Curtis Olson schrieb: > I sense there is a small feud going on here, and perhaps the public > lists are not the best place to play that out. > > We've always encouraged people to work together if they have an > interest in building the same aircraft as someone else. It just makes > sense that 2 or more people can pool their efforts to build something > better than a single person can do on their own. > > But that's not a fixed requirement. If someone wants to make their > own version of an airplane that already exists, there's no policy > against that. > > FlightGear should be a place of freedom to work on whatever you want > in whatever way you want. Our licensing terms ensure that folks can > share their work and learn and benefit from each other. So if we make > our best attempts to coordinate our efforts and work together, we can > accomplish far more than we can individually. > > Not everyone is going to get along perfectly all the time, that's a > natural thing between human beings. But in a professional environment > such as ours, we can at least strive to be cordial and express our > disagreements and differences in a level headed manner. It really > doesn't help the project when someone gets bent out of shape about > something. 95% of the time it's a simple misunderstanding or > miscommunication anyway. > > Regards, > > Curt. > > Hi Curtis,
first let me say that I never complained about any rules or structures the FlightGear community has set up. There are a lot of good arguments for managing the things as it is done and life tells us that a community needs leadership. And as we can see all the advantages we should be honest - your words are nice but not true. The FlightGear community has a very rigid structure without much flexibility. We have rules and "policemen" who watch them. As far as the source code is touched, I can mostly understand it. This is a part of FlightGear which is very sensible and should treated with much care. But there are other parts where contributions and creativity is limited by "rules" and (disguised) restrictions. That is not only the "two same aircraft" problem but my whole potential contributions to FlightGear have been rejected due to the view that I am doing it the wrong way in the eyes of the "policemen". To make it clearer, when I create models for sceneries, I always join several buildings, things like trees or other add-ons into one object. So a *lot* of nice scenery enhancement for one FlightGear area won't find their way into the official project, I have to share it with other users via my homepage. Once again, I *never never* complained about that before as I accepted the strict rules we have and which nobody called into question. But please understand that I got a little upset when I read your nice "sugar" words which are far, far away from FlightGears reality. I don't want to have a flame war about this and a big discussion, more important is the question how to solve that problem, ie. if we could find a *central* repository (like Jon Stockill's) where we could collect all open-source-licened stuff (aircraft, vehicles, scenery work) which cannot find a place in the official FlighGear versions (ie CVS source code, CVS data, Stockills repository), so that interested users would not have to search for that. And an official link from the FlightGear homepage to that collection. At least Gérard and I could "mirror" our stuff there and I hope that some other people would do the same. No problem of "double" aircraft or bad handworked scenery stuff any more :) Regards Georg EDDW ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
