear project !
I think you're mistaking Flightgear for a commercial project here.
Sure, in
On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 12:00 +0200, thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi wrote:
Which the rating scheme makes a lot easier now.
This makes me think that it may be a nice idea to have the top 10 of
best rated aircraft available somewhere as an add-on to the base
package. Or something like that.
Erik
All people need to know that 60% (or more... it's approximate) of
aircraft available for flightgear are created by helijah.
More than 80% of them are totaly crappy ! They aren't a good point for
FlightGear project !
vs.
If you want to blame someone, you have to blame the people who made
Heiko Schulz wrote:
I agree that OpenSource allows to add unfinished aircraft and that it
can be a Plus for OpenSource.
But that doesn't mean that you automatically have to do this!
No, there's no written law that you have to do it. But's it's the
well-known recpe behind the success of
On 02/17/2012 12:10 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
I agree that OpenSource allows to add unfinished aircraft and that it can be
a Plus for OpenSource.
But that doesn't mean that you automatically have to do this!
It can be also a Minus as it seems for me as our system has been abused here,
and
The fact that we have now 3 different threads about the same topics:
DC3, licence violation and cooperation in an OpenSource project, makes
it difficult to see where the real problems are.
There's a number of separate issues here.
* license violation of some commits
- this is a real problem,
Heiko write:
It can be also a Minus as it seems for me as our system has been abused here,
and yes, the fact that all aircraft are downloadable without any sign of
their state
may FGFS let look bad!
You might like to start adding status ratings to your own aircraft then ;)
It's all
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 01:19 +0100, David Van Mosselbeen wrote:
Should i remind everyone that this all is about open source and GPL v2
data. Some spirit that have already proved it's capacity and functionality.
It's all about data that is contribute by different talented peoples from
all
Erik Hofman wrote:
This is hopefully also a good encouragement for the PAF team to keep
developing their version and keep it available in their own hangar.
There's nothing wrong with two different version of the same aircraft
floating around. It's not really custom to FlightGear but almost
Erik Hofman wrote:
This is hopefully also a good encouragement for the PAF team to keep
developing their version and keep it available in their own hangar.
There's nothing wrong with two different version of the same aircraft
floating around. It's not really custom to FlightGear but almost
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 09:18 +, Martin Spott wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
This is hopefully also a good encouragement for the PAF team to keep
developing their version and keep it available in their own hangar.
There's nothing wrong with two different version of the same aircraft
On 11 Feb 2012, at 21:46, Clement de l'Hamaide wrote:
Hi all,
[ SNIP]
Cheers,
Clément
--
I'm trying to take a neutral position here, so I'm not going to comment on who
is right and who's wrong, but instead would
Am 15.02.2012 19:30, schrieb kreuzritter2000:
Am Sonntag, den 12.02.2012, 11:00 +0100 schrieb Erik Hofman:
So Emanuel has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model
and to update git accordingly.
I agree he is the owner of the model, but he is not the owner of the
FlightGear
For what its worth , I see several of my aircraft in this hangar and I
wasn't asked permission for that so sounds like a ridiculous
argument from the start . This team should others as they wish to be
treated .Good place to end the discussion.
Hi,
This team should others as they wish to be
treated
An huge difference exist here : you haven't received insult. Helijah insult PAF
members !
PAF team and you are not in bad relation (AFAIK) : this difference is important.
All people need to know that 60% (or more... it's approximate) of
For what its worth , I see several of my aircraft in this hangar and I
wasn't asked permission for that so sounds like a ridiculous
argument from the start . This team should others as they wish to be
treated .Good place to end the discussion.
Several?
I only see one aircraft (Aerostar
yes my mistake i misread a name. My point was that the whole argument
was about getting permission , and it seemed a little one-sided.
All the aircraft in that hangar are someone else original work.And I
dont have a problem with that, just the basis of the argument.
Yes the 'its GPL so i can do
Hi Clément
Am 16.02.12 17:45, schrieb Clement de l'Hamaide:
I have create a discussion here :
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28709446 and I haven't
received answer from devel list ...
I noticed this post. Maybe it is better to clone the gitorious repo
fgdata, send a
Am Sonntag, den 12.02.2012, 11:00 +0100 schrieb Erik Hofman:
So Emanuel has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model
and to update git accordingly.
I agree he is the owner of the model, but he is not the owner of the
FlightGear project.
I see the aircraft name DC-3 as a
The concept of ownership does not work well with GPL.
/J
2012/2/15 kreuzritter2000 kreuzritter2...@gmx.de:
I agree he is the owner of the model, but he is not the owner of the
FlightGear project.
--
Virtualization
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:38:34 +0100
Jan Mattsson jan...@gmail.com wrote:
The concept of ownership does not work well with GPL.
What about maintainers?
Who is the official maintainer of a 'placeholder'?
--
Hello,
I agree he is the owner of the model, but he is not the owner of the
FlightGear project.
I would disagree here in one point.
From my understanding of the law, he is just the owner = copyright-holder of
the parts he made (basic 3d-model, basic .xmls), but not the parts which had
been
Should i remind everyone that this all is about open source and GPL v2
data. Some spirit that have already proved it's capacity and functionality.
It's all about data that is contribute by different talented peoples from
all around the world. It's all about little self made parts from each other
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:58:40 +0100, Clement wrote in message
col120-w338be1e3c58ca9cef19e38c3...@phx.gbl:
Hi Martin,
The original author of the model is Emmanuel Baranger
..which answers the chicken-and-egg question any competent judge or
lawyer would ask on who decided on the license on
Hi,
In my precedent mail I have forgot to say that Ernest Teutcher, Alexis Laille,
Christian Thiriot and Clément de l'Hamaide (it's me) are the members of the PAF
team.
We can consider the current DC-3 is here because the PAF team had created 80%
of the DC-3. And E.Baranger had created 20% of
On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 10:45 +0100, Clement de l'Hamaide wrote:
Hi,
In my precedent mail I have forgot to say that Ernest Teutcher, Alexis
Laille, Christian Thiriot and Clément de l'Hamaide (it's me) are the
members of the PAF team.
We can consider the current DC-3 is here because the PAF
Am 12.02.12 11:00, schrieb Erik Hofman:
On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 10:45 +0100, Clement de l'Hamaide wrote:
Hi,
In my precedent mail I have forgot to say that Ernest Teutcher, Alexis
Laille, Christian Thiriot and Clément de l'Hamaide (it's me) are the
members of the PAF team.
We can consider the
Le 12/02/2012 11:00, Erik Hofman a écrit :
That said, it's sad to see the situation end up like this. I always
found it quite pleasing to work with others that updated my model byt
frankly I would get mad when at one point they would claim ownership
like you do.
I second Erik on that one. I
Hi all,
You are right, we are here to improve FG.
In our next release we will include a file with the list off all our last
improvment. After this release I stop to improve the DC-3 C47
To close this discussion :
DC-3 C47 released by helijah : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNp6ub7hQak
DC-3
Clement de l'Hamaide wrote:
To close this discussion :
DC-3 C47 released by helijah :
DC-3 C47 released by PAF team :
No, I'm certainly _not_ going to look at the videos, because I consider
this sort of competition in an OpenSource project as plain stupid. Why
didn't the various authors of
Hi all,
The PAF team just seeing our integral
contributions have been uploaded on GIT by E.Baranger aka helijah. (Commit :
https://gitorious.org/fg/fgdata/commit/4fb29b9010ae69e01b46a7ea074259b04b12064e
)
This member haven't asked any
Salut Clement,
Clement de l'Hamaide wrote:
The PAF team just seeing our integral
contributions have been uploaded on GIT by E.Baranger aka helijah. (Commit :
https://gitorious.org/fg/fgdata/commit/4fb29b9010ae69e01b46a7ea074259b04b12064e
)
This member haven't asked any
Hi Martin,
The original author of the model is Emmanuel Baranger
The original author of basic XML animation for model is Emmanuel Baranger
The original author of instruments panel is Alexis Laille
The original author of the Dual Control (copilot passenger) adapted for DC-3
is Clément de
Clément ,Not trying to start a flame war , but you modified someone
else's work , so this sounds a bit odd , but i do understand your
point .Ive seen a lot of things Ive modelled end up in other's
'original' work , but i've also borrowed nasal scripts and ideas from
others so I can't complain .I
35 matches
Mail list logo