Erik Hofman wrote: > You can always argue what would be derived work: just the modified files > or the complete package. Personally I would say the first.
Modifying a file is, pretty obviously, creating a "derived work" under any reasonable interpretation. :) > There is no argument possible about the JSBSim configuration files and > (as far as I know) the 3d model. In the case of the 3D model and textures, FlightGear has no relevant copyright to protect. Those are file formats that can be generated and read by other tools. The XML configuration files (the ones that were created from scratch, not copied from existing ones), however, are clearly based on FlightGear technology, and could theoretically be "derived". A sane interpretation would treat these like "documents" though, and they would be owned by their author. I don't think any of us are making the argument that all FlightGear configuration files are derived works. Likewise, an Aeromatic-generated configuration file *can* be considered a derived work, because it contains "code" that was written originally by David Culp et. al. There is some precedent for this kind of thing (older versions of GNU bison generated parsers that were derived works and must be GPLed), but most tools don't bother with that notion and just treat the generated files as documents. Bison now contains a specific exception to the GPL for the generated parser code, for example. Basically, it seems to me like these guys are fine, with a few nit-picky exceptions like the joystick configuration. I don't think we need to raise a stink, except to get their derived stuff released as a separate tarball somewhere. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
