Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 00:50, Holger Wirtz wrote: Hi *, On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Curtis Olson wrote: On 9/17/07, Ralf Gerlich wrote: Holger Wirtz wrote: But they asked me if I want to write something like a VATSIM-proxy for FG to get arround the GPL problem. This proxy has to be closed-source. --snip Currently I have no interest in writing code for applications where someone else can define who and under which conditions the software gets. But perhaps someone else has interest in writing a VATSIM proxy? [...] Regards, Holger I know that their is a big interest on the users list in virtual airlines using flightgear and I personally am interested in voice ATC. I have no interest in either of the two networks VATSIM or IVAO. I would hate to see precious talent goi - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
Hi, yes, I know: this is discussed again and again and ... I wrote the VATSIM developers an email and described the functionality of FGCOM. They answered that they will have this in mind but currently they will keep their own VVL (VATSIM Voice Library). But they asked me if I want to write something like a VATSIM-proxy for FG to get arround the GPL problem. This proxy has to be closed-source. What's the meaning of the developers list? I have my own position: I think it would be very interesting to write such a software and it might be solve some problems in bringing up a parallel community to get ATC services. But I think that it would be difficult to set up closed source software by asking the open community to solve problems and on the other side keeping back information why this problems are around... Personaly I think not to do this. Regards, Holger -- # ## ## Holger Wirtz Phone : (+49 30) 884299-40 ## ## ## ### ## DFN-Verein Fax : (+49 30) 884299-70 ## ## ## Stresemannstr. 78E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## ## ## ## ### 10963 Berlin # ## ## ## GERMANY WWW : http://www.dfn.de GPG-Fingerprint: ABFA 1F51 DD8D 503C 85DC 0C51 E961 79E2 6685 9BCF - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
Hi! I have worked previously on a KDE port of the ProController client (now replaced by ASRC) and maybe I'm a bit bitter about my experience at that time. Therefore I'm not trying to give answers here, but just ask some - possibly suggestive ;-) - questions. Holger Wirtz wrote: But they asked me if I want to write something like a VATSIM-proxy for FG to get arround the GPL problem. This proxy has to be closed-source. Hrm, so they are interested in getting FlightGear users into the boat, but they are not willing to open their protocol? How big can that interest in FlightGear users be relative to the interest in keeping their protocol obscured? Might that be some security-by-obscurity thing? Cheers, Ralf - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
On 9/17/07, Ralf Gerlich wrote: Holger Wirtz wrote: But they asked me if I want to write something like a VATSIM-proxy for FG to get arround the GPL problem. This proxy has to be closed-source. Hrm, so they are interested in getting FlightGear users into the boat, but they are not willing to open their protocol? How big can that interest in FlightGear users be relative to the interest in keeping their protocol obscured? Might that be some security-by-obscurity thing? Here are a couple of my thoughts ... 1. Closed protocols can be a pain, but if that's the way they want to do things, we have to honor their wishes. I'm not in the fanatical open-source camp that insists that all software and all protocols should be 100% open. People have to be able to put food on the table and pay their bills. I agree that keeping the protocol closed only gives you a false sense of security, and probably slows development and improvements ... 2. In terms of who does the interfacing work, us or them. I think that boils down to who benefits. I suspect that the FlightGear users will have a bigger benefit from getting access to the vatsim world than visa versa. Based on what I've seen on the multiplayer servers, we might only add a dozen or so users to the vatsim world at any one time. So if we benefit more than them, we can't get too uptight about who does the actual work, and it probably makes sense for one of our developers to do the honors. 3. I'll just toss in this unrelated item ... a week ago I got to fly on a NWA A330. This aircraft had individual movie/music/game/map displays for each seat. I managed to hang/lock mine up ... apparently because the map wasn't working on this flight for some reason. So I asked the flight attendent to reset the display and when she did, it booted Linux of all things! I thought that was interesting. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ http://www.flightgear.org Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
Jon Stockill wrote: Curtis Olson wrote: 2. In terms of who does the interfacing work, us or them. I think that boils down to who benefits. I suspect that the FlightGear users will have a bigger benefit from getting access to the vatsim world than visa versa. Based on what I've seen on the multiplayer servers, we might only add a dozen or so users to the vatsim world at any one time. So if we benefit more than them, we can't get too uptight about who does the actual work, and it probably makes sense for one of our developers to do the honors. This needs to take into account the platforms that flightgear is used on. If it's closed source then ideally whoever produces the app is going to need the capability to build (at the very minimum) linux, mac, and windows binaries, since handing the source over to someone else to let them build for their own platform isn't an option. Duuuh, if anyone would have bothered to read and digest earlier emails posted, they would know that Pep Ribal already has a working relationship and agreement with the IVAO folks to interface with Flightgear and is working these issues plus many others. Instead of beating our gums and wringing our hands perhaps we should all pitch in and give him a hand. Just my .0.02$ JW - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
On Monday 17 September 2007 17:30, Ralf Gerlich wrote: Hi, Jon Stockill wrote: This needs to take into account the platforms that flightgear is used on. If it's closed source then ideally whoever produces the app is going to need the capability to build (at the very minimum) linux, mac, and windows binaries, since handing the source over to someone else to let them build for their own platform isn't an option. Not necessarily. I think, Holger was talking about some kind of proxy server. In terms of server OS, we don't need to be that picky, although I would term it a benefit if the server could be run on all OS' flightgear runs on. Curt, as far as I understood it, VATSIM asked Holger wether he wanted to write such a proxy, which I interpreted as an expression of interest from their side, so I don't think that the interest is single sided. Of course we could benefit from an integration with an already established network with a huge number of participants. My work with the technical staff of the VATSIM network was some time in the past, so maybe something has changed. However, from what I had seen in those days and the fact that the protocol is still closed, I'm a bit suspicious. BTW: I didn't know that VATSIM is commercially dependent on closing down the protocol... I will drop out of the thread here, because this is getting more destructive criticism than I wanted it to become... Cheers, Ralf I was assuming a proxy at their end too. The workload isn't high for proxy services. Re their closed protocol - I don't think they want to keep it closed for security reasons. If the proxy runs on the client it will be sending _their_ protocol out of _your_ box, so it would be simple to analyse. Presumably, their protocol comes out of windows boxes already, and will have already been analysed. Alternatively, and as it would be a low workload service, it could probably be done in java if you want to run it on the client. LeeE - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
Curtis Olson wrote: 2. In terms of who does the interfacing work, us or them. I think that boils down to who benefits. I suspect that the FlightGear users will have a bigger benefit from getting access to the vatsim world than visa versa. Based on what I've seen on the multiplayer servers, we might only add a dozen or so users to the vatsim world at any one time. So if we benefit more than them, we can't get too uptight about who does the actual work, and it probably makes sense for one of our developers to do the honors. This needs to take into account the platforms that flightgear is used on. If it's closed source then ideally whoever produces the app is going to need the capability to build (at the very minimum) linux, mac, and windows binaries, since handing the source over to someone else to let them build for their own platform isn't an option. Jon - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
Hi, Jon Stockill wrote: This needs to take into account the platforms that flightgear is used on. If it's closed source then ideally whoever produces the app is going to need the capability to build (at the very minimum) linux, mac, and windows binaries, since handing the source over to someone else to let them build for their own platform isn't an option. Not necessarily. I think, Holger was talking about some kind of proxy server. In terms of server OS, we don't need to be that picky, although I would term it a benefit if the server could be run on all OS' flightgear runs on. Curt, as far as I understood it, VATSIM asked Holger wether he wanted to write such a proxy, which I interpreted as an expression of interest from their side, so I don't think that the interest is single sided. Of course we could benefit from an integration with an already established network with a huge number of participants. My work with the technical staff of the VATSIM network was some time in the past, so maybe something has changed. However, from what I had seen in those days and the fact that the protocol is still closed, I'm a bit suspicious. BTW: I didn't know that VATSIM is commercially dependent on closing down the protocol... I will drop out of the thread here, because this is getting more destructive criticism than I wanted it to become... Cheers, Ralf - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?
Hi *, On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Curtis Olson wrote: On 9/17/07, Ralf Gerlich wrote: Holger Wirtz wrote: But they asked me if I want to write something like a VATSIM-proxy for FG to get arround the GPL problem. This proxy has to be closed-source. Hrm, so they are interested in getting FlightGear users into the boat, but they are not willing to open their protocol? How big can that interest in FlightGear users be relative to the interest in keeping their protocol obscured? Might that be some security-by-obscurity thing? Here are a couple of my thoughts ... 1. Closed protocols can be a pain, but if that's the way they want to do things, we have to honor their wishes. I'm not in the fanatical open-source camp that insists that all software and all protocols should be 100% open. People have to be able to put food on the table and pay their bills. I agree that keeping the protocol closed only gives you a false sense of security, and probably slows development and improvements ... I have a simple problem with the copyright of such a proxy. When the protocol (and therefore the application) is closed source who can distribute the proxy? The writer of the code does this not for money and he cannot be sure if the program is selled in future or only distributed with reservations. Currently I have no interest in writing code for applications where someone else can define who and under which conditions the software gets. But perhaps someone else has interest in writing a VATSIM proxy? [...] Regards, Holger -- # ## ## Holger Wirtz Phone : (+49 30) 884299-40 ## ## ## ### ## DFN-Verein Fax : (+49 30) 884299-70 ## ## ## Stresemannstr. 78E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## ## ## ## ### 10963 Berlin # ## ## ## GERMANY WWW : http://www.dfn.de GPG-Fingerprint: ABFA 1F51 DD8D 503C 85DC 0C51 E961 79E2 6685 9BCF - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
