Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx , 1.32, 1.33
leee a écrit : [...] If individuals want to spend their time bounty-hunting (although there's no ca$h bounty, of course) then they're welcome to do so, but this should not be a concern of the FG project. The only time that this issue should concern the FG project is when someone tries to stop or limit the redistribution of the FG project's work. [...] Completely agree, as on the remaining statements of Lee's post. Alexis -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33
Hi all,
I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight
Gear community wants to go ?
As far as I understand the GPL, it is legal to rename an application
as long as the renamed application is still under GPL. So what is this
commit intended for ? Furthermore, do you honestly think that such a
simple trick has any chance to work ? And most importantly, under what
authority are we allowed to claim that a renamed copy of Flight Gear
is an Invalid version ?
FWIW I am the author of a few lines in the code of JSBSim and hence of
Flight Gear, and when I released my code under GPL, I really meant it.
If somebody tries to make money out of it then so be it, as long as
the software is sold under GPL. I am not doing that for a living but I
am all for enforcing Flight Pro Sim and the guys from eBay to release
their copies under GPL. However I will certainly not discourage them
from selling Flight Gear or whatever they call it in nice colourful
boxes.
IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be the
first step of many towards restriction of use.
Cheers,
Bertrand.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Durk Talsma d...@baron.flightgear.org
Date: 2009/10/24
Subject: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx,
1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302
splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33
To: flightgear-cvsl...@lists.sourceforge.net
Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main
In directory baron.flightgear.org:/tmp/cvs-serv29220/Main
Modified Files:
bootstrap.cxx fg_init.cxx main.cxx splash.cxx
Log Message:
Two patches:
1) Fix for the use custom scenery airport data property.
2) Make it a little harder for stupid people to make money behind our backs.
Index: bootstrap.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main/bootstrap.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.40
retrieving revision 1.41
diff -u -r1.40 -r1.41
--- bootstrap.cxx 10 Aug 2009 21:43:55 - 1.40
+++ bootstrap.cxx 24 Oct 2009 09:22:21 - 1.41
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
#include main.hxx
#include globals.hxx
+#include fg_props.hxx
#include fgviewer.hxx
@@ -249,10 +250,55 @@
return 0;
}
+void checkProgramIntegrity() {
+ int session = fgGetInt(/sim/session, 0);
+ string progName = fgGetString(/sim/startup/program-name, FlightGear);
+ char *checkname = new char[26];
+
+ checkname[2] = 116;
+ checkname[5] = 47;
+ checkname[1] = 116;
+ checkname[0] = 104;
+ checkname[21] = 46;
+ checkname[10] = 46;
+ checkname[15] = 104;
+ checkname[20] = 114;
+ checkname[23] = 114;
+ checkname[3] = 112;
+ checkname[12] = 108;
+ checkname[24] = 103;
+ checkname[16] = 116;
+ checkname[13] = 105;
+ checkname[4] = 58;
+ checkname[11] = 102;
+ checkname[19] = 97;
+ checkname[9] = 119;
+ checkname[8] = 119;
+ checkname[7] = 119;
+ checkname[6] = 47;
+ checkname[18] = 101;
+ checkname[14] = 103;
+ checkname[25] = 0;
+ checkname[17] = 103;
+ checkname[22] = 111;
+
+
+ if (session 100) {
+ if (progName != string(checkname)) {
+ cerr Invalid version: See checkname for
more information endl;
+#ifdef _MSC_VER
+ cerr Hit a key to continue... endl;
+ cin.get();
+#endif
+ }
+ }
+}
+
// do some clean up on exit. Specifically we want to call alutExit()
// which happens in the sound manager destructor.
void fgExitCleanup() {
+ checkProgramIntegrity();
if (_bootstrap_OSInit != 0)
fgSetMouseCursor(MOUSE_CURSOR_POINTER);
Index: fg_init.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main/fg_init.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.239
retrieving revision 1.240
diff -u -r1.239 -r1.240
--- fg_init.cxx 24 Oct 2009 08:31:40 - 1.239
+++ fg_init.cxx 24 Oct 2009 09:22:22 - 1.240
@@ -1440,6 +1440,7 @@
// = fgGetNode(/sim/presets/latitude-deg);
// static const SGPropertyNode *altitude
// = fgGetNode(/sim/presets/altitude-ft);
+
SG_LOG( SG_GENERAL, SG_INFO, Initialize Subsystems);
SG_LOG( SG_GENERAL, SG_INFO, == ==);
Index: main.cxx
===
RCS file: /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/source/src/Main/main.cxx,v
retrieving revision 1.301
retrieving revision 1.302
diff -u -r1.301 -r1.302
--- main.cxx 24 Oct 2009 08:31:41 - 1.301
+++ main.cxx 24 Oct 2009 09:22:22 - 1.302
@@ -770,7 +770,9 @@
fgGetInt(/sim/startup/ysize) );
fgSplashProgress(loading scenery objects);
-
+ int session = fgGetInt(/sim/session,0);
+ session++;
+ fgSetInt(/sim/session,session);
}
if ( idle_state == 1000 ) {
Index: splash.cxx
===
RCS file:
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33
Bertrand Coconnier wrote: Hi all, I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight Gear community wants to go ? As far as I understand the GPL, it is legal to rename an application as long as the renamed application is still under GPL. So what is this commit intended for ? Furthermore, do you honestly think that such a simple trick has any chance to work ? And most importantly, under what authority are we allowed to claim that a renamed copy of Flight Gear is an Invalid version ? To be honest, I don't like it very much either. Erik -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main
Bertrand Coconnier wrote: I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight Gear community wants to go ? These people at Flight Pro Sim are deliberately trying to decieve the FlightGear devlopment 'crew' (just think of their ridiculous attempt of calming the waves by offering this $250 reward, _after_ they got 'trapped') as well as their own customers. Therefore I think it's acceptable to shed some light onto the story by telling the truth to the respective buyers. IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be the first step of many towards restriction of use. As far as I can tell this step is pretty well in compilance with the GPLv2, the license that covers most of FlightGear. So where do you spot a restriction ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40, 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 main.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx, 1.32, 1.33
I'm flabbergasted : disregarding the GPL to protect the GPL ? How novel.. Really, really misguided, and it showcases a prevalent undercurrent with some of our members, who think the GPL means something else than it really does : when something is done that doesn't sit right with their vision of the GPL, they sneakily delete content from cvs (been done before with aircraft functionality, leaving them broken in my local copy without warning) No one has a say in how GPLed software or data is used as long as it's in compliance with the license, no matter how distasteful it might be to one's sense of propriety. Trying to get around that, is a breach of the GPL, period. Funny when the same people who do this kind of stuff, also think the GPL is just fine for data, code, etc. as long as people abide by their vision of the GPL. There is no personal vision involved : it's a license, and quite clear to boot as license goes. You either comply or you don't. This is not complying. Please roll that back, if the original author won't. Thank you, Nic On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Erik Hofman e...@ehofman.com wrote: Bertrand Coconnier wrote: Hi all, I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight Gear community wants to go ? As far as I understand the GPL, it is legal to rename an application as long as the renamed application is still under GPL. So what is this commit intended for ? Furthermore, do you honestly think that such a simple trick has any chance to work ? And most importantly, under what authority are we allowed to claim that a renamed copy of Flight Gear is an Invalid version ? To be honest, I don't like it very much either. Erik -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Be Kind. Remember, everyone is fighting a hard battle. -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main
Erh, he just has to take out said code, and his customers will not be the wiser, since they won't see the message. He does read the list after all. As Bertrand said, it's not going to achieve the desired result, not at all. And it's trying to work around the GPL, by doing something different if you don't respect someone's wishes on naming/re-branding. That's an usage restriction, or close enough, that we're starting to split hairs many times over. If you want to go along a similar route, why not have the help menu go to the flightgear.org website, rather than a local copy of the manual ? Then you can control the content on said webpage and tell people about the bad folks at FPS. But doing sneaky stuff that will affect people who might have legitimate reasons to rename FGFS without breaching the GPL just to counter one offender seems, well, simply misguided. Cheers, Nic On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: Bertrand Coconnier wrote: I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight Gear community wants to go ? These people at Flight Pro Sim are deliberately trying to decieve the FlightGear devlopment 'crew' (just think of their ridiculous attempt of calming the waves by offering this $250 reward, _after_ they got 'trapped') as well as their own customers. Therefore I think it's acceptable to shed some light onto the story by telling the truth to the respective buyers. IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be the first step of many towards restriction of use. As far as I can tell this step is pretty well in compilance with the GPLv2, the license that covers most of FlightGear. So where do you spot a restriction ? Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Be Kind. Remember, everyone is fighting a hard battle. -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:32:17 -0400, Nicolas wrote in message 808354800910240732j3a31c2belb37bbcc2a50c8...@mail.gmail.com: Erh, he just has to take out said code, and his customers will not be the wiser, since they won't see the message. He does read the list after all. As Bertrand said, it's not going to achieve the desired result, not at all. And it's trying to work around the GPL, by doing something different if you don't respect someone's wishes on naming/re-branding. That's an usage restriction, or close enough, that we're starting to split hairs many times over. If you want to go along a similar route, why not have the help menu go to the flightgear.org website, rather than a local copy of the manual ? Then you can control the content on said webpage and tell people about the bad folks at FPS. But doing sneaky stuff that will affect people who might have legitimate reasons to rename FGFS without breaching the GPL just to counter one offender seems, well, simply misguided. ..what if this bug pops up a bug report form where the innocent end user may fill in all the gory details such as money paid to which pirate copyist, for disgorgement? ..that way, we can explain why we need to do this. More below. Cheers, Nic On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.netwrote: Bertrand Coconnier wrote: I am bit taken aback by this commit. Is it really where the Flight Gear community wants to go ? These people at Flight Pro Sim are deliberately trying to decieve the FlightGear devlopment 'crew' (just think of their ridiculous attempt of calming the waves by offering this $250 reward, _after_ they got 'trapped') as well as their own customers. Therefore I think it's acceptable to shed some light onto the story by telling the truth to the respective buyers. IMHO this commit is pointless and I am concerned that it may be the first step of many towards restriction of use. As far as I can tell this step is pretty well in compilance with the GPLv2, the license that covers most of FlightGear. So where do you spot a restriction ? Cheers, Martin. ..note that a _failure_ to enforce the GPLv2, _can_ be construed as a license. CD letters can also be copied into the known bugs section, say with an invitation to join in on litigation and disgorgement from culprits like the Flight Pro Sim crew. ..if e.g. Durk, Heiko and Curt sends a CD letter to these ass holes, denying them any further license to their FG code under GPLv2 and Copyright Law, they must remove Durk's, Heiko's and Curt's FG code from their Flight Pro Sim, and write their own code. What _are_ you guys waiting for, their $250? ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...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. -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: source/src/Main bootstrap.cxx, 1.40 , 1.41 fg_init.cxx, 1.239, 1.240 ma in.cxx, 1.301, 1.302 splash.cxx , 1.32, 1.33
On Saturday 24 Oct 2009, Nicolas Quijano wrote: [snip...] Really, really misguided, and it showcases a prevalent undercurrent with some of our members, who think the GPL means something else than it really does [...] I think this really sums up the issue here. The GPL isn't there to protect any supposed rights of the developers but to ensure the 'freedom' of the software: this is the point of the GPL. The GPL is not concerned with the use of the work but with its distribution and it is addressed to the _receivers_ of software, not the developers or distributors (obviously, the developer has not received the work, as they are the originator, and a distributor must first receive the work before they can distribute it). Once someone releases something under the GPL they have given up ownership of the work (but not the copyright of their personal work) and from that point have no 'rights' to dictate how or where it's used. (copyright only deals with how others may copy and further redistribute the work, and not with who 'owns' the work. As anyone may modify the work as they like, use it as they wish and cannot dictate conditions concerning modification or use upon others, the work is effectively ownerless) The restrictions upon redistribution are not there to enforce any developer rights because there are none, but to ensure that if another developer builds upon the work of others, and then wishes to further redistribute it, they cannot add further restrictions to a work that is not solely their's to restrict; part of their redistributed work was created by someone else who has already set the restrictions, as specified by the GPL. Ultimately, I think it needs to be remembered that the point of developing FG is to make a flight simulator and not to act as some form of ethical copyright police force. The fact is though, that an awful lot of energy and emotion has been spent here on this list, and for all I know, in the forums and irc too, and it's all energy that could have gone into more productive work instead. If individuals want to spend their time bounty-hunting (although there's no ca$h bounty, of course) then they're welcome to do so, but this should not be a concern of the FG project. The only time that this issue should concern the FG project is when someone tries to stop or limit the redistribution of the FG project's work. If someone wants to enforce conditions of use upon their work, or conditions beyond what GPL allows, then they _cannot_ use the GPL. Some people really need to get their heads around this, so to reiterate: if you're not prepared to give up complete ownership of your work, then don't release it under the GPL. FlightProSim, or FlighSimtPro, or ProFLightSim, or SimFlightPro, or whoever are perfectly entitled to take FG, call it what they like and then sell it, as long as they make the source code available for any parts of it that are covered by the GPL, including any work they've done that is based upon the GPL'd code. If they also distribute another bit of software along with their modified version of FG, then provided that it is wholly theirs and is not built upon any GPL'd work, they can impose whatever conditions they like. It is not a violation of the GPL to distribute non-GPL'd software along with GPL'd software, but while they can impose restrictions upon their software, those restrictions cannot and will not apply to the GPL'd content. LeeE -- Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
