Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?

2007-09-22 Thread Robert Black
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


Re: [Flightgear-devel] And again: VATSIM and FG?

2007-09-17 Thread Ralf Gerlich
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?

2007-09-17 Thread Curtis Olson
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?

2007-09-17 Thread John Wojnaroski
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?

2007-09-17 Thread leee
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?

2007-09-17 Thread Jon Stockill
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?

2007-09-17 Thread Ralf Gerlich
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?

2007-09-17 Thread Holger Wirtz
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