Hi Arnt, Personally, I think in the shorter term that s/w development will move more and more towards O/S - and a good thing too - the primary motivation behind C/S is profit, not quality and performance, so it's never going to produce the best solutions. The primary motivation behind O/S is exactly quality and performance and that's why I like and approve of O/S so strongly.
Ultimately though, _all_ software will be designed by AIs and 'who' will 'own' it then? :) ...but until then we have both O/S & C/S s/w and that's the way it _is_, whether anyone thinks that's good or bad. The issue of getting FG to work with C/S software, such as vatsim, doesn't have to compromise FG's integrity or leave it open to challenges. There's no restriction within the GPL of exchanging data between O/S and C/S s/w, and a good job too because all the firmware in your h/w is going to be C/S. The only real issue I see here is who does the work and how they feel about it. I've top-posted because I guess I'm summarising :) ...and hey - it's summer :) LeeE On Wednesday 14 June 2006 03:19, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:04:17 +0100, Lee wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:26, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:29:05 +0100, Lee wrote in message > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > What exactly do you mean by compromising Open Source in > > > > the context of getting FG working with closed > > > > source/proprietary software? > > > > > > ..usually this is done by idiot stunts like signing away > > > your rights in contracts such as EULA's or NDA, where that > > > A is a synonym of the legal term contract, a well known > > > litigation bait. > > > > What sort of percentage of people who develop Open Source > > software would you guess also have a paid job developing > > proprietary or commercial custom software? > > ..yes, much too high, here we have a litigation trap. > > > Anyone working on proprietary commercial custom software > > will be working, in effect if not explicitly, under an NDA. > > This doesn't stop them from working on O/S stuff as well, > > providing that the Closed Source stuff isn't fed in to the > > O/S stuff. > > ..all it takes to litigate, is money and allegations. > > > The terms on an NDA could be draconian but then take-up is > > going to be low, so a reasonable NDA is going to be more > > successful. > > ..agreed, and they are much harder to defend against. > > > All those people who get paid for s/w development and who > > also work on O/S projects seem to get by ok, without too > > many conflicts of interest. > > ..and precisely because everybody are being reasonable. > Not good enough for tSCOG vs IBM (chk GrokLaw) in the > short term, but IBM can afford shooing Nazgul on them in > the short term and will profit from it in the long term. > > > > > While I much prefer O/S I'll use whatever software I > > > > want and don't feel any qualms about using C/S > > > > proprietary software. > > > > > > > > Software is a tool, not a religion and developing > > > > software isn't about proselytising but making something > > > > work. > > > > > > ..it is also a multi-billion business for people like > > > Microsoft and IBM. > > > > You never been paid for making something work? ;) > > ..that's easy when everybody are reasonable. ;o) > Our problem is that's not good enough, only squeaky clean > under the GPL, will do. > > > > > I figure that vatsim would be happy to be able to > > > > distribute a suitable interface client but aren't > > > > prepared to finance the development of one. > > > > > > ..then they are not keen enough. > > > > They don't have to be keen. > > ..nor do we. > > > They've done what _they_ wanted - they just haven't done > > what _we_ want. > > ..we have many more alternatives, and I'm tossing bait on > AirVenture too, that's one million people, give or take a few > hundred thousand, 10,000 of them fly their own kite there. > > > > > If I had current C++ skills, instead of obsolete COBOL & > > > > FORTRAN experience, > > > > > > ..who says this interface cannot be done in one of these 2 > > > lingos? A Cobol or Fortran "white box" would stand out > > > _prominently_, from the common C 'n C++ code, especially > > > in court. > > > > Heh :) COBOL might not be bad at handling comms, now that I > > think about it - defining and manipulating record types has > > never been so much fun. > > ..see? ;o) > > > > > I figure the easiest way to solve this would be to write > > > > an interface client (a discrete userland prog that > > > > could talk to their servers but also communicate with > > > > FG though it's existing IO) under their conditions, and > > > > give it to vatsim for them to distribute, and if it were > > > > taken up and used, further maintain. > > > > ...which brings me back here :) > > ..no, either GPL, LGPL it, or toss it into the public domain. > Any decent business will pay for SW that they want. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
