Arthur Wiebe wrote:
But as it seems to be a bad idea, I guess we can forget this thread.
Why do you think that? I've not seen any negative responses.
It's like everything else, a good idea is always welcome but like you,
others might not have time to develop it (right away).
Erik
Why do you think that? I've not seen any negative responses.
It's like everything else, a good idea is always welcome but like you,
others might not have time to develop it (right away).
Erik
Well it may be a good idea, but just not worth the development time
for most people. But if anyone
On Saturday 26 November 2005 14:25, Arthur Wiebe wrote:
The idea is for an aircraft application. This application would
download (preferrably an XML file) from a server, parse, and through a
GUI have the ability to select aircraft, see details including
previews, press a button to download
Arthur Wiebe wrote:
This is an idea that's been floating around in my head for awhile,
mainly because there is currently no *very easy* way for a newbie to
install new aircraft in FlightGear. Unless that user is used to going
through Program\ Files in Windows and through package contents on
And maybe it would also be a good idea to package aircraft and scenery
in rpm or deb format. That way you don't have to worry about
dependencies like how so many planes use the p51 instruments. fgadmin
could run it's own rpm or deb database. Not sure how this would work on
non-unix platforms,
On Friday 18 Nov 2005 15:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.)
Take a look at the latest aircraft download page:
http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/aircraft/
There are quite a few aircraft with no thumbnail.jpg created
for the web page. We need a
I can work on aircraft thumbnails for the download page. What is the best way to submit them? Regards, Paul Bohnert "Curtis L. Olson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aircraft authors (or other interested parties.)Take a look at the latest aircraft download
Le vendredi 03 juin 2005 07:33 -0500, Jon Berndt a crit :
I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models. I'd
be
interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email)
which aircraft
you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating
On June 3, 2005 12:33 pm, Jon Berndt wrote:
I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models.
I'd be interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal
email) which aircraft you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models
floating around that are
Hi Jon
Jon Berndt writes
I'm interested in tallying up the existing JSBSim aircraft flight models.
I'd be
interested to know (either by posting here or sending me a personal email)
which aircraft
you have modeled. It seems there are a lot of models floating around that
are not really
known
Ben Morrison writes
The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling
aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's
about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if
Ben Morrison wrote:
Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface.
One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is
free. I will look at AC3D.
I have a registered version of AC3D, and now prefer to work in blender -
once you learn the interface
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 09:46 -0400, Ben Morrison a crit :
Ben Morrison writes
The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modelling
aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's
about it. How long would you say it would take you to create
Gerard ROBIN wrote:
AC3D could be a good tool at the beginning when you start with 3D
modelling. But it is limited. You will discover quickly functionalities
missing. Look at the A380 wings shape. you cannot do it with AC3D.
Why not, is that forbidden?
Erik
Le jeudi 12 mai 2005 16:33 +0200, Erik Hofman a crit :
Gerard ROBIN wrote:
AC3D could be a good tool at the beginning when you start with 3D
modelling. But it is limited. You will discover quickly functionalities
missing. Look at the A380 wings shape. you cannot do it with AC3D.
Why
This doesn't relate to this topic in anyway but the site looks like it is
partially down (www.flightgear.org). The menu on the left is missing. Has
anyone else noticed this? I am getting javascript errors and after viewing
the source it looks like the function call MainMenu() is causing an
Jon Stockill wrote:
Ben Morrison wrote:
Yeah, I gave up on trying to work with Blender because of its interface.
One of my co-workers likes Blender but I think it is only because it is
free. I will look at AC3D.
I have a registered version of AC3D, and now prefer to work in blender -
Besides the small matter of getting permission from the original modeller to
modify
and release under the GPL.Separating out all the objects and animating them
can
be nearly as hard as building the model from scratch.MSFS use a different
approach
for animation they build different objects for
On May 11, 2005 09:47 am, Ben Morrison wrote:
How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
just so I have an idea.
It depends. How much data have you gathered? The more data you have, the
less guess work you have to do, and the quicker you can get the model to look
right.
When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the aircraft?
If so, I have all of this data already. The problem I see is my lack of
experience with Blender and the fact that I am a computer programmer not a
graphics artist. If someone enjoys drawing models I would be happy to
On May 11, 2005 01:35 pm, Ben Morrison wrote:
When you refer to data, are you referring to the dimensions of the
aircraft?
Sort of, but dimensions of parts on the aircraft would be a better
description. =)
Ampere
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Ben Morrison writes
The problem with this approach is that I have no experience with modeling
aircraft. I have downloaded blender and played around with it but that's
about it. How long would you say it would take you to create this model,
just so I have an idea. I was also wondering if
Ben Morrison wrote:
I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I havent
worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how
it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar
To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics
Ben Morrison wrote:
I will be working on adding the AC130-H to flightgear but I haven't
worked with the aircraft models yet and only have a small grasp on how
it works. I was wondering has anyone else worked with a similar
To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight
Ben Morrison wrote:
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start
with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has
sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I
think I will try to convert a model made for
On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:35:47 +0100, Jon wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ben Morrison wrote:
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example
to start with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For
example, which has sounds, panels, landing gear and flap
On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics
model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)?
In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file
for JSBSim available:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Ben Morrison wrote:
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to
start
with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example,
which has
sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d
model I
think I will try to
Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ?
Well, you'd make a crazy guy happy if you add a C150 to FlightGear
but I think you should better build one that you _personally_ like.
Creating an aircraft for FG is apparently a lot of work and you need a
On May 10, 2005 01:48 pm, Harald JOHNSEN wrote:
I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or
panel).
Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better
to start a new one ?
Harald.
There are quite a few aircrafts in the cvs that need to be work
Ampere K. Hardraade writes
On May 10, 2005 03:59 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
To be clear, are you talking about a 3d model or about a flight dynamics
model (which describes how the aircraft should handle)?
In case of the latter, there is already a (beta) C130 configuration file
for JSBSim
Hi Ben
Ben Morrison writes
Sorry, I am not being very clear. When I asked for a good example to start
with, I meant which aircraft is the most complete. For example, which has
sounds, panels, landing gear and flap animations, etc. For the 3d model I
think I will try to convert a model made for
Hi Harald
Harald JOHNSEN writes
I'd like to work on a plane too in my spare time (model, animation or
panel).
Do we know of some aircraft from cvs that need some work or is it better to
start a new one ?
What type of aircraft are people using or would like to use ?
Of the two you mention
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
Now, I got a little problem of my own. Initially, I couldn't compile plib
because it kept saying that I am missing glList and glLookat. This was
fixed after I installed mesag3, and the computer automatically removed
libraries belonged to x-window and x-lib-mesa.
Ampere K. Hardraade wrote:
On January 21, 2005 09:01 am, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Quoting Innis Cunningham:
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file
permission,
On January 24, 2005 03:45 am, Erik Hofman wrote:
I expect you have replaced the accelerated drivers by a software only
driver now. You should have installed the mesag3-dev package only.
Erik
On January 24, 2005 07:32 am, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
As someone else mentioned, it sounds like you
On January 21, 2005 09:01 am, Frederic Bouvier wrote:
Quoting Innis Cunningham:
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file
permission, capitalization, etc.
Stewart Andreason a écrit :
It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
fgfs
WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
'/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
for reading
Abort
This plane is required by the AI/ATC module and has been removed from
the
Frederic Bouvier said:
Stewart Andreason a écrit :
It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
fgfs
WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
'/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
for reading
Abort
This plane is required by the AI/ATC
Am Freitag 21 Januar 2005 08:59 schrieb Frederic Bouvier:
Stewart Andreason a écrit :
It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
fgfs
WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
'/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
for reading
Abort
This
On 21/01/2005 at 10:05 Jim Wilson wrote:
Frederic Bouvier said:
Stewart Andreason a écrit :
It seems this aircraft is required to start FlightGear.
fgfs
WARNING: ssgLoadAC: Failed to open
'/usr/local/share/FlightGear/data/Aircraft/pa28-161/Models/pa28-161.ac'
for reading
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:27:42 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
..this looong post with unsnipped quotes is a FG licensing FAQ
candidate, so I don't snip this time.
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file
permission, capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running
windows, perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem in one of the
files?
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission,
capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows,
perhaps there is a dos/unix line ending problem
Quoting Innis Cunningham:
Curtis L. Olson writes
Innis,
I had no problem loading the version Ampere sent me in v0.9.8. I did
notice there was a large (and seemingly arbitrary) mix of file permission,
capitalization, etc. I'm running linux. If you are running windows,
perhaps there
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is
very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about
including multiple aircraft is you can see some different nice things
that
David Megginson said:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:49 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would tend to agree with you with one exception. The default C-172 is
very functional, but it is not our best model. A nice thing about
including multiple aircraft is you can see some
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas
don't cover).
Best,
Jim
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir
Arthur C Clarke.
Dave Martin
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:48:22 +, Dave wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please
continue to do so. :-)
Curt.
I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic formulas
don't cover).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Sir
Arthur C Clarke.
Ok
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
formulas don't cover).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
formulas don't cover).
Any sufficiently
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic. Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was claiming
at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model.
... which I did. I thought. The more I looked at the numbers for
Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part that the basic
formulas don't cover).
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:40 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably I've got this wrong, but isn't the c-172 our most refined/realistic
flightmodel? My impression of yasim, from using it for the p51d, but not as
an aero engineer, is that getting an aircraft working is about 2
Curtis L. Olson said:
The biggest tradeoffs seemed to be in trying to balance high end performance,
(e.g. altitude, speed) against having enough drag to get reasonable behavior
at lower power settings. It seems pretty common for yasim models to glide
too
much (excessive lift/insufficient
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic.
Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was
claiming
at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim model.
... which I did. I
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the
beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust numbers
(I think you are thinking of Vivian with the spitfire). On the last round
Andy made some code
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 18:01, Dave Martin wrote:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 17:37, Jim Wilson wrote:
Yes, I'm aware of the theory behind fixing these issues, but from the
beginning I was compensating for them and getting reasonable thrust
numbers (I think you are thinking of Vivian with the
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:28, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't
force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to
do...
I don't think anyone
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:13, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:54:42 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've got to
On Thursday 20 January 2005 16:45, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 16:13, Jim Wilson wrote:
Dave Martin said:
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 14:42, Jim Wilson wrote:
getting an aircraft working
is about 2 parts theory and 1 part voodoo (the part
David Luff said:
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack some magic.
Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S. Berdnt was
claiming
at the time I started the 3D that he had a nearly working JSBSim
On Thursday, 20 January 2005 03:57, David Megginson wrote:
You know, after reading some of the other comments, I'm starting to
like the idea of having just the c172p in the base package.
You should try helping clueless windows users to install scenery files in the
IRC channel sometime. A lot
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:45, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Dave Martin wrote:
Aha! My mistake - it appears that the ASI in the b1900d is not pressure
compensated. According to the GPS, the aircraft is achieving its expected
GS of 270kts.
Am I understanding that correctly?
Yes, you have to
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote:
We'd be a lot further or at least I'd have accomplished more along the
lines of 3D modeling and enhancing animation/rendering code if I hadn't
spent so much time working on something I know hardly anything about
(flight modeling). This isn't to
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI because I
*think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check)
I'd be pretty incredibly surprised to see an ASI doing that. Some
ASIs do have a
On Thursday 20 January 2005 19:47, Jim Wilson wrote:
David Luff said:
On 20/01/2005 at 10:55 Jon Berndt wrote:
Ok wrong word. Let me just say that it seems to lack
some magic.
Setting up
the p51d in Yasim was not my original intention as Jon S.
Berdnt was
claiming
On Thursday 20 Jan 2005 20:10, David Megginson wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:06:13 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any way to get a compensated 'TAS' output to drive the ASI
because I *think* the B1900D's ASI is compensated (but I must check)
I'd be pretty incredibly
David Megginson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0600, Curtis L. Olson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c172, c172-le, c172p, c172r, c172x - I don't have the energy to sort out
the dependencies so throw it all in.
We should try to sort them out and include just the C172p by default
-- in any case,
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:02:20 +0100, Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that we have an aircraft download page I think that should be all
that gets included.
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
All the best,
David
--
http://www.megginson.com/
David Megginson wrote:
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
Good point.
Erik
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
David Megginson wrote:
I just realized that the list didn't include any helicopter.
Quoting Curt:
bo105 - I could say a lot of nice things, but why bother, it's our
only helicopter so it has to be included anyway.
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its
Curtis L. Olson said:
I know we can debate this endlessly so I hesitate to even bring this up,
but are there any particular aircraft that absolutely, positively, must
be in the base package. Now that we have a separate aircraft download
page, there's no need to include every aircraft in
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:07:22 -, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also I think I would have considered cutting the c310, even though it
is the only light twin. The u3a cockpit was my very first 3D project and it
really isn't too spiffy. It would be very nice to have a civilian c310
Curtis L. Olson said:
Christian Mayer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
the web page is comming along nicely!
There's one thing that could be added: when you click on the thumbnail a
normal sized picture should open.
It also would be great if there'd be a
Jim Wilson wrote:
[...] It would be very nice to have a civilian c310 (maybe
we should just repaint the u3a and call it a c310b?).
To my knowledge there _is_ a civilian C310, at least there used to be
one - no idea if it's still present,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones
made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to
these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?
Presumably we can't merge these pages due to licence
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out there like the ones
made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss. Would it be an idea to add a link to
these pages at the bottom of the aircraft download page?
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0600
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
737 - large commercial jet. Reasonably well done. Flies pretty well.
Nice 2d panel with some simple glass elements.
I like the 737 -- I've probably spent as much time with it as I have
with the c172. I'm sure it's giving me bad
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100, Oliver wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's why i think we should refuse to advertise none GPL'd aircrafts
and scenery addons for flightgear on the flightgear website.
..amen!
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:21, Oliver C. wrote:
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 17:25, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Durk Talsma wrote:
Another thought: There are some other hangar pages out
there like the ones made by David Culp and Wolfram Kuss.
Would it be an idea to add a link to these
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
free beer) but also want to make
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 19:41, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that
Chris Metzler wrote:
p51d - A classic WWII fighter ... also well done. Full 3d cockpit.
Just out of curiosity, what remains to be done with the Spitfire? If
it's in production, are there any reasons to favor it over the P-51,
or vice versa?
Nothing major remains to be done, although,
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in
free beer) but also want to
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else for their own
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:21:39 +0100
Oliver C. wrote:
Personally i think that it is not a good idea to advertise aircrafts for
FlightGear that are not free.
Here's the reason why:
Advertising none free aircrafts or scenery addons on the flightgear
website could lead to a common behaviour
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing
pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very
newbie and shareware-ish.
Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get
stomped out
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote:
The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see
how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of
time making, so that they could give it away to people for free,
is then used by someone else
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:36:42 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free
contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them
onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit.
This has happened several
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:36, Paul Surgeon wrote:
If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
then?
Paul
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:23, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd
aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by
people who want to ensure that
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +, Dave Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even
have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have
then?
The authors would have no recourse then.
Note that he said
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:42, David Megginson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the user community will stomp out that kind of
thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks
very newbie and shareware-ish.
Heh!
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:59, David Megginson wrote:
The redistributors either have
to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any
README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it --
that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed
Just for clarification, you
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:07 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of
the sounds: that violates the GPL.
Yes, if the credit they're changing is in the accompanying copyright
notice. No, if it's some statement of credit in an accompanying
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 21:21, Chris Metzler wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +
Dave Martin wrote:
The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced
their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial
use of their models / work providing
1 - 100 of 278 matches
Mail list logo
