[Flightgear-devel] CVS: data/Nasal view.nas, 1.40, 1.41 aircraft.nas, 1.77, 1.78 geo.nas,
Modified Files: view.nas aircraft.nas geo.nas globals.nas Log Message: make constants D2R, R2D, M2FT, FT2M global Is there anything modified within geo.nas ? Is there any consequence when using it ? Thanks -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
Csaba Halász wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Martin Spott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
and probably add a warning that people have to remove lines 25-27
in the basic 'CMakeLists.txt' of OpenSceneGraph (2.7.3) if they don't
use at least CMake version 2.6.1 (as I understand from a quick read),
But of course we use cmake/cvs, so no problem there :-
Folks, don't get me wrong: At the end of the day I'm quite happy to see
someone (Tim) taking care for maintaining FlightGear's graphics/
scenegraph subsystem. Especially at times when sustained improvements
to FlightGear's core features are an extremely rare item, each of these
makes a very valuable highlight.
I didn't aim at seriously criticising Tim's approach. What actually
made me grin about this story (and what finally lead to my 'pronounced'
comment) is the fundamental change in FG's development philosophy:
For an incredibly long time people were willingly paying any price for
maintaining FlightGear's compilance with the latest PLIB release - even
though that's been already years old. Nowadays you have to compile most
of the dependencies from source - what a change !
Best regards,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--
-
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
gerard robin wrote: On mercredi 19 novembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote: Tim Moore wrote: Seriously, I imagine that people don't mind needing OSG SVN. There isn't currently an autoconf test for the OSG version; that would probably be useful. Indeed - and for the Boost version as well. Sorry i don't share your opinion :) Do you have a better proposal wrt. proper procedures for dealing with dependencies on specific library versions ? This sort of autoconf tests is a pretty common and proven measure, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
On jeudi 20 novembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote: gerard robin wrote: On mercredi 19 novembre 2008, Martin Spott wrote: Tim Moore wrote: Seriously, I imagine that people don't mind needing OSG SVN. There isn't currently an autoconf test for the OSG version; that would probably be useful. Indeed - and for the Boost version as well. Sorry i don't share your opinion :) Do you have a better proposal wrt. proper procedures for dealing with dependencies on specific library versions ? This sort of autoconf tests is a pretty common and proven measure, Martin. No sorry, i said it before, to me the easyest way is to work with stable OSG version only. I have just enough time to play with the progress of FG cvs, not to permanently update my system with each new SVN OSG , and probably the newbee BOOST. However, i can understand that some developper have enough time to work with it. I will wait for the coming of these stable version. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - Well: --Flight-Aviator.com acknowledges that there may be an undisclosed amount of the pictures and / or other content found on this site that are not property of Flight-Aviator.com. If you feel you own one of these pictures and / or content, feel free to contact us at through our site. We will either remove the photo(s)and / or content or add credits I can't remember that I had given them the pictures I made- why I can see them on their site? The thing I really hate is, hat they earn money with our work! But tats our licence, I know... Cheers HHS - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] new props.Node method: initNode()
I've now turned props.initNode() into a props.Node method. initNode is a rather new function that creates (if necessary) and returns a node initialized (if necessary) to the given value and set (if necessary) to the given type. If the node does already have a type, then the type won't be changed. And if the node does already have a value, then the value won't be set. (Do that explicitly if necessary!) This allows to override node value/type from the command line, and initNode will respect and keep value and type: --prop:double:foo/bar=123 or --prop:d:foo/bar=123 initNode() has two optional arguments: value (scalar) and type (one of STRING, DOUBLE, INT, or BOOL). var x = props.globals.initNode(/foo/bar, 45, INT); var y = x.initNode(child[0], test, STRING); var z = x.initNode(child[1], 1, BOOL); The first line will make /foo/bar an INT node of value 45, the second will make /foo/bar/child[0] a STRING node, etc. The type can be left away, in which case either DOUBLE will be used if the value is a number, or STRING otherwise: var a = z.initNode(whatever, 123); # - DOUBLE var b = z.initNode(herbert, gaga); # - STRING var c = z.initNode(fluffy, 123); # - STRING The value can be left away, too. Then 0 will be assumed. That is, if node /foo/bar didn't exist yet, then var x = props.globals.initNode(/foo/bar); is equivalent to var x = props.globals.getNode(/foo/bar, 1); x.setDoubleValue(0); That's because we most often initialize (FDM) values to DOUBLE 0, so this is quite convenient. initNode() is, of course, slower than getNode(), so it should really only be used for initialization purposes, not in high-frequency loops. Also don't check in a high-frequency loop whether a particular property exists and is initialized! Just initialize it properly, and this check is superfluous. Once given value and type the node will not suddenly become NONE/nil again.[0] m. [0] OK, that's a lie. One *can* turn node types into NONE again, with value nil. But just assume it is never done to your nodes, and if so, an error message should be exactly what you want. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
--- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Crusader_F-8E News
Hello, Just in case, if somebody is interested on it: During the past weeks i have included to F-8E, some carrier features. That model is JSBSim FDM. 1/ the usual Carrier capabilities ( the same we have years ago with YASim) = the arrester Hook which operate on wires . That feature is fully part of JSBSim = the catapulting which operate at the right defined place on the carrier That feature is working only with an (external to JSBSim) additional description of the carriers, and a nasal script which calculate the position of the catapults. There is no lag problems :) Arrester hook and catapulting are using the JSBSim external_reactions functions, which offer a great flexibility. This has been tested with, every carrier which are in CVS ( and others which are not yet in cvs ) Part of the FDM data (carrier capabilities related) can be used with other aircrafts I have tested it with the F-4N (from Dave Culp) and several WWII propeller Aircraft ( from me ) the behavior is right. 2/ A mule which taxi manually the Aircraft on the deck and in the hangar, or, in an airport. That feature is part of the JSBSim external_reactions functions. I will be improve the animation of the mule with the new model manager :) . 3/ An automatic taxiing from anyplace (but conditions , see below) to a wanted catapult. There is nothing to do, else than, to indicate which catapult we want to go to. There is not any predefined path the behavior of the Aircraft is controlled and calculated, in RT. This is part of the JSBSim external_reactions functions, and the usual JSBSim FCS functions summer, switch, pure-gain, scheduled-gain ... so on. If you are curious look at the Aircraft/F-8E-Crusader/Systems/taxi.xml file. This work, now, only, (sorry) with the following condition: the starting point must be behind the destination catapult. I hope to improve that feature in order to answer to start from any point = go to anypoint without condition (i only need time to do it). For instance, on the Nimitz, you may go, from the Park-1 to Cat-1, you cannot go from Park-1 to Cat-4. From Cat-4, to Cat-2 or, to Cat-1 is not a problem. To start from the rear of the deck, gives you access to any catapult. The aircraft will go slowly, and will stop brake ON at the catapult place. Then you only have to Engage the LaunchBar which lock the Aircraft in place and, if necessary will correct the position. And, then you can catapult. If you are using the French carrier Clemenceau or Foch, when the LaunchBar is engaged the JBD of the catapult related is raised ( only that one, not the other ) I hope this usefull, however only available with JSBSim FDM. Anyhow, i guess this could be done with Nasal. Oh, i forgot to say, obviously, working with moving carrier, i have tested these features with Foch at 15 knots and others at 10 knots. -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See boost.org or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but the latest (1.37) should be fine too. Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. Which would cascade to a lot of other programs. Assuming you haven't used it extensively in ready but not checked in code, I suggest to postpone boost usage until after the planned release is made. Hopefully by the time we release our next version after that, distributions will be shipping 1.34 or later. Just an idea. -- Csaba/Jester - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, Csaba Halász wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See boost.org or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but the latest (1.37) should be fine too. Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. Which would cascade to a lot of other programs. Assuming you haven't used it extensively in ready but not checked in code, I suggest to postpone boost usage until after the planned release is made. Hopefully by the time we release our next version after that, distributions will be shipping 1.34 or later. Just an idea. We will need a rule, these library could bring up to us a consistency problem. On my side, if i look at the wide range of distributions, since i use to install and to update FG on my friends computers,( with Debian, Fedora, and Suze some are 32 bit one is 64 bit ). And i don't include my wife computer :) :) I fear that we won't never have the same version at the same time, but to freeze at a specific stable version ( same problem with OSG). Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Csaba Halász [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. For the record: Tim pointed out on IRC that boost itself should build with older gcc versions too, only debian build system insists on 4.2. -- Csaba/Jester - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, gerard robin wrote: On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, Csaba Halász wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See boost.org or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but the latest (1.37) should be fine too. Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. Which would cascade to a lot of other programs. Assuming you haven't used it extensively in ready but not checked in code, I suggest to postpone boost usage until after the planned release is made. Hopefully by the time we release our next version after that, distributions will be shipping 1.34 or later. Just an idea. We will need a rule, these library could bring up to us a consistency problem. On my side, if i look at the wide range of distributions, since i use to install and to update FG on my friends computers,( with Debian, Fedora, and Suze some are 32 bit one is 64 bit ). And i don't include my wife computer :) :) I fear that we won't never have the same version at the same time, but to freeze at a specific stable version ( same problem with OSG). Cheers If no rule, there will be the lucky users/devel who will continue on to update FG with CVS update. Behind the others more or less lucky whose the progress will look like an iregular dotted line. I will regret the PLIB time ( dead period time) when everything was stable. What about a specific Boost source dedicated to FlightGear which could be said stable , and easily built by any user with any distribution. -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Thursday 20 November 2008, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. One clear issue: I could find no reference to source code availability on that web-site. Possible second issue: Does the GPL require that GPL'd works are identified as such? The first issue is a requirement of the GPL, but I'm not sure if GPL'd works need to be identified as such when being redistributed. One of the recognised FG project team members _needs_ to get clear legal advice regarding this sort of issue. It keeps cropping up and each time it happens no one has a definitive answer to it and it leaves people running around like offended headless chickens. The GPL specifically allows redistribution of GPL'd works, and for profit - the only real issue here is whether this distribution conforms to the requirements of the GPL. It's got people in a flap too many times already - don't guess - find out. LeeE - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Nov 21, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. They might replace the string with binary editor. Encoding a massage in some way can be good against such case, maybe not enough but it is a bit hard to find a way to crack it. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! We can also hardcore some small image (probably with a checksum validation) showing such message on or next to splash image. This way it may take a while to modify it even they can get source code. But I think there was some discussion on similar idea but not implemented yet, so this probably is not a suitable idea. Maybe a good combination of obfuscation and clear message without messing code is a good idea. Tat - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
A quick review of the site doesn't indicate they are doing anything fundamentally wrong. The acknowledge that it is derived from Flight Gear and that FG is an Open Source project. I am not saying that the way they are presenting it is a nice way to do it. But it is not fundamentally different than what most of the for-profit distribution vendors do when they create a binary distro. The key differentiator of the 'correctness' of what they are doing is if they are not distributing the code - if requested. Or if they are enhancing the source but not distributing it. A polite email from a potential customer asking if the source is available since it is Open Source should clear that concern up. Regarding the use of screenshots, wikipedia seems to always claim 'fair use' for using screenshots to discuss software, but again if as a creator of a screenshot you haven't explicitly declared a license, then a simple request should clean that up too. I am willing to attempt to contact them as an individual to get some more information if people are interested. Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 21, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. They might replace the string with binary editor. Encoding a massage in some way can be good against such case, maybe not enough but it is a bit hard to find a way to crack it. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! We can also hardcore some small image (probably with a checksum validation) showing such message on or next to splash image. This way it may take a while to modify it even they can get source code. But I think there was some discussion on similar idea but not implemented yet, so this probably is not a suitable idea. Maybe a good combination of obfuscation and clear message without messing code is a good idea. Tat - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package that can be made broadly compatible. If people are interested in a recommended approach for building broadly compatible binaries, then please speak up. Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, gerard robin wrote: On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, Csaba Halász wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See boost.org or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but the latest (1.37) should be fine too. Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. Which would cascade to a lot of other programs. Assuming you haven't used it extensively in ready but not checked in code, I suggest to postpone boost usage until after the planned release is made. Hopefully by the time we release our next version after that, distributions will be shipping 1.34 or later. Just an idea. We will need a rule, these library could bring up to us a consistency problem. On my side, if i look at the wide range of distributions, since i use to install and to update FG on my friends computers,( with Debian, Fedora, and Suze some are 32 bit one is 64 bit ). And i don't include my wife computer :) :) I fear that we won't never have the same version at the same time, but to freeze at a specific stable version ( same problem with OSG). Cheers If no rule, there will be the lucky users/devel who will continue on to update FG with CVS update. Behind the others more or less lucky whose the progress will look like an iregular dotted line. I will regret the PLIB time ( dead period time) when everything was stable. What about a specific Boost source dedicated to FlightGear which could be said stable , and easily built by any user with any distribution. -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart --- --- --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device --- -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
They use our screenshots, not even taking the time to make their own. I wonder what licensing applies to them? The mac version advertised on ebay also uses our screenshots, but with their copyright message! That smells illegal to me... And if you look closely, you can find this gem: Box is illustrative only and NOT included. Other than the images, I don't think they are doing illegal stuff, just unethical. They could at least ship full world scenery, but not even a box? I can only guess what kind of support they provide... They seem to offer 60 days money back guarantee, so if we can inform people within that period, they could ask for a refund. To that end, we could put up a general notice to our home page, the mp map and the forums. -- Csaba/Jester - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:47:46 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package that can be made broadly compatible. If people are interested in a recommended approach for building broadly compatible binaries, then please speak up. ..what in the world makes you think we are not interested? The GPL? If you know something useful to us, you just volonteer it. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0700, Ron wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 15:43 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. -- http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/FlightProSim/original/FlightGear% 20Flight%20Simulator.htm They're mirroring the home page for us... ..how nice. ;o) And it's not only us: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ and http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ ... I shall be _really_ intrigued to hear _this_ story. ;o) ..and I think this story belongs here http://groklaw.net/ and here: http://gpl-violations.org/mailinglists.html . ..same people: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/0a16 $ jwhois idbproductions.com [Querying whois.verisign-grs.com] [Redirected to whois.godaddy.com] [Querying whois.godaddy.com] [whois.godaddy.com] The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WhoIs database, while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided as is with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you in obtaining information about domain name registration records. Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written permission of GoDaddy.com, Inc. By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes. Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified in the registrant field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc. is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database. Registrant: KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: IDBPRODUCTIONS.COM Created on: 27-Aug-07 Expires on: 28-Aug-10 Last Updated on: 27-Aug-07 Administrative Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand 0211863057 Fax -- Technical Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand 0211863057 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS1.SWIFTCO.NET NS2.SWIFTCO.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/0a16 $ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/0a16 $ jwhois flight-aviator.com [Cached] [whois.godaddy.com] The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WhoIs database, while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided as is with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you in obtaining information about domain name registration records. Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written permission of GoDaddy.com, Inc. By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes. Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified in the registrant field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc. is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database. Registrant: KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: FLIGHT-AVIATOR.COM Created on: 25-Aug-08 Expires on: 26-Aug-10 Last Updated on: 25-Aug-08 Administrative Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand (021) 186-3057 Fax -- Technical Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch,
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain rights are gained, others are given up. The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a part of a community, the worst we should expect is that they add no value and sell it as a package. ..in this case I think we have an excellent opportunity to stand up for the GPL by enforcing it, copyright law and criminal law. ;o) I don't believe that FG I structured in a way to be able to receive funds as an organization, and consequently we can only hope that they will be a good community member and sponsor and assist where they can. If people want me to slueth around and find some more info and ..by all means go ahead. ;o) possibly reach out, please advise. ..here I'd like the copyright owners to weigh in, me, I recommend hiring a lawyer for this job, to make sure we get it _right_. ;o) ..given http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ and http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ this is _not_ just us, so I'd have Harald Welte and the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ weigh in with advice on how to proceed. I cc this there. ..playing with dig, jwhois and a web browser and the names I find, it's _amazing_ how I get thrown back to: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ ;o) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart --- --- --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Still, the question is if this company is violating the GPL. We have no proof of that. (The gpl-violations.org guys go after people who are not honoring the release of source for both distributed and derived works - typically in embedded systems. Usually they settle when the company honors the GPL and provides source or stops distributing the offending product.) At this stage it appears that they are simply selling a binary distribution of a set of OSS applications. As mentioned before, ethics or questionable business practices aside, we need to focus on what they are actually violating. Even the wikipedia screen shots are licensed under the GPL can be re-used freely. Regards... Matthew On 11/21/08, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain rights are gained, others are given up. The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a part of a community, the worst we should expect is that they add no value and sell it as a package. ..in this case I think we have an excellent opportunity to stand up for the GPL by enforcing it, copyright law and criminal law. ;o) I don't believe that FG I structured in a way to be able to receive funds as an organization, and consequently we can only hope that they will be a good community member and sponsor and assist where they can. If people want me to slueth around and find some more info and ..by all means go ahead. ;o) possibly reach out, please advise. ..here I'd like the copyright owners to weigh in, me, I recommend hiring a lawyer for this job, to make sure we get it _right_. ;o) ..given http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ and http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ this is _not_ just us, so I'd have Harald Welte and the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ weigh in with advice on how to proceed. I cc this there. ..playing with dig, jwhois and a web browser and the names I find, it's _amazing_ how I get thrown back to: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ ;o) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi, ..my apologies to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the FlightGear top-mix posts fw'd and cc'd to you, FlightGear strives to be multi-platform. ;o) On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:02:06 +0100, Arnt wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain rights are gained, others are given up. The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a part of a community, the worst we should expect is that they add no value and sell it as a package. ..in this case I think we have an excellent opportunity to stand up for the GPL by enforcing it, copyright law and criminal law. ;o) ..FG is still GPLv2? That means these people will need _explicit_ permission from _each_ copyright owner, _if_ there has been _any_ violation of the license. ..absent such explicit permission from _any_ copyright owner, his or her no longer permitted code must be removed, and the vendor's binaries must be recompiled to exclude that forbidden code. ..the GPLv3 is a bit more lenient right there, ;o) the bad guys are forgiven under the GPLv3 once they become _good_ guys by _complying_. ;o) ..fwiw, I ran wget -m -l0 http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ too: ;o) FINISHED --2008-11-21 07:09:33-- Downloaded: 4624 files, 169M in 52m 37s (54.7 KB/s) I don't believe that FG I structured in a way to be able to receive funds as an organization, and consequently we can only hope that they will be a good community member and sponsor and assist where they can. If people want me to slueth around and find some more info and ..by all means go ahead. ;o) possibly reach out, please advise. ..me, I find this rather instructive: ;o) http://gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html ..here I'd like the copyright owners to weigh in, me, I recommend hiring a lawyer for this job, to make sure we get it _right_. ;o) ..given http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ and http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ this is _not_ just us, so I'd have Harald Welte and the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ weigh in with advice on how to proceed. I cc this there. ..playing with dig, jwhois and a web browser and the names I find, it's _amazing_ how I get thrown back to: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ ;o) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
Matthew Tippett wrote: As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package that can be made broadly compatible. If people are interested in a recommended approach for building broadly compatible binaries, then please speak up. We are :) Tim Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, gerard robin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, gerard robin wrote: On vendredi 21 novembre 2008, Csaba Halász wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See boost.org or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but the latest (1.37) should be fine too. Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. Which would cascade to a lot of other programs. Assuming you haven't used it extensively in ready but not checked in code, I suggest to postpone boost usage until after the planned release is made. Hopefully by the time we release our next version after that, distributions will be shipping 1.34 or later. Just an idea. We will need a rule, these library could bring up to us a consistency problem. On my side, if i look at the wide range of distributions, since i use to install and to update FG on my friends computers,( with Debian, Fedora, and Suze some are 32 bit one is 64 bit ). And i don't include my wife computer :) :) I fear that we won't never have the same version at the same time, but to freeze at a specific stable version ( same problem with OSG). Cheers If no rule, there will be the lucky users/devel who will continue on to update FG with CVS update. Behind the others more or less lucky whose the progress will look like an iregular dotted line. I will regret the PLIB time ( dead period time) when everything was stable. What about a specific Boost source dedicated to FlightGear which could be said stable , and easily built by any user with any distribution. -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
Sure. It is involved and complex, so I didn't want to bother people unless they wanted the information. First, get a compiler built via crosstool - http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/ That allows you to low-bar the baseline glibc and gcc (and hence libstdc++). Then build the out-of-distro packages with that compiler. So long as you target the lowest common denominator you are willing to support, then you can have broad distro support. The real complexity is a) getting the head around using a native cross compiler, b) getting a solid idea of where your dependencies lie in the distro-space. Getting this right is a multi-week effort, but if people are concerned with a new release being out of reach for the majority of distro-users, then it is the only way to go. Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:47:46 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As per other discussions, there is nothing stopping fg from creating a set of support libraries that exist in /opt/flightgear. This can be an optional 'we admit we are on the bleeding edge' support package that can be made broadly compatible. If people are interested in a recommended approach for building broadly compatible binaries, then please speak up. ..what in the world makes you think we are not interested? The GPL? If you know something useful to us, you just volonteer it. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] heads up: Boost dependency
Hi, From Mac OS side, there seems no problem in using headers of any version of Boost as long as FlightGear works fine. I'll just grab it and build FG with boost headers. No difficulties. However, if we're going to use boost libraries before the next official release, I need to make sure the binary works on at least some Macs, including ppc/intel and OS X 10.4/10.5. Probably it needs some weeks to collect feedbacks. So I want to hear Tim's (and others') opinion about: (1) what are the pros in using Boost especially in FlightGear. If that doesn't give us any improvement in quality (like maintainability, testability, usability, response, performance or whatever you name it) or functionality in a clear way, we can live without it, at least until the next official release (or until the next release branch is made). (2) Are we going to use boost libraries in the near future? Hope not until the next release. Again, I am not against using Boost at all. I just want to know how it effects or affects FlightGear from developers' and users' viewpoints. If it is determined to use boost, I'll do my best to keep up with these things. Plus, I ain't retrospective. PLIB era also got me a lot of troubles. Do you remember that 0.9.10 on Mac OS X released several months after Windows/Linux had released? 0.9.10 often crashed if ATC is on. Now I can make FlightGear/OSG with less problem, and it works with less crashes. So I don't think FlightGear/CVS-HEAD + OSG is not that stable. I admit that we are still catching up with PLIB in some functions like shadows and FG + OSG requires longer build time, it often crash and I got some crash reports, but so what? OSG + FG give us much more functions like multiple views, particles, and lots more. Best, Tat On Nov 21, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Csaba Halász [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FlightGear now has a dependency on the Boost library header files. See boost.org or your favorite distribution. I built against version 1.34, but the latest (1.37) should be fine too. Okay, I know I am kind of late with this, but I just found out that debian stable comes with 1.33. Upgrading to 1.34 would mean having to upgrade gcc to 4.2 and libstdc++ as well. Which would cascade to a lot of other programs. Assuming you haven't used it extensively in ready but not checked in code, I suggest to postpone boost usage until after the planned release is made. Hopefully by the time we release our next version after that, distributions will be shipping 1.34 or later. Just an idea. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Comments within. (I am personally uncomfortable including the GPL violations people until we have a clear direction from the leadership of the flightgear project as to the direction the project would like to go). On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ... Still, the question is if this company is violating the GPL. We have no proof of that. ..I'm checking my wee mirrors to find out. ;o) The GPL can only be violated when they distribute the software. Their website doesn't entail them distributing. Action can only be taken if there is a clear violation (ie: they distribute a flightgear derived product without an offer of distributing source. Who knows, they may include the source in the DVD or CD that they ship. I personally don't want to charge forward and claim a violation when nothing has been distributed. (The gpl-violations.org guys go after people who are not honoring the release of source for both distributed and derived works - typically in embedded systems. Usually they settle when the company honors the GPL and provides source or stops distributing the offending product.) ..aye, this means they have valuable experience and can guide us. ;o) At this stage it appears that they are simply selling a binary distribution of a set of OSS applications. ..then, in good faith, they shouldn't mind saying so. My opinion now is, these people are common criminals, or a tSCOG-style Microsoft proxy team. http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html But they do say that - http://flight-aviator.com/ === [image: flight]Based on the award winning Flight Gear project [image: flight]All from the thriving Open Source Community, this sim is forever changing === As mentioned before, ethics or questionable business practices aside, we need to focus on what they are actually violating. Even the wikipedia screen shots are licensed under the GPL can be re-used freely. ..aye. Removals of FlightGear.org and GPL etc around these screen shots, would prove a few things though. ;o) I don't see what you are saying. The screenshots don't seem to be trimmed - beyond a possible crop here or there. http://www.flight-aviator.com/images/fps/multiplayer-map.jpg as well as http://www.flight-aviator.com/images/getstart11x.jpg don't seem to be hiding it from being (or being derived from flightgear). The lack of attribution is not quite nice, but is a common mistake. Again, if the flightgear leadership, or the creators (and hence copyright owners) of the images have particular concern then that can put forward when a direction is chosen. ..and keep in mind, top posting is not quite comme-il-feaut at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;o) I understand, but the google mobile client provides no options to inline quote or bottom quote. (I would actually expect that from a legal perspective a top-posted email thread is far more valuable than a inline posted... But that is a different discussion. :) Please note that I am not saying take no action, I am just saying take a few days to gather what each copyright owner who is impacted wants and ensure a plan is prepared before taking action. Remember, the emotive aspect - although it is real and affects people personally - should not be the prime driver for individuals. The legal framework that each person has implicitly or explicitly has agreed to is what should be driven. (I had a long discussion with some people from Creative Commons that people should also be made aware of what they are giving up. If you CC-Share Alike an image, and then see that image being used to promote something you personally find distasteful - have given up your right to control what the downstream person does with the image. You have no fundamental recourse unless the downstream restricts other people from the Share Alike rights within the license. You may not like it, but you gave up your right to control that when you licensed it. The same goes with the GPL. As mentioned before, I see the baseline direction should be at least the following. 1) Respect copyright - The images and and so on should attributed fully 2) Respect the GPL - If the flightgear derived binaries that are distributed are not accompanied by source or an offer to provide the source that created the binary, then actions should be taken to ensure that it is available. 1) is fairly obvious, but 2) will need someone to buy the CD before taking further actions. Regards, Matthew - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
