quot;FlightGear developers discussions"
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Nominations for Aircraft Selection
intheFlightGear 2.0 Release
> Hi Durk,
>
>
>> Please note that there is currently a second release
>> candidate available for
>> windows. (Based on a build
Hi Syd!
> I'd be willing to update the cvs 777
> , and keep it gpl . I guess this
> all boils down to me not fully understanding the GPL
> licence in the
> beginning.
Very nice to see!
> I would appreciate a heads up from James on planned changes
> to the
> route manager / gps changes though ,
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:38:43 +1100, Scott wrote in message
<1263803923.2452.2.ca...@scott>:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 09:29 +0100, Erik Hofman wrote:
>
> > syd adams wrote:
> > > Ok , I understand it when put that way.
> > > I guess now my other question would be , is it conflicting to
> > > proce
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 09:29 +0100, Erik Hofman wrote:
> syd adams wrote:
> > Ok , I understand it when put that way.
> > I guess now my other question would be , is it conflicting to proceed
> > with development
> > under the cc licence on certain models?Can there be 2 versions ?
>
> I see no rea
syd adams wrote:
> Ok , I understand it when put that way.
> I guess now my other question would be , is it conflicting to proceed
> with development
> under the cc licence on certain models?Can there be 2 versions ?
I see no reason why not, especially if it's your own work.
Erik
---
Ok , I understand it when put that way.
I guess now my other question would be , is it conflicting to proceed
with development
under the cc licence on certain models?Can there be 2 versions ?
On 1/17/10, Erik Hofman wrote:
> syd adams wrote:
>> By the way , I dont understand why (content) needs
syd adams wrote:
> By the way , I dont understand why (content) needs to be GPL since
> there is no source code to speak of.
GPL is important since the base package is likely to be included in
linux distributions of which most are commercial.
Erik
---
On 18/01/10 12:17, syd adams wrote:
> By the way , I dont understand why (content) needs to be GPL since
> there is no source code to speak of.
>
Whatever the legalities, one standard license for the official
"FlightGear" distributed stuff is a pretty sensible idea, otherwise it
gets real conf
I'd be willing to update the cvs 777 , and keep it gpl . I guess this
all boils down to me not fully understanding the GPL licence in the
beginning.
I would appreciate a heads up from James on planned changes to the
route manager / gps changes though , it creates extra work for me and
I have a limi
As Syd (and others) changed their license, does that remove the b1900, Beaver,
and others from the list as well, or do those fall under a grandfather clause?
Sent from Smooth Water Sports, your Malibu Boat Dealer
-Original Message-
From: Heiko Schulz
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:01:05
To
10 matches
Mail list logo
