Am Mittwoch, den 17.03.2010, 07:57 +0100 schrieb Tim Moore: >
> I'm not worried about introducing our own violations of the GPL by > putting planes under a second license. I strongly believe that > modelers should use whatever license they want. There may be issues > with calling GPL'ed Nasal code, borrowing, etc., but that's beside the > point. I have been making contributions to Flightgear for the last 3 > years in the belief that it will remain under the GPL. The GPL assures > me that future users of the code will want to share their > contributions as well. This rewards my time spent by encouraging a > growing community and code base. If Flightgear starts retreating from > the GPL out of misplaced worries about mooching, I'd have to reexamine > how I spend my hacking time. > I pretty much agree that FG should stay GPL. And there is a benefit in putting content under GPL too. Aircraft modelling has become a huge task with todays features (which of course is a good thing). So any contribution is welcome. Personally I'd only contribute to GPL Projects. However I see some new strategy in FlightProSim actions. It appears this guy wants to divorce developers off from flightgear, either by discrediting and lying on his "review-sites", calling out "monthly development prizes" on the mailing list or by calling to "Join FlightProSim" in our forums. Greetings -- Detlef Faber http://www.sol2500.net/flightgear ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
