Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, James Turner wrote: On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote: As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? +1 I've created a wiki page collecting the reasons for not changing the license in the following (protected) wiki article: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changing_the_FlightGear_License I've also included the text below for comment. I don't expect everyone to agree with every statement, but hopefully I've captured the main reasons why the majority of contributors on this list believe that FG should remain GPL. Please let me know of any omissions. Note that I have explicitly not addressed the legality or not of FPS et al. I think that is sufficiently covered in our existing FAQ on the matter: http://www.flightgear.org/flightprosim.html Hopefully we will be able to point future posters on this issue to the wiki and avoid having to respond every couple of months. -Stuart The subject of changing the FlightGear license to a non-commercial one comes up on a regular basis on the -devel list, typically with a wish to stop the use of FlightGear by FlightProSim etc. This page sets out the main reasons why the core FlightGear developers do not intend to change the license, based on the views of long-time contributors to the source code expressed on the list. While individual contributors may disagree on particular points, it represents the overall view of the core contributors. Those wishing to propose a license change are encouraged to read this instead of posting to the -devel list. - Philosophically. The freedom to use FlightGear commercially is a key freedom provided by the GPL. Removing that freedom makes FlightGear less free, and would discourage contribution from current developers who particularly value freedom. - Commercial Contribution/Use. Some contributions are the direct result of commercial use of FlightGear, and some current contributors are paid for their FlightGear work, directly or indirectly. Moving to a non-commercial license would immediately impact these contributions. - Distribution. FlightGear is packaged in a number of Linux distributions. Changing to a less free license would stop it from being distributed in this way and reduce its reach. - Practicality. Changing the license would require agreement from everyone who has ever contributed to FlightGear. Given the age of the project (15 years) and huge number of contributors (some of whom have sadly passed away), this isn't practical. - Effectiveness. Re-distributors/forkers such as FlightProSim have so far shown no interest in keeping up with the latest FlightGear version, and any license change would not impact their use of back-level software. It is therefore unlikely that any license change would have an impact. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On 11 Sep 2012, at 16:29, Stuart Buchanan wrote: I've created a wiki page collecting the reasons for not changing the license in the following (protected) wiki article: Thanks Stuart, this is much appreciated (at least by me!) James -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:29:27 +0100, Stuart wrote in message CAP3ntyu47bjEiAP_XdX=O=bzlpfag8xrxm9vnsuwv1bsiqr...@mail.gmail.com: - Effectiveness. Re-distributors/forkers such as FlightProSim have so far shown no interest in keeping up with the latest FlightGear version, and any license change would not impact their use of back-level software. It is therefore unlikely that any license change would have an impact. ..a wee tweak: any useful impact. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
There remains this strange discrepancy between what people are outraged about and what could potentially stand in court. Wah. They're immoral scammers by any examination. They're suckering people into not only buying free software, but public domain materials as well! I think the truth is simpler. They only make sales by misleading the customer into thinking they are getting something else. Yes. That much is quite evident, but that's not illegal. In most parts of the world, getting the customer to pay for something which he could get otherwise cheaper or even for free is considered a clever business model. I've seen hotels and commercial wifi operators charging for their services in the vicinity of a free wifi spot. I am offering my Elvish introductionary courses for free as pdf downloads, but due to numerous people asking for it also for sale in ebook formats (one'd think it's a matter of simply running a converter, but apparently people are happier paying 5 bucks for something they could get for free). I've seen a photographer offering pictures of Arches National Park for 4000 US$ where I could get posters of the same quality for 20 US$ in the part office. That's just how our societies work. So, if you're fair, you have to give the same treatment to your bank which promises you top-grade investments where in truth we've all seen they're frequently after the fees they can get for the transaction and are otherwise happy to sell any crap to private investors. You have give the same treatment to the travel agent who promised sea view from the hotel room and forgot to mention that there's actually another hotel right in front of you and you can see the sea only on the periphery. You can extend that to your internet provider who promises fast and reliable service, and yet when there's a problem, strangely you find yourself for hours on end holding the line and talking to evidently incompetent service agents. And so on. For the record, I feel that none of this is okay, and I feel there should be a law against it. But there isn't, and I just have to bloody accept that the world isn't run by my standards of how it should be. Also, taking someone else's GPL licensed work for free and making a profit from it isn't illegal or a violation of GPL (that's what seems to upset most people). The actually potentially problematic things about FlightProSim mentioned so far are: * screenshots which can't be produced with the product (when I checked the website, I saw only Flightgear screenies, so I don't even know that first hand) - that's no more a crime than all the juicy meals shown on micro-wave ready foods. * probably self-created reviews and enthusiastic customer statements all over the place. Well, bugger me, but I do see Miss. Ann X from Austin, Texas claiming how product Y completely changed her life every time I'm in the US... Should I really believe that she's the genuine thing, a randomly picked customer feeling compelled to make a statement? Do we really believe that authors never ask their friends for enthusiastic reports on Amazon? That doesn't really seem to be a crime either. * the money-back guarantee, no fuss, turns out to be more difficult than expected in practice. Personally, I've yet to experience the one case in which a money-back guarantee turns out to be easy if you actually want to come back to it. I'd say that is fairly normal as well, at least I had two months of arguments with Dell before I got my money back. * violations of GPL because the source code is not really available. So we're really down from fraud to the availability of source code on a website - and if FlightProSim would make all the code easily available by simply cloning the Flightgear repositories, you'd all be happy because they are now in complicance with GPL? Somehow I don't think so, somehow I think this isn't what upsets people. Just face it - we live in a society in which not stating the honest trusth about a product, overcharging the customer whenever you can get away with it and otherwise deceiving him about what exactly he is about to buy is not only commonplace, but also legal and in many cases even considered desirable. I know of plenty of business models exploiting loopholes in the law - FlightProSim is in good company. A good part of freedom as given by GPL is the freedom of others to do things you don't want done. Consider it the pricetag for freedom. * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:16:47 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message k29bjv$6c7c$1...@osprey.mgras.de: Ron Jensen wrote: IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which is a horrible idea on multiple levels. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html This GNU article is biased like hell and they're completely suppressing the well-founded reason for the clause they're agitating against. ..which is? Therefore it doesn't help much to develop a balanced representation of the topic you/we are talking about. ..one way to develop an informed and well balanced opinion to present, is scour or raid all relevant changelogs and git etc commit logs for names to put into the original obnoxious 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. ad sentence template, show them for the reasonable duration it takes to read each of them, and then tell us all what it would do for common start-up or boot-up times. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Thorsten wrote: -Original Message- From: Renk [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi] Sent: 06 September 2012 10:47 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] license There remains this strange discrepancy between what people are outraged about and what could potentially stand in court. snip * violations of GPL because the source code is not really available. So we're really down from fraud to the availability of source code on a website - and if FlightProSim would make all the code easily available by simply cloning the Flightgear repositories, you'd all be happy because they are now in complicance with GPL? Somehow I don't think so, somehow I think this isn't what upsets people. Even that is available, or used to be. I downloaded a copy, which AFAIKS was just our source code, despite their claims to have modified it. Qs you say - that's how it is. I think we ought to try to avoid having this discussion every 12 months or so, covering the same ground, and coming to exactly the same conclusion. Caveat emptor. Vivian -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. ... not allowing any commmercial use. Why? Freedom Zero matters just as much for things other than code. -- Chris -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote: No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called. I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any commmercial use. Disallowing commercial use means Linux distributors can't include it in their distribution. You will never be able to convince every single developer that touched fgdata somehow to allow us to switch license. You won't convince me anyhow. Only change/add this to gpl, rename it flightgear scenery license or whatever. Dual licensing..should be easy? Dual licensing (two licenses for the same file) won't help you anything since it allows the user to choose the one that suits him best. Two licenses in one package is probably problematic too since it means the whole package (FlightGear) will fall under the most strict license. Erik -- http://www.adalin.com - Hardware accelerated AeonWave and OpenAL for Windows and Linux -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Erik Hofman wrote: On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote: No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called. I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any commmercial use. Disallowing commercial use means Linux distributors can't include it in their distribution. You will never be able to convince every single developer that touched fgdata somehow to allow us to switch license. You won't convince me anyhow. +1. (I suspect there is a very strong correlation between long term contribution and commitment to the GPL) On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results of which have been fed back into FG. Changing the license won't actually make any difference to FPS et al. They appear still to be selling v1.9.1, and given their advertising methods, I can see no reason why they would put any effort into updating their package. As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote: On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results of which have been fed back into FG. +1 Changing the license won't actually make any difference to FPS et al. They appear still to be selling v1.9.1, and given their advertising methods, I can see no reason why they would put any effort into updating their package. +1 As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? +1 :) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective. There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data) that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims as everything below. However at the end of the day it is not GPL, and so can not be used. Creative Commons seems to be very popular for content as oppose to code with organisations that don't do code. So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content in scenery that must be GPL??? cheers S. On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 09:32 +0100, James Turner wrote: On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote: On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results of which have been fed back into FG. +1 Changing the license won't actually make any difference to FPS et al. They appear still to be selling v1.9.1, and given their advertising methods, I can see no reason why they would put any effort into updating their package. +1 As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core developers, isn't practical, and won't make any difference anyway? +1 :) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott: While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective. There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data) that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims as everything below. However at the end of the day it is not GPL, and so can not be used. Creative Commons seems to be very popular for content as oppose to code with organisations that don't do code. Which national SRTM-1 do you mean is in CC ? I know only SRTM-1 in public domain. -Yves -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 12:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote: Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott: While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective. There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data) that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims as everything below. However at the end of the day it is not GPL, and so can not be used. Creative Commons seems to be very popular for content as oppose to code with organisations that don't do code. Which national SRTM-1 do you mean is in CC ? I know only SRTM-1 in public domain. The example is not important, but it is the Australian government data and includes SRTM and other data files. This is consistent with some other national agencies, though I can't recall exact examples right now. The point was how do we integrate data that is under the Creative Commons license in particular, that is broadly in the spirit of GPL but is not GPL? cheers S. -Yves -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Scott wrote: So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content in scenery that must be GPL??? Under the this is no legal advice-clause I'd say it should allow derived works to be published under the GPL. BTW, I'm uncertain if we're having the same SRTM-1 in mind. The last time I looked at the a public source of SRTM-1, it's been very noisy. Aside from that you're probably not gaining much by using SRTM-1, because upon Terrain generation most of the elevation points remain unused anyway - even with SRTM-3. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:35 +, Martin Spott wrote: Scott wrote: So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content in scenery that must be GPL??? Under the this is no legal advice-clause I'd say it should allow derived works to be published under the GPL. All free advice worth every cent :) But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution. BTW, I'm uncertain if we're having the same SRTM-1 in mind. The last time I looked at the a public source of SRTM-1, it's been very noisy. This is actually the nice thing about the national SRTM data, it has been cleaned by folks who have lots of other data to clean it up properly. They also provide SRTM-3 with the same license and has also gone through the same cleaning process. Aside from that you're probably not gaining much by using SRTM-1, because upon Terrain generation most of the elevation points remain unused anyway - even with SRTM-3. Yeah, ok, but it equally applies to other data files one can find around the place, many do seem to have CC license attached, things like texture files (used on objects), and shapefiles. But if the derived works allows it, what other points in a CC license would exclude it from GPL inclusion. many thanks S. Cheers, Martin. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Scott wrote: But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution. It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text. One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently similar, despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much different. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers. (...) Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any commmercial use. My two cents: First of all, define your use of 'scammer' here. From Wikipedia, I get A confidence trick is also known as a con game, con, scam, grift, hustle, bunko, bunco, swindle, flimflam, gaffle, or bamboozle. (...) A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. They seem to be actually getting a working copy of a flight simulation which is able to generate the advertized screenshots and has the advertized features. What they do is selling a product for a high price which is available elsewhere cheaper. Any consulting company will probably refer to this as a clever business strategy rather than a scam. I've noticed that I can buy newspapers on airports for a price which is somewhat higher than on the street. Usually the fact that I get the same newspaper for free once I enter the plane (or even at the gate in some airports) isn't advertized, I have to know. Would this make the newspaper vendors morally bad people (obviously it's not criminal to sell something which is available for free next door) or merely clever businessmen? Second, were is the damage? FlightProSim, as far as I can see, doesn't damage the Flightgear project in any way. It doesn't cost us money, after discovering that you get the product for free elsewhere, FlightProSim customers are as a rule not angry at Flightgear but at FlightProSim, so I fail to see how a changed license would benefit the project, as we're not after preventing damage for us here. There is arguably, from a certain moral perspective, damage done to FlightProSim customers since they pay for something they could have gotten for free. Note that this is not the same thing as fraud (see above), and note also that pretty much every supermarket sells products which we could get cheaper elsewhere. We (some of us) may feel that this is somehow morally wrong though. From this come two questions: * Can we all agree on moral standards what is 'right' and 'wrong' use of Flightgear? * If so, should we really take care to pre-empt all 'wrong' use? I seriously doubt we all agree on the same 'right' and 'wrong' - I've heard some voices arguing against any military simulation using Flightgear while others use it to write derived combat sims for instance. Suppose someone starts selling Flightgear with added customer service - so rather than the somewhat diffuse service offered in the forum, you get to talk to a service hotline in case something doesn't work. Is it morally justified to charge for this added service? If yes, how do we judge the standard of service and the price against what FlightProSim is (not?) offering? If no, would we not harm the project by preventing this service, as we are evidently not able to come up with a reliable customer service? I could go on a bit, the point is, once you actually start thinking about it, it's not a very clear-cut question. Which brings me to third, what damage do we do to the project by preventing commercial use? As has been mentioned, plenty - commercial use has in the past been used to contribute to the project, we'd not be included in Linux distributions, we'd prevent someone from offering a perfectly useful customer service,... And thus, in summary changing to a license preventing commercial use makes no sense. It doesn't prevent any damage done to the project, as no such damage exists. The idea is based on a perspective of 'right' and 'wrong' which is at best difficult to argue and for which we would not find any consensus among ourselves. The idea is further based on pre-empting 'misuse' of our work, which even if that could be defined and agreed upon, is difficult to establish in practice (do we for instance test every customer service and then only allow certified services to sell the product?). But a license change does clear and evident damage to the project. So we'd lose something but gain really nothing. Cheers, * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Renk Thorsten wrote: FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote: Renk Thorsten wrote: FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. I have heard of some people getting their money back, after quite a bit of difficulty. I have heard of many others who were in the process of trying to get their money back -- but I don't know the ultimate resolution -- just that it is far harder than the web site implies. These guys advertise with a combination of FSX, X-Plane, and Flightgear screen shots, and lately I've been seeing pictures of large commercial full cockpit sims. They advertise under a variety of names including names that are variations of Flight Simulator X. They blatantly rip images off our web site and crop the water marks. We haven't been able to pin them down on an obvious violation of our FlightGear license, but they will do and say just about anything. In addition, most of the advertising I've seen has been done under fake accounts. And even the identities on the official flight pro sim (and virtual pilot 3d) web pages are suspect. Oh, and they have been filling up the internet with fake reviews and piles of links to try to game the search engines. Typically when someone pulls the trigger and purchases the product, they get a download link only. They end up needing to pay an additional fee to get the software on DVD. It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. Unfortunately, there are new people signing onto the internet for their very first time every day, and a few of them do fall victim to some of these wonderful sounding scams. Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/ http://www.flightgear.org - http://gallinazo.flightgear.org -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. Well, since there's always small-print (which I don't know) I would leave that to the courts to establish if that is actually fraudulent or not. Personally, I think accusing someone of fraud needs a case better than reports on this list. It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. Again, the problem of a business not meeting every expectation their advertizing creates is known to everyone booking a holiday package via a travel agency. My hotels somehow never seem to look exactly like on the websites... The problem seems to be finding clear-cut and watertight criteria distinguishing legitimate from other business. We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. Legitimate (as in legal) is a judgement I am not prepared to make. In my view, they're neither honourable nor particularly ethical, but that applies to many other businesses I know as well. Point being - to what length should I go to establish my ethical standards in the rest of the world? * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Martin Spott wrote: Renk Thorsten wrote: FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware. According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize. Nor do they comply with the GPL from what I can tell. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck. [Cipher in a.s.r] -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I am concerned, not okay. I think we have to clearly distinguish between two levels here - what we personally consider ethical behaviour, and how the societies we live in codify the sum of many such personal judgements in norms which apply to all of us beyond the personal level, i.e. what is legal. Fraud is a crime. In essence, calling someone a scammer is calling him a criminal. There's a principle in criminal justice which reads Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty. It means, if you suspect someone being a criminal, you have to gather evidence, take it to court and then a judge (a jury) decides if someone is guilty of a crime or not. It also means, if you haven't been able to pin them down on anything yet, you have to presume them legally innocent because you could not prove them guilty. I know the principle is sometimes difficult to swallow, because, heck, we all know they are guilty as hell, let's not get hung up with questions of procedure... That's just the digital equivalent of a lynch mob. It's not enough that you are personally convinced that someone is guilty, you actually need to have a real case and see it through in court. And there's a good reason for that. FlightGear is not a digital lynch mob. Now, the following depends on the country you are in, but in many places I know you are on the wrong side of the law if you claim someone is a criminal when there's no court decision that actually says so. So in calling someone a scammer without a legal 'guilty' verdict to back you up, you might be exposing yourself or the project to legal action from FlightProSim. That's my view on the legal side of it. As far as ethical behaviour is concerned, I think that's rather subjective. Just one more example, since Curt brought this up: It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. One of the things I consider unethical is setting up a situation that is suggestive, i.e. from which the other is led to a conclusion I know to be wrong. That's actually perfectly legal, a lot of advertizing business is done based on this principle - you can't legally lie outright to the viewer of a commercial, but you can lead him to draw a false conclusion himself. Now, in the screenshot gallery advertizing Flightgear 2.6, we had precisely that - screenshots showing the skydome shader with the horizon hidden by mountains or the cockpit. As far as I am concerned, a screenshot advertizing the simulation should show a more or less typical situation, not something that typically looks bad (because the horizon never matched) but can be engineered to look good by hiding the horizon. So the 2.6 gallery contains images which in my ethics book are false advertizing and hence unethical since they inevitably lead the viewer to the conclusion that he can expect the skydome shader to work without major graphical aretefacts, which is in fact not true because you can typically see the horizon during flight, i.e. you typically see rendering artefacts in 2.6. I don't mean to imply by this that Curt is an unethical person, but just that we see in this case that we evidently do not apply the same standards here as to what 'false advertizing' is. So, I rest my case here - please consider carefully if you really want to make any legally relevant statements, and if not, if your own ethical standards are so certain that you can really expect everyone to share them. Personally, I don't like FlightProSim Co, but after looking at a lot of evidence, working through GPL and investigating their website, I have decided that I have just to put up with them. Best, * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Thorsten, I think you are over analyzing these guys and giving them far too much credit. I think the truth is simpler. They only make sales by misleading the customer into thinking they are getting something else. They cast a wide net of shady tactics. So the situation (I believe) is closer to Gene's perspective. But we all see things from our own perspectives which can lead to slightly different conclusions and that's fair, and fine -- these guys weave a complex web in part to confuse, distract, insulate one part from another, and make it hard to pin anyone down on anything specific. Yet the sum total of their actions is a scam. In this case I think the simpler, and more obvious conclusion is actually more correct. :-) Curt. On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Renk Thorsten thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fiwrote: We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I am concerned, not okay. I think we have to clearly distinguish between two levels here - what we personally consider ethical behaviour, and how the societies we live in codify the sum of many such personal judgements in norms which apply to all of us beyond the personal level, i.e. what is legal. Fraud is a crime. In essence, calling someone a scammer is calling him a criminal. There's a principle in criminal justice which reads Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty. It means, if you suspect someone being a criminal, you have to gather evidence, take it to court and then a judge (a jury) decides if someone is guilty of a crime or not. It also means, if you haven't been able to pin them down on anything yet, you have to presume them legally innocent because you could not prove them guilty. I know the principle is sometimes difficult to swallow, because, heck, we all know they are guilty as hell, let's not get hung up with questions of procedure... That's just the digital equivalent of a lynch mob. It's not enough that you are personally convinced that someone is guilty, you actually need to have a real case and see it through in court. And there's a good reason for that. FlightGear is not a digital lynch mob. Now, the following depends on the country you are in, but in many places I know you are on the wrong side of the law if you claim someone is a criminal when there's no court decision that actually says so. So in calling someone a scammer without a legal 'guilty' verdict to back you up, you might be exposing yourself or the project to legal action from FlightProSim. That's my view on the legal side of it. As far as ethical behaviour is concerned, I think that's rather subjective. Just one more example, since Curt brought this up: It is a fairly long stretch to say that these guys offer a legitimate service, or meat the expectations their advertising creates. One of the things I consider unethical is setting up a situation that is suggestive, i.e. from which the other is led to a conclusion I know to be wrong. That's actually perfectly legal, a lot of advertizing business is done based on this principle - you can't legally lie outright to the viewer of a commercial, but you can lead him to draw a false conclusion himself. Now, in the screenshot gallery advertizing Flightgear 2.6, we had precisely that - screenshots showing the skydome shader with the horizon hidden by mountains or the cockpit. As far as I am concerned, a screenshot advertizing the simulation should show a more or less typical situation, not something that typically looks bad (because the horizon never matched) but can be engineered to look good by hiding the horizon. So the 2.6 gallery contains images which in my ethics book are false advertizing and hence unethical since they inevitably lead the viewer to the conclusion that he can expect the skydome shader to work without major graphical aretefacts, which is in fact not true because you can typically see the horizon during flight, i.e. you typically see rendering artefacts in 2.6. I don't mean to imply by this that Curt is an unethical person, but just that we see in this case that we evidently do not apply the same standards here as to what 'false advertizing' is. So, I rest my case here - please consider carefully if you really want to make any legally relevant statements, and if not, if your own ethical standards are so certain that you can really expect everyone to share them. Personally, I don't like FlightProSim Co, but after looking at a lot of evidence, working through GPL and investigating their website, I have decided that I have just to put up with them. Best, * Thorsten -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Renk Thorsten wrote: We haven't been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl, but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical. They're immoral scammers, plain and simple. It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I am concerned, not okay. I think we have to clearly distinguish Wah. They're immoral scammers by any examination. They're suckering people into not only buying free software, but public domain materials as well! Frankly they're no better than spammers. If it was up to me, they'd be tightly wrapped in wet leather and left in the hot sun as an example to others considering similar things. They don't have customers, they have victims. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! Buying desktop hardware and installing a server OS doesn't make a server-class system any more than sitting in a puddle makes you a duck. [Cipher in a.s.r] -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
. If it was up to me, they'd be tightly wrapped in wet leather and left in the hot sun as an example to others considering similar things. I'd be more than happy to assist you with that. Syd -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
..if these scammers feel slandered by that, scammers, they are entitled to file lawsuits. ..the reason they don't, is they and their lawyers knows the truth is an allowable and complete defense, and that judges often award litigation costs to the prevailing decent truthful people, and to discourage the frivolous fraudulent scammer types from suing. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote: Scott wrote: But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is Share-alike and Derived works allowed with attribution. It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text. One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently similar, despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much different. Cheers, Martin. IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which is a horrible idea on multiple levels. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html And has been pointed out, selling of flightgear does have a legitimate place. Ron -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Ron Jensen wrote: On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote: It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text. One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says: If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. whereas the GPL is widely considered as not being sufficiently similar, despite the fact that the *intention* isn't that much different. IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which is a horrible idea on multiple levels. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html This GNU article is biased like hell and they're completely suppressing the well-founded reason for the clause they're agitating against. Therefore it doesn't help much to develop a balanced representation of the topic you/we are talking about. And has been pointed out, selling of flightgear does have a legitimate place. Aside from the above, CC BY-SA 2.0 (as well as BSD, of course) allow commercial use. They just require you to put the proper license tag onto the box (as does the GPL). The issue wrt. 'mixing' CC BY-SA 2.0 and GPL, for example, is the particular phrasing in the different licenses, which is incompatible. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called. I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any commmercial use. Only change/add this to gpl, rename it flightgear scenery license or whatever. Dual licensing..should be easy? --- On Mon, 9/3/12, Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tim Moore timoor...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] license To: FlightGear developers discussions flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Monday, September 3, 2012, 4:43 PM On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Michael scrat_h...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi saw this: http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. Will that go into default 3.0? Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers. Sorry, seems I've missed if default releases only contain GPL license or not. By scammers you mean developers? Tim -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] license
Hi saw this: http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. Will that go into default 3.0? Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers. Sorry, seems I've missed if default releases only contain GPL license or not. Thanks -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Michael scrat_h...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi saw this: http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. Will that go into default 3.0? Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers. Sorry, seems I've missed if default releases only contain GPL license or not. By scammers you mean developers? Tim -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Hi Michael, that's just the screenshot's license that you see there. Images on the wiki can fall under many different licenses. The dialog is in git and licensed under the GNU GPL v2. Cheers, Gijs Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 07:27:20 -0700 From: scrat_h...@yahoo.com To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Flightgear-devel] license Hi saw this: http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. Will that go into default 3.0? Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers. Sorry, seems I've missed if default releases only contain GPL license or not. Thanks -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
Looks like the dialog is GPL and the screenshot image is CC. Torsten-- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote: Looks like the dialog is GPL and the screenshot image is CC. The screenshot license is CC purely as this is the default for the wiki upload. No political statement was intended :) -Stuart -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] ..license compatibility matrix, was: Is FlightGear GPL2 and later or GPL2 only?
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:29:48 +0200, Melchior wrote in message 201104052229.49...@rk-nord.at: * Arnt Karlsen -- Tuesday 05 April 2011: On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:14:03 +0200, Melchior wrote in message Caution: this is *not* part of the GPLv2. It's *below* the line stating END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and is just meant as an *example* for how (the FSF would like us) to apply the GPLv2. ..dig deep into can of worms in the 2'nd paragraph of §9 in: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html That paragraph says *nothing* that contradicted what I wrote. It rather confirms it. Sorry, you just didn't get that paragraph, it seems. ..zoom out to strategic overview, and you'll see what I see. Not going to waste more time on that level ... ..agreed, and this thread does not need 100% agreement now, to be an useful future reference. License compatibility matrix: http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq Guidance: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050131065655645 -- ..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. -- Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Curtis Olson wrote: Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that modification is fine? I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my machines for many years. I admire how carefully they follow through with these licensing issues ... but my word ... no wonder their package versions are 4 years behind every other distribution. If this code is just used by a utility that is useful for developers only (normalmap) then I'd move the code oevr to that specific directory and leave it at that. I'll have to do some other work today by might be able to do it myself in the next few days if no one else beats me to it. Erik -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Erik Hofman wrote: If this code is just used by a utility that is useful for developers only (normalmap) then I'd move the code oevr to that specific directory and leave it at that. I had a few spare minutes and the code is moved over now. Erik -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Ron Jensen skrev: On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 03:30 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote: o...@arcticnet.no skrev: Ron Jensen skrev: http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb Yes, but it's in the oldlibs section. No current package in Debian use it. Everything is linked against freeglut, which supersedes it. Upon further examination, I'll have to correct myself. That link points to a dummy transition package which just depends on freeglut and is otherwise empty. Mark Kilgard's glut really isn't in Debian anymore. I didn't look at the .deb, I'll admit. I did pull the original today, though: http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/glut_3.7.orig.tar.gz (3.0 mbytes) Why this academic exercise? There aren't any binaries built from that, so Debian packages couldn't use it. The empty transition packages probably only still use that upstream source because of technical reasons (due to the way the archive management and dependency system works). Without any binaries, then for all practical purposes, it's gone. I'd think that's good enough (and probably so did the Debian glut maintainer, who now maintains freeglut). -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is freely distributable, but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for the sake of the license pedants here at Debian,
who won't accept my packages without settling this)?
Thanks.
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Hi ?
o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is freely distributable, but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for the sake of the license pedants here at Debian,
who won't accept my packages without settling this)?
It seems that this file/class is not used in SimGear/FlightGear anymore.
OSG took its place. So fixing this looks quite easy to me : let's remove it.
-Fred
--
Frédéric Bouvier
http://my.fotolia.com/frfoto/ Photo gallery
http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/FlightGear Scenery Designer
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Hi ?
o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is freely distributable, but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for the sake of the license pedants here at Debian,
who won't accept my packages without settling this)?
It seems that this file/class is not used in SimGear/FlightGear anymore.
OSG took its place. So fixing this looks quite easy to me : let's remove it.
-Fred
FWIW, it is used in the normalmap tool.
Tim
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:24 AM, o...@arcticnet.no wrote:
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is freely distributable, but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for the sake of the license pedants here at Debian,
who won't accept my packages without settling this)?
I am not a lawyer, but let me try to parse the license:
/*
* \file texture.hxx
* Texture manipulation routines
*
* Copyright (c) Mark J. Kilgard, 1997.
* Code added in april 2003 by Erik Hofman
*
* This program is freely distributable without licensing fees
* and is provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or
* implied. This program is -not- in the public domain.
*/
I see two statements:
1. This program is not in the public domain. I don't see a problem here,
none of our [L]GPL code is in the public domain either.
2. This program is freely distributable without licensing fees and is
provided without guarantee or warrantee expressed or implied. This first
statement seems to say we are free to distribute the code.
I don't see any thing in the license terms that states we cannot modify the
code. Are we running on the assumption that we can only do what is
expressly allowed? Perhaps Erik Hofman should address this. As I look at
the code I see it's a full C++ class. But I'm pretty sure what Mark
original wrote was a C language rgb texture loader, and not the full C++
class that we have now. I suspect that Erik must have started with Mark
Kilgard's rgb texture loader and developed a full class around that and then
simply left Mark's original license terms at the top.
If Fred is correct that this is no longer used within flightgear, then
perhaps the simplest thing to do is to remove it ... or move it off into
some archival area if we think we might want to use the code in the future.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Tim Moore a écrit :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Hi ?
o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is freely distributable, but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for the sake of the license pedants here at Debian,
who won't accept my packages without settling this)?
It seems that this file/class is not used in SimGear/FlightGear anymore.
OSG took its place. So fixing this looks quite easy to me : let's remove it.
-Fred
FWIW, it is used in the normalmap tool.
Oops. Sorry. I only looked in /src
-Fred
--
Frédéric Bouvier
http://my.fotolia.com/frfoto/ Photo gallery
http://fgsd.sourceforge.net/FlightGear Scenery Designer
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Curtis Olson skrev: Are we running on the assumption that we can only do what is expressly allowed? When it comes to someone else's copyright, it's not only an assumption. It's the law. And Debian is adamant about following it... so, yes. Thanks. -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Curtis Olson wrote: I don't see any thing in the license terms that states we cannot modify the code. Are we running on the assumption that we can only do what is expressly allowed? Perhaps Erik Hofman should address this. As I look at the code I see it's a full C++ class. But I'm pretty sure what Mark original wrote was a C language rgb texture loader, and not the full C++ class that we have now. I suspect that Erik must have started with Mark Kilgard's rgb texture loader and developed a full class around that and then simply left Mark's original license terms at the top. Correct, and I always interpreted is as being free to redistribute without any restrictions. If Fred is correct that this is no longer used within flightgear, then perhaps the simplest thing to do is to remove it ... or move it off into some archival area if we think we might want to use the code in the future. Agreed. Erik -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Looking at the code it is heavily modified in the mean time, although parts of the original texture loading code are still in place. Erik -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
I've tried to figure out the origin of that code, and it seems there's consensus that Kilgard's code really cannot be modified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_Utility_Toolkit Kilgard's GLUT library is no longer maintained, and its license did not permit the redistribution of modified versions of the library. So some people reimplemented it from scratch: http://freeglut.sourceforge.net/ So, as an alternative to retiring texture.cpp entirely, perhaps you can substitute in freeglut's texture loader (assuming there's one?) instead of Kilgard's... -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 14:24 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote:
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is freely distributable, but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for the sake of the license pedants here at Debian,
who won't accept my packages without settling this)?
Thanks.
I think this 5 year old bug might help answer the question
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997
I am not sure if texture.{cxx,hxx} qualifies as a glut example, but even
if it doesn't glut has the same license as this fragment, and glut is
still in debian
http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb
Ron
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Ron Jensen skrev:
I think this 5 year old bug might help answer the question
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997
Hmm, thanks. I guess I can show them that, then, when I package simgear
up again. Hopefully it's enough.
I am not sure if texture.{cxx,hxx} qualifies as a glut example, but even
if it doesn't glut has the same license as this fragment, and glut is
still in debian
http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb
Yes, but it's in the oldlibs section. No current package in Debian use
it. Everything is linked against freeglut, which supersedes it.
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
o...@arcticnet.no skrev: Ron Jensen skrev: http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb Yes, but it's in the oldlibs section. No current package in Debian use it. Everything is linked against freeglut, which supersedes it. Upon further examination, I'll have to correct myself. That link points to a dummy transition package which just depends on freeglut and is otherwise empty. Mark Kilgard's glut really isn't in Debian anymore. -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that modification is fine? I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my machines for many years. I admire how carefully they follow through with these licensing issues ... but my word ... no wonder their package versions are 4 years behind every other distribution. I don't want to take the same quit wasting my time attitude as Mark Kilgard. Maybe there's something reasonable the FlightGear project can do to help out the situation. On the other hand I don't have a month available myself to fully see this issue to resolution if it requires completely rewriting that class. Personally, I'm willing to roll the dice on this one and take a chance that Mark won't send his lawyers after us because (a) my reading of the intent of his license is that modification is fine even though his license terms are not explicitely clear and (b) after the fact Mark has cleared this up be explicitely stating what we are doing is fine. He simply can't be bothered to go back and fiddle with a bunch of old code he developed while he worked for a previous employer. Curt. On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:30 PM, o...@arcticnet.no wrote: o...@arcticnet.no skrev: Ron Jensen skrev: http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb Yes, but it's in the oldlibs section. No current package in Debian use it. Everything is linked against freeglut, which supersedes it. Upon further examination, I'll have to correct myself. That link points to a dummy transition package which just depends on freeglut and is otherwise empty. Mark Kilgard's glut really isn't in Debian anymore. -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
Curtis Olson skrev: Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that modification is fine? That's what I plan to do for now. I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my machines for many years. I admire how carefully they follow through with these licensing issues ... but my word ... no wonder their package versions are 4 years behind every other distribution. Oh, why is that? In Debian, freeglut apparently only replaced glut in March 2004 (two years after that license bug), presumably because freeglut was actively maintained, fixed bugs, and had simply become better than Mark Kilgard's glut. (I think I do remember it breaking flightgear a bit at one time, but they quickly fixed it.) As far as I know, in general, the only reason package versions in Debian stable is behind other distros is due to the @#% long release cycle, not much else. Well, and sometimes it's because the maintainers are volunteers who don't get paid, and might get too busy and/or lazy. Anyway, where other distros measure the release cycle in months, it seems Debian measures it in years (and the final year of that cycle is dedicated to a freeze, where no updates are allowed...). For that reason, typical Debian end-users often don't stick to stable, but follow either the testing or unstable branches (depending on how brave they are or something), where they *can* get updated packages in a timely fashion, without waiting 4 years. I run testing myself on my laptop, and haven't had a lot of problems (once I managed to get it installed in the first place, given that the Intel wifi requires non-free firmware which Debian didn't bundle on the installation media; had to go online to download it, Catch-22). My software is always reasonably up to date. -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:33 PM, wrote: ... [curt] no wonder their package versions are 4 years behind every other distribution. Oh, why is that? That was said mostly in jest. Maybe I should have said, by the time Debian finalizes a release, the kids who watched the pixar movie with the character the debian release is named after have grown up and now have kids of their own. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] License of simgear/screen/texture.cxx
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 03:30 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote: o...@arcticnet.no skrev: Ron Jensen skrev: http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb Yes, but it's in the oldlibs section. No current package in Debian use it. Everything is linked against freeglut, which supersedes it. Upon further examination, I'll have to correct myself. That link points to a dummy transition package which just depends on freeglut and is otherwise empty. Mark Kilgard's glut really isn't in Debian anymore. I didn't look at the .deb, I'll admit. I did pull the original today, though: http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/glut_3.7.orig.tar.gz (3.0 mbytes) -- Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference! Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250. Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today! http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
