On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 01:41:26 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote in message
4ff777a6.5070...@sablonier.ch:
Am 05.07.12 18:04, schrieb Curtis Olson:
We !!!STRONGLY!!! encourage authors to use the GPL so that we can
incorporate their work into the overall project and distribute the
work
My last comment to this subject.
I've got permission to distribute some swiss sceneries as GPL but only after
asking back. Obviously I had to, as the author said first that it needs to
remain Freeware.-
Now that's only possible because he bent back a little. But many
won't or can't do and
...@yahoo.com
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] scenery licence for 2.8 and later
My last comment to this subject.
I've got permission to distribute some swiss sceneries as GPL but only after
asking back. Obviously I had to, as the author said first
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] scenery licence for 2.8 and later
My last comment to this subject.
I've got permission to distribute some swiss sceneries as GPL but only after
asking back. Obviously I had to, as the author said first that it needs to
remain
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Michael wrote in message
1341559608.65675.yahoomailclas...@web140205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com:
My last comment to this subject.
I've got permission to distribute some swiss sceneries as GPL but
only after asking back. Obviously I had to, as the author said
Am 06.07.12 10:10, schrieb Gijs de Rooy:
Nothing stops you from releasing that scenery under whatever license you'd
like ( within the legal constraints ofourse), we just cannot include it in
the official scenery.
No. Official scenery can also incorporate resources with other licenses:
Ok, I see, just my misunderstanding of Gijs post when I read all other
posts now ... I guess one of the best explanation comes from Brandano here.
Sorry for the noise, I hate to participate in another license
discussion. (I hate myself for this, not you.) ;-)
-Yves
Am 06.07.12 21:34, schrieb
Am 05.07.12 18:04, schrieb Curtis Olson:
We !!!STRONGLY!!! encourage authors to use the GPL so that we can
incorporate their work into the overall project and distribute the work
http://git.fgx.ch/flightgear/commit/?h=nextid=b14ddd40110e271efcd1416e9bf15d48d99c3123
Cheers, Yves
And Keep It Stupid Simple (tm). One license is already too
many licenses.
Everything on GPL only means:
- less scenery and airplanes included ( wasn't there recently some photoscenery
rejected because of the GPL?)
- authors lose copyrights
- only to find their work rebranded and sold for
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Stefan Seifert wrote:
On Thursday 05 July 2012 07:50:20 Michael wrote:
Everything on GPL only means:
- less scenery and airplanes included ( wasn't there recently some
photoscenery rejected because of the GPL?)
There are already 565 airplanes to choose
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Martin Spott martin.sp...@mgras.net wrote:
Hi Curt,
Curtis Olson wrote:
We !!!STRONGLY!!! encourage authors to use the GPL [...]
except from SimGear, which is supposed to be LGPL, correct ?
Yes. :-)
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson:
http://www.atiak.com -
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
Hi Curt,
Curtis Olson wrote:
We !!!STRONGLY!!! encourage authors to use the GPL [...]
except from SimGear, which is supposed to be LGPL, correct ?
Yes. :-)
Perhaps RMS
Hi
is it possible to have different licences than GPL for sceneries etc.?
Now that would help fight piracy, while keeping GPL for the source code.
Thanks for the info
Michael
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive
On 07/04/2012 11:26 AM, Michael wrote:
Hi
is it possible to have different licences than GPL for sceneries etc.?
Now that would help fight piracy, while keeping GPL for the source code.
No and no.
Erik
--
http://www.adalin.com - Hardware accelerated AeonWave, OpenAL for Linux
On 4 July 2012 19:45, Erik Hofman e...@ehofman.com wrote:
On 07/04/2012 11:26 AM, Michael wrote:
Hi
is it possible to have different licences than GPL for sceneries etc.?
Now that would help fight piracy, while keeping GPL for the source code.
No and no.
Correct form my understanding.
If
No, I mean authors could leave as is or use any licence they want.
-- But it doesn't need to be GPL. --
Sorry, GPL is ok for code but feels like a lead-foot for everything else.
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
On 07/04/2012 01:12 PM, Michael wrote:
No, I mean authors could leave as is or use any licence they want.
-- But it doesn't need to be GPL. --
Sorry, GPL is ok for code but feels like a lead-foot for everything else.The
The only option would be a less restrictive license (which you
Le 04/07/2012 14:27, Erik Hofman a écrit :
On 07/04/2012 01:12 PM, Michael wrote:
No, I mean authors could leave as is or use any licence they want.
-- But it doesn't need to be GPL. --
Sorry, GPL is ok for code but feels like a lead-foot for everything else.The
The only option would be
18 matches
Mail list logo
