Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 not work well with GPL, the GPL picks up its toys and walks home. When that happens, there is _no_ license, only a copyright violation, which is litigated by law sharks on behalf of the copyright owners, in our case, you might say on behalf of the FlightGear ownership, since most things here has multiple authors. What about maintainers? Who is the official maintainer of a 'placeholder'? ..those are meritocratically selected by merited volonteers. ;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. -- Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 an ideal world, people would make very realistic aircraft models, combine them with well-researched FDMs and then use all the available technology to model systems. Problem is, very few people combine all these skills (I for instance am not a 3d modeller - while I can see myself coming up with an FDM, I can't see myself do a cockpit). This is where the beauty of open source and a repository comes in - someone can make an aircraft model and commit that without doing much FDM work. It now belongs to the project under GPL. I can use the model in an AI scenario. Someone else can simplify the model and use it to populate an airport with parked aircraft. Yet someone else can pick it up and make an FDM for it. Which we couldn't if it wouldn't have been created and released before. There is no real problem if unfinished work appears in the devel version of Flightgear - that's part of what it's for. I have, on occasion, even asked aircraft modellers if I could have their unfinished work, because I was interested but it wasn't on GIT yet. If you want to blame someone, you have to blame the people who made the decision to make all aircraft in the repository available to the end user as well. But that point has been made a while ago, it has led to discussions about a formalized rating scheme for aircraft, that scheme exists and is being implemented, more and more aircraft are rated, so now the end user is getting a fair chance of knowing in advance if the aircraft he is about to try is finished work or not. Imagines a man who don't know FlightGear project : he test 1, 2 ,3 aircrafts by helijah then he says pfff all these aircraft are unusable. I leave FlightGear and I go buy MSFS ! *shrugs* I would assume that the average user is capable of some rational thought. The FG base package comes with hand-picked aircraft, so on your first contact with FG you learn how well they can be made. From there, it's a realization that in open source not every work is equally well done, and a quest looking for the aircraft you like. Which the rating scheme makes a lot easier now. I'm really convinced the work made by helijah is bad for FlightGear project. Aircrafts created by helijah aren't realist. So he's a 3d modeller, not an FDM specialist - so what? Does that mean that 3d models are worthless for the project because of that? It will be good if FlightGear community take conscious of this ! Do you honestly believe that you're the only one who has realized that there's unfinished work in the repository? I mean, seriously? Please, seriously change your perspective in this discussion. Things may have their use even if you can't see that - just try go looking for it then. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 the decision to make all aircraft in the repository available to the end user as well. But that point has been made a while ago, it has led to discussions about a formalized rating scheme for aircraft, that scheme exists and is being implemented, more and more aircraft are rated, so now the end user is getting a fair chance of knowing in advance if the aircraft he is about to try is finished work or not. I stumbled some time ago about a review of FGFS. As this time about 50% of all aircraft downloadble was by Mr. Baranger. The reviewer indeed managed to test only the aircraft by Mr. Baranger, and the review result wasn't very good...(unfortunately I don't find it anymore between the many FlightPro...xxx o Google.) 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 yes, the fact that all aircraft are downloadable without any sign of their state may FGFS let look bad! But I haven't heard yet, that the Download page will show the rating! Is there something coming now with FGFS 2.6.0?? But exactly this was one reason when I started the discussion about Aircraft status in the forum. *shrugs* I would assume that the average user is capable of some rational thought. The FG base package comes with hand-picked aircraft, so on your first contact with FG you learn how well they can be made. From there, it's a realization that in open source not every work is equally well done, and a quest looking for the aircraft you like. We are cross-platform, and as there are many people out there using Mac or Windows, they aren't in OpenSource as you or others here are. As a new user of FGFS, heard how realistic FGFS is and how better than MSFS, I would feel cheated if I see a very nice aircraft exterior on the Thumbnail, but when I use the aircraft I don't see any instruments, and the flight behavior being completely unrealistic. It will be good if FlightGear community take conscious of this ! Do you honestly believe that you're the only one who has realized that there's unfinished work in the repository? I mean, seriously? Seems to be a language barrier here- he doesn't meant to take conscious of unfinished work, but the effect of currently about 200 (!) unfinished and mostly unusuable aircraft. We can't say that we are realistic but providing more than 60% of unrealistic/unusable aircraft. And again: and of those aircraft about 5-10 are suffering from serious licence issues! Please, seriously change your perspective in this discussion. Things may have their use even if you can't see that - just try go looking for it then. And please, please, read this here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28840950 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. Or better described by David: It's fabulous how one could make a mess, in an almost untracable way if you don't follow the mess in live time. It's easy to mix up conversations in different posts to cross the comments to make the story in your favour and make it non understandable by creating holes into the discussions for those who didn't followed. A good example is this thread on the devlist which is finally split into different posts! There's one that is seriously skilled and have nice techniques! I take note of them. still in work: http://www.hoerbird.net/galerie.html But already done: http://www.hoerbird.net/reisen.html -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 OpenSource - also known as Release early, release often. Therefore I'd recommend to continue applying this rule @ FlightGear. We are cross-platform, and as there are many people out there using Mac or Windows, they aren't in OpenSource as you or others here are. I think we should remind ourselves that FlightGear development is being carried on mostly by developers, not by users. If you'd like to impose the requirement to follow almost every (sometimes pretty braindead) user habit onto FlightGear, then you're probably going to kill the entire project. I know, I'm exaggerating quite a bit, but the basic tendency is still true. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 yes, the fact that all aircraft are downloadable without any sign of their state may FGFS let look bad! The reviewers could have also fly only from automatically-created airports and conclude that there are no airport buildings in FG. Is it a reason not to put unfinished airports in FG? Maybe the problem is that FG boasts hundreds of aircrafts instead of airports :-D. In my opinion the right way is to improve the unfinished a/c and not to banish them. That said, highlighting planes that are in the best state would be cool - e.g. filter in fgrun set to 'only those having at least 3-3-3-3 stars' by default or a status on a splashscreen. Edheldil -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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, but I see no need to discuss this - it's brought to the attention of the people who have the rights to address this on the repository, if it's not obvious at this point that it needs to be dealt with, then why should further discussion help? * allegedly (I haven't checked) insults exchanged between people working on the same aircraft, followed by insults which I have witnessed - this is childish behaviour and should not be discussed on this list at all - adult people in the same project should be able to communicate in a professional manner with a basic level of politeness, regardless of personal disagreements. Certainly piling new insults on top of old ones, or mixing any other grievance with a person or the project at large isn't going to help * unfinished aircraft in the repository - seems useful to be to point out that there is a rational for having them * unfinished aircraft offered for download to end users - I am one of the people who nag and push for a rating, but these days I see the issue being addressed, maybe not as fast as I would like, but the world isn't perfect - certainly a soft of consensus has been reached and re-opening the issue won't help * misunderstanding about the nature of the GPL license - this is somewhat counter-intuitive and has been explained properly * unwritten rules for who is author and who decides what gets committed - tend to lead to problems, but this can be sorted out in a reasonable way, if necessary by forking. My personal impression is that original authors try to retain far too much control - anyone working closer to the core has to live with what others do and co-ordinate efforts. Case in point - weather radar development in the forum: This heavily relies on the weater system writing out the right info, you can't do it alone. So who is author in the end? Doesn't matter to me. * dislike of certain FDMs by certain people - simply don't use it, if I think a particular aircraft is bad/unfinished/whatever I don't fly it, likewise if I think a bit of scenery is badly done I don't go there - maybe I offer constructive criticism or try to improve it, but I don't think trashing someone's work in public will do any good whatsoever. Likewise, if you don't like to develop for a certain FDM, then don't do it. Above all, the problems shouldn't be mixed together. If there is a problem, that should be addressed, but not by creating a new problem. If a person has reacted improperly in some context, it doesn't give grounds to calling his work worthless in public. If the Flightgear project offers half-finished aircraft for download to the end user, that is not the fault of people commiting unfinished work to GIT. I don't think it's particularly difficult to see where the real problems are. I just think there are some personal grudges obscuring their identification. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 described (since last May actually) at http://wiki.flightgear.org/Formalizing_Aircraft_Status I'd happily commit them! -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 around the world. It's all about little self made parts from each other that is proudly copied and glued together to make somethings. It's all about a bunch of enthousiast collaborating together. It's all about thanks to ...! Well said David. 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 common practice for other simulators. Erik -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 common practice for other simulators. Well, in fact it's just another example of a missed chance to learn from other's mistakes. I'm not sure wether this approach should be supported Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 common practice for other simulators. If the authors can´t sort it out themselves, why not each have their own version of the aircraft within FG. This is not without precedent. I don´t think that consigning improved aircraft to a 3rd party hangar is good for the FG project as a whole. As FG is GPL there is no reason why each cannot draw code from the other. Please move the bickering to a private forum. The points have been made (many times) and it is clear that neither party gets on well with the other. Alan -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 floating around. It's not really custom to FlightGear but almost common practice for other simulators. Well, in fact it's just another example of a missed chance to learn from other's mistakes. I'm not sure wether this approach should be supported I agree it's sad but sometimes it's inevitable. Erik -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 like to propose a possible solution that might keep everybody happy in the intermediate to long term. Last year, we have discussed several options to split fgdata, but decided to put these plans on hold until the 2.6.0 release was finished, for very practical reasons. Once we commence with these plans, it is very likely that we have a separate fgaircraft repo, and the idea is that we would allow more contributers access rights to this repository. In such a situation, one or more members of the PAF group could gain access rights and commit their own contribution as a separate version. While I generally agree with Martin that I would rather encourage collaboration rather then competition, I don't think it would be in the interest of the project to see a group of motivated contributers being denied access due to a personal dispute. A little bit of competition is not necessarily bad either, because it motivates people to improve their own work. Healthy competition may be beneficial specifically if the efforts are directed to different models, as opposed to replicating an existing one. But if we can't avoid that, I'm not sure why we should selectively block access to our repository either. Finally, I would also like to point out that the PAF team could already clone the fgrepository, merge their changes and file a merge request. Cheers, Durk -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 project. I see the aircraft name DC-3 as a placeholder owned by the FlightGear project and Emanuel modified it by adding data to it. So he is not the owner of the placeholder. What i want to say is, that it will get a community driven project nowhere if we have persons sitting there refusing commits from others only because they have personal issues with them or because they were the ones that started an aircraft at first place. Refusing commits is only acceptable if the data is not GPL, a copyright violation or a degradation of the existing data. And it won't help the whole project if we have 1...n different DC-3 aircrafts on git and everyone is doing his own thing. So there is one DC-3 starting out as a placeholder owned by the FlightGear projet and individuals should learn to work together and improve the placeholder. It's common practice that contribution get reviewed. In FG this is usually done by the maintainer, in most cases the initial commiter of the Aircraft. The Maintainer decides what to include, what to reject and what has to be modified. Usually, before starting a Project, one does some homework, collects data, pilot reports, drawings, reads manuals, etc. With this knowledge, he should be capable to review contributions. This has worked for FlightGear for years and I don't see a point in reverting this, just because of personal dislike. To be clear. Noone has suffered physical injury, no material destroyed and no law broken. Emmanuel keeps collecting compatible contributions and the PAF can maintain their (really impressive) modifications in their hangar. Both parties should stop the whining, shrug their shoulders and continue having fun working on FlightGear. If persons do not comply on working together on a single aircraft then i suggest to remove the existing aircraft data completly. So that a willing group of volunteers that want to work together can start from the beginning So in other words, Emanual has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model but he has no right to refuse improvements of the FlightGear Project. And one aircraft is like a couple of lines of source code in the project. It would be horrible if programmers would say: This is my function and no one is allowed to modify it, i will refuse any commit. In they case i get this mentioned conflict wrong you can ignore the above words. Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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. -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 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 ! Imagines a man who don't know FlightGear project : he test 1, 2 ,3 aircrafts by helijah then he says pfff all these aircraft are unusable. I leave FlightGear and I go buy MSFS ! I'm really convinced the work made by helijah is bad for FlightGear project. Aircrafts created by helijah aren't realist. It will be good if FlightGear community take conscious of this ! A real example : I have invited a friend to download and test FG, after some days he says me : pfff your simulator is very bad ! A lot of aircraft haven't real instruments and are totally uncompleted ! I have asked him what aircrafts have he tested : CL415, Gee Bee, Katana, c172p, Piper Cub Helijah needs to stop to create 1 aircraft per week and needs to improve the aircrafts already available ! It's not a good point to say FlightGear is the only simulator with more than 400 airacrafts ! but in these 400 aircrafts a lot of aircrafts are uncompleted and these uncomplete aircrafts are mainly created by helijah. The work made by helijah isn't a good ads for FlightGear project, I'm convinced ! About the list of my friend, only Helijah's aircrafts was concerned by the critics. As I found, FlightGear isn't ready to see the reality about Helijah... I continue to believe that Helijah doesn't create aircraft : he creates 3D model, not an aircraft. The difference is huge... An aircraft has need electric system, fuel system, operating procedures, radio... Helijah's aircraft haven't that, so I call this a 3D model, not an aircraft. FlightGear is an aircraft simulator... not an exposition software of 3D model... But now I keep this opinion for me since nobody can heard/understand this opinion My opinion is also join by David : There's work enough for the next coming 10 years! Each, new I-don't-plann-to-finish-aircraft just make the whole FGFS project less competitive to other simulators. Now I'm real impressive about this discussion. Why ? because many many answers appear about this discussion. And what ? It's very simple : I have create a discussion here : http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28709446 and I haven't received answer from devel list... Other example : http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28360748 and no answer from devel list When I write mails to contribute to FlightGear : No answer from devel-list. Just a little answer like Ok Clément I see your mail but actually we are too busy would be sufficient. (This is not a criticism, just an observation) But when I write a mail about fair practice : Many answer. Now I continue to improve some parts... Rembrandt project, sceneries... And I turn the page about this discussion ;) Cheers, Clément -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 700) of yours!! Beside the L39 Breitling, most of all others had been started by Mr. Baranger, who claims ownership and want to be asked as well. But anyway- the one (as David called him) seems to managed what he wanted. Congratulations! I really recommend all participiants here to read along what David van Mosselbeen wrote- it will light up about some things! Here you go, in the case you missed it: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=55540383887f9aa7959911b6affbb8be%40sun.pinguin.localforum_name=flightgear-devel -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 what ever i like, so na na boo boo ' argument comes up over and over and over we all know what GPL is , but i never hear , hey i'll help you maintain it ! Anyway , on a more positive note ,I'd be interested in getting any aerostar-700 improvements into fgdata , if the team is interested. -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 merge request with your changes AND a note to the list announcing your merge request. Much easier to review your changes for other developers with commit rights. (I apologize in advance in case you’re already aware of this workflow). Other example : http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28360748 and no answer from devel list The multiplayer map is not in FlightGear core project. Changing a single aircraft symbol for the map is not possible in FlightGear fgdata code, it is in scripts for the multiplayer map maintained by pigeon (as far as I know). So your changes can not be merged in here anywhere. Maybe you have to contact pigeon for this. (Personally I think branding aircrafts with individual symbols is not a very good idea for a map, going to show 300 different symbols, but that’s another discussion and this is not mine.) Cheers, Yves -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 placeholder owned by the FlightGear project and Emanuel modified it by adding data to it. So he is not the owner of the placeholder. What i want to say is, that it will get a community driven project nowhere if we have persons sitting there refusing commits from others only because they have personal issues with them or because they were the ones that started an aircraft at first place. Refusing commits is only acceptable if the data is not GPL, a copyright violation or a degradation of the existing data. And it won't help the whole project if we have 1...n different DC-3 aircrafts on git and everyone is doing his own thing. So there is one DC-3 starting out as a placeholder owned by the FlightGear projet and individuals should learn to work together and improve the placeholder. If persons do not comply on working together on a single aircraft then i suggest to remove the existing aircraft data completly. So that a willing group of volunteers that want to work together can start from the beginning So in other words, Emanual has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model but he has no right to refuse improvements of the FlightGear Project. And one aircraft is like a couple of lines of source code in the project. It would be horrible if programmers would say: This is my function and no one is allowed to modify it, i will refuse any commit. In they case i get this mentioned conflict wrong you can ignore the above words. Best Regards, Oliver C. -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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'? -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 contributed by others (like the systems simulation etc. as listed by Clement de l'Hamaide here). So not the owner of the whole model. There is just a rule in FGFS-project, (and maybe other OpenSource-Projects) that the starter of a sub-project is also the main-maintainer, and has the right to accept/ refuse contributions to it. You can accept this, or not. Anyway, being OpenSource you can create a fork and try to make the original source better. When the PAF-group decided to go on without Mr. BARANGER, they in fact created a fork of the DC3-Project. Which is allowed and a major part of OpenSource. GNU GPL allows that Mr. BARANGER can take use of things developed in the fork and port it over to his own project, and of course the PAF can do the same. But I must admit in this situation it has a bad taste and I can understand the dissapointment of Clement de l'Hamaide. But here it's not the problem of who is the author model. The problem is = the minimum politeness is to ask to the PAF team if we accept to see our contributions committed. I know the GPL give the possibility to commit without asking anything but here we speak about fair practice. vs When you decide to download a package from a website and upload it on your website and GIT the minimum politeness is to ask to the author of the improvement if he's agreed with this isn't it ? Indeed GNU GPL allows comitting without asking. It does not care about politeness. So this action would be legally correct. But I have never seen before that GNU-compatible things which had been developed outside the usually FGFS-developement process - as an example new users creating a GNU-GPL compatible contribution to FGFS- had been committed to FGdata without asking the author before. I have never seen that Gijs, Durk, Curt etc. picked up any work and put I into FGdata without asking the authors before to do so. It would be legally correct what happened here, but I'm not sure if this is really how FGFS works. I would be at least also not happy if someone creates an AW139, use the parts of even the whole model in developement of my own work resting outside FG without asking me, put it into FGdata, but maybe even refuse to let me contribute to it. Though it would be legally correct, I would definitively not be happy! I do know: Release early, release often, but it is difficult as long only a handfull of people has commit rights and you have to create merge requests to commit to your own work. In the whole discussion there had been some further statements which gives me some headaches: When the team of the PAF has decided to prohibit access to their work to me, they also requested the opportunity to put it on ILM. There are two possibilites to understand the meaning of this sentence, not sure which one is really correct: 1.) real prohibited access and that would be a violation of the GNU GPL-licence. A GNU GPL-work (and especially the Source Code) may never be prohibited in access to anyone! 2.) intended improvements was refused by the PAF-group for some reasons At least As I could follow the DC3-developement on the FGFS-forum and in the PAF-forum, I have never seen a prohibited access by the PAF to the DC3. The released downloads was available for all, and the developement process even readable without registration in their forum. No idea about 2.)... If the team of the PAF not appreciate the principle of respect of the original authors of the open source, they go to make aircraft for FS X or X Plane. In addition, it can make money Maybe I did understood this sentences wrong. But the GNU GPL licence does not say anything about respect. As long you do keep to the licence you already respected the original author. And as it is OpenSource other people can take the models and do what you want as long you keep to the licence. Even if you don't like it. Maybe the negative side of OpenSource. And yes, you can also make money with GNU GPL-work- it is allowed. tired of seeing all these kids puerile want to use the work of others, to obtain recognition as authors. Here, in this case it even indeed like that, that those kids made a manifold work with all those scripting, improvements etc., created a fork, and the project starter as not being part of this fork took, better said used their work and put into his own fork. I my eyes this action is nearly exactly what isn't liked in the statement above. And to describe a group of people in an age between 15-40 as kids is not very nice And back on the 5 or 6 files with licensing issues in my airplanes is ridiculous. ... Because most have been fixed. There
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 that is proudly copied and glued together to make somethings. It's all about a bunch of enthousiast collaborating together. It's all about thanks to ...! Look back to your lovely GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't matter from what it's has been derivate. Again, it's all about little parts of software, libs, graphics, technologies or whatever which made the final glued product. Without all the different talents who have contributed in the different areas, it would never have been what it actually is! I think some here are still failing to realise that! Our motto: L'union fait la force (Strength through Unity). Some contribution are of better quality as other. Sadly enough, we didn't all got a nice and powerful brain, nor the time, the right tools to get things done. It's still stuff achieved by multiples enthousiast who are strong together and probably useless when working alone in the dark. The particularity of open source and GPL stuff and especially its spirit made in sort that this is organised in a way of pluggable things. It's all about little components developed by different enthusiasts. Instead of one big all-in-one closed thing which can't be interchanged. This way, you can easily dive into the data, adjust it to your taste, make use of other components. For some tasks, you can make the choice and select the component you want for that particular task. Again, it's work of others you make use of and if you can improve or fix some stuff by the way, you just provide it to them. It's all up to you to learn from the stuff others have left to your disposal. We all make experience thanks to those who left traces which can be studied! Even failures of other are interesting, at least you know the way you shouldn't take. FGFS isn't an exception to that. In such community, usually, never you will hear some claiming to be the author or owner of data that he haven't made. Even more, usually peoples in such community would call them a proud (main)contributor, package maintainer, upstream author or whatever that doesn't sound arrogant and inappropriate in the way that he monopolise or take illegally ownership of work done by others. Everyone who made somethings is the author of what he made. And nobody should take that over. Anyone who followed the DC3 story and all the mess it got in the run on the PAF forum [1], or those who didn't but took 2 minutes to watch these two videos Clement posted, or just tested the stuff would have see how the DC3 was and what is achieved by now. Just by watching it visuals, you can maybe imagine all the work behind this! And even then, not all work is shown there in! The initial state isn't comparable to what the state is right now! It's the product of some months of a bunch talented collaboration work there on the PAF forum. And that with the author that started the DC3 aircraft. A bunch of enthusiasts who worked all together to improve the aircraft. A group of enthousiast who finished the work of someone else! And in the run, faced to serious issues due some person lacking serious respect, insulting and abusing the open source and it's spirit. But also issues have happen on other very interesting development. A AC3D blender importer, exporter script, blender animation exporter. Or just other WIP aircrafts the PAF is working on... It's fabulous how one could make a mess, in an almost untracable way if you don't follow the mess in live time. It's easy to mix up conversations in different posts to cross the comments to make the story in your favour and make it non understandable by creating holes into the discussions for those who didn't followed. A good example is this thread on the devlist which is finally split into different posts! There's one that is seriously skilled and have nice techniques! I take note of them. I'm not the one claiming proudly on the irc that it's about a 2 days homework to get some cheap and basic 3D aircraft exterior model. And claiming one more day for the uv and texture work. Nor i'm the one claiming to setup and model the bare 3D exterior aircraft model and put some essential, but non-relevant and generic, instruments and let the other finish the aircraft! It has been proudly said multiple times. And i really trust these words. Nor i'm the one who create flame ware topic like The aircraft of helijah are all empty [2]. Any realist FG contributor know that even the research of instruments, systems, flight characteristics would have already take more as these 3 day of homework... It's in no way meaning that these contributors who almost finished the work should take the ownership (and they still didn't do). Nor that the initial author of the
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 this c47/dc3 egg. The original author of basic XML animation for model is Emmanuel Baranger The original author of instruments panel is Alexis Laille ..snip long incomplete list/ DC-3 is Emmanuel Baranger (but need my intervention ..nope, all you've got and will get, under the GPL and copyright law, is GPL compliance, e.g. with Emmanuel putting whatever he accepts of your work into his own work, as source code, on a public git website. for it works) ... ... ... The list can be very long :) ..and, it _must_ be _complete_, if you wanna litigate this. If it is not, you will face the wrath of the court for frivolous litigation and or incompetence. But here it's not the problem of who is the author model. The problem is = the minimum politeness is to ask to the PAF team if we accept to see our contributions committed. ..if you built your own work on somebody elses work under the GPL, you're stuck with the GPL. Exactly like the Linux Kernel team is happily stuck with Linus Benedict Thorvalds' dictatorship. ;o) ..if you don't like Emmanuel anymore, you may tell him what 4-letter things to do, and fork your own _and_ his work, and move on without him, in e.g. your own gooneybird repository, under the GPL. ;o) ..if you don't like the GPL, it get's a little worse for you, ;oD you'll need to ditch all your GPL work and watch Emmanuel et al carry on using it under the GPL, and you'll need to start all over again from scratch, with your own new thing, under your own favorite license. ..if you do it under the GPLv3 and catch up on FG, I just _might_ take a look. ;o) I know the GPL give the possibility to commit without asking anything ...but compliance. It works pretty much like an highway speed limit, you may drive on my road only on the condition that you drive below my speed limit, otherwise you may not be on my road at all. but here we speak about fair practice. ..the fair use doctrine is not part of the GPL, it's part of copyright law. If e.g. Emmanuel takes one of your proprietary copyrighted commercial airliner liveries and wraps it around a condom in a gay porn movie, to mock you, he will be in full compliance with copyright law under the fair use doctrine, exactly because he is mocking you. ;o) When you decide to download a package from a website and upload it on your website and GIT the minimum politeness is to ask to the author of the improvement if he's agreed with this isn't it ? ..nope, the only requirement under copyright law and the GPL licenses, is publish the source code too, if you publish _anything_, works like if you drive on my highway, stay below my speed limit. .._nobody_ asks you to agree with a speed limit, and you may even try to change it if you disagree, just get elected into office and pass the law to change it. Or, do it my way. ;o) ..use or usability, is irrelevant, what's relevant, is who owns what, and, under which license did you publish it. Thanks you for your attention Cheers, Clément de l'Hamaide (F-JJTH) -- ..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. -- Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 DC-3. In this way we can say : there are not one author but there are many authors. Since there are many authors it's a fair practice to ask to other authors an autorisation. Honestly, E.Baranger is just the author of some parts 3D models and some parts of XML file but his works represente only 20% of the DC-3 and we can consider that E.Baranger is a small contributor of the DC-3, and he isn't the main author, he is author of some parts that's all. For history, E.Baranger was a member of PAF team but he have been banned because he insulted some member of the PAF team and he refused to send our JSBSim FDM on GIT. Finally he was the only contributor of PAF team having commit rights and he makes an abu of his rights. In this way he censured our work by refusing to accept our JSBSim FDM. Now I focused an other faults of E.Baranger : he censures the work from other authors. Censure is it a good quality to become a committer ? It's surprising ! Thanks you for your attention. I know the current time all developper works on the next release. Maybe it's not the best moment to speak about this. If you prefer to continue this discussion after the release I can absolutely understand this. @Syd : thanks you for you intervention I understand your message. Since my work is under GPL I'm not complaining. Just I would like to focus on the fair practice which need to apply from committers before commit the work of other authors. (Mostly if the committer isn't in good way with these other authors) Cheers, Clément -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 team had created 80% of the DC-3. And E.Baranger had created 20% of DC-3. In this way we can say : there are not one author but there are many authors. Since there are many authors it's a fair practice to ask to other authors an autorisation. Honestly, E.Baranger is just the author of some parts 3D models and some parts of XML file but his works represente only 20% of the DC-3 and we can consider that E.Baranger is a small contributor of the DC-3, and he isn't the main author, he is author of some parts that's all. Actually Emanuel is the main author and you've just updated his work. I have to step up here since there is just too much misunderstanding going on. You guys took a GPL'd model and modified it. Since it started out as a GPL model it will always be a GPL model no matter how much you change. Even if nothing of the original model is left, you agreed to be bound by the GPL the moment you started working on it. So Emanuel has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model and to update git accordingly. 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. That's uncalled for. It's a joint effort and every member should bet credits (even if his/her work is not included anymore). Now sit back, take a few deep breaths and accept the facts. -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 current DC-3 is here because the PAF team had created 80% of the DC-3. And E.Baranger had created 20% of DC-3. In this way we can say : there are not one author but there are many authors. Since there are many authors it's a fair practice to ask to other authors an autorisation. Honestly, E.Baranger is just the author of some parts 3D models and some parts of XML file but his works represente only 20% of the DC-3 and we can consider that E.Baranger is a small contributor of the DC-3, and he isn't the main author, he is author of some parts that's all. Actually Emanuel is the main author and you've just updated his work. I have to step up here since there is just too much misunderstanding going on. You guys took a GPL'd model and modified it. Since it started out as a GPL model it will always be a GPL model no matter how much you change. Even if nothing of the original model is left, you agreed to be bound by the GPL the moment you started working on it. So Emanuel has every right to dismiss any modifications on *his* model and to update git accordingly. 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. That's uncalled for. It's a joint effort and every member should bet credits (even if his/her work is not included anymore). Now sit back, take a few deep breaths and accept the facts. Oh sorry, the idea of hangars in fgdata/aircrafts came back here, but just for some seconds. Forgive me for this comment. Cheers, Yves -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 also find this story very sad as people, at least some, forget the main purpose of contributing in a project like FG, that is doing something great, working together, and finally offering this work to the community. Now we see people, counting little parts of a team work, adding one percent ownership on a side, another one percent on the other side, showing weird feelings competing on pieces of fame. After all, this DC3, as nice it can be, is only a collection of well arranged but short-living bits. There is no point showing anger or any conflict for such a tiny matter. That's just a loss of time. At least if some ownership details ought to be corrected, this could be done without involving the whole devel list. Alexis aka xiii -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 C47 released by PAF team : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RKb1pXDXPs Thanks you very much at all for your attention and your point of view Cheers, Clément -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 the DC-3 simply collaborate on one single aircraft in our common GIT repo ? No, this smells like people are trying to defend their inability of participating in collaborative development - really sad. Cheers, Martin. P.S.: You'll find out it's a common symptom in Scenery development as well - but this doesn't make it any better. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 autorisation before upload our contributions. Yet it is customary to ask autorisation from authors of contributions before modify/diffuse the work created by them. Moreover, the uploaded version on GIT by E.Baranger isn't the stable version by PAF team. The only one stable version from PAF team is available in the Hangar of the PAF team : http://equipe-flightgear.forumactif.com/t835-hangar-de-la-paf We haven't any control about our contributions available on GIT and we can't be responsible if there are malfunctions. You can consider that the contributions committed by E.Baranger aren't the official and stable version of the contributions developped by the PAF team. Also, it seems that helijah makes many faults about licence respect and fair practice in recent months. We remember many problems of licence non-respected by helijah (i.e http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=28676706 ). Today this member have yet makes a fault of fair practice (without asking autorisation from contribution authors). Seeing these multiple faults it would be more careful to remove the commit rights to E.Baranger. Cheers, Clément -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 autorisation before upload our contributions. Yet it is customary to ask autorisation from authors of contributions before modify/diffuse the work created by them. Just to get a better understanding of the context: Who's the 'original' author of this DC-3 aircraft model ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 l'Hamaide The original author of nasal hydraulic system is Clément de l'Hamaide The original author of hydraulic system model is Ernest Teutcher The original author of tutorials is Alexis Laille The original author of engine system is Clément de l'Hamaide The original author of overhead model is Clément de l'Hamaide The original author of wipers is Ernest Teutcher The original author of nasal electric system adapted fo DC-3 is Clément de l'Hamaide The original author of decoration model is Emmanuel Baranger The original author of sound system is Christian Thiriot The original author of new panel is Alexis Laille The original author of new chair in cabine is Christian Thiriot The original author of liveries in cabine and cockpit is Christian Thiriot The original author of GUI dialog is Clément de l'Hamaide The original author of lights and light system adapted for DC-3 is Clément de l'Hamaide The original author of paratroopers adapted for DC-3 is Emmanuel Baranger (but need my intervention for it works) ... ... ... The list can be very long :) But here it's not the problem of who is the author model. The problem is = the minimum politeness is to ask to the PAF team if we accept to see our contributions committed. I know the GPL give the possibility to commit without asking anything but here we speak about fair practice. When you decide to download a package from a website and upload it on your website and GIT the minimum politeness is to ask to the author of the improvement if he's agreed with this isn't it ? Thanks you for your attention Cheers, Clément de l'Hamaide (F-JJTH) -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fair practice autorisations
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 agree ,though, cooperation is usually a better way to go :) Just my thoughts... Cheers -- Virtualization Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
