On Tuesday 06 June 2006 18:52, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Here's a question for all you amateur lawyers and GPL experts out there.
>
> Let's say that someone wants to create a proprietary aircraft within the
> FlightGear system, and then distribute a larger "system" that includes
> FlightGear + that aircraft.
>
> In my view, the FlightGear GPL license covers our source code, but not
> content created with or used by that code (except for things like the
> base package which is explicitely licensed as GPL.) Is it possible that
> someone could lay claim to any newly created proprietary "content" (3d
> models, artwork, panels, etc.) by way of the GPL? Even if FlightGear is
> happy to allow people to create proprietary aircraft, could someone
> upstream in plib or zlib or openal land somehow file a complaint?
>
> To me this is analogous to Microsoft demanding all documents created and
> owned by a company just because they created and edited them with
> Microsoft Word. I just don't see that ever happening.
>
> But I wonder what others think about this issue from a legal point of view.
>From my point of view that is the same with gcc. The compiler is GPL, but the
programs compiled with gcc do not need to be gpl. The runtime libraries used
by gcc compiled codes is a little less than LGPL.
I think that you can do properitary aircraft with flightgear. The only
restriction could be that no GPL configuration files are referenced. I think
of standard electrical systems for example.
If the 'larger system' provider does modifications to flightgears sources he
must publish the sources with his modifications. We are then free to
incorporate them into our tree.
I am not aware of any possible claims from third party libs like zlib ...
Greetings
Mathias
--
Mathias Fröhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
