On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:29:27 +0100, Stuart wrote in message
:
> - Effectiveness. Re-distributors/forkers such as FlightProSim have
> so far shown no interest in keeping up with the latest FlightGear
> version, and any license change would not impact their use of
> back-level software. It is the
On 11 Sep 2012, at 16:29, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>
> I've created a wiki page collecting the reasons for not changing the license
> in the following (protected) wiki article:
Thanks Stuart, this is much appreciated (at least by me!)
James
-
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, James Turner wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>> As this comes up on a monthly basis, perhaps we need an FAQ explaining
>> why changing the license is a bad idea, has no support from the core
>> developers, isn't practical, and won't make any
Thorsten wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Renk [mailto:thorsten.i.r...@jyu.fi]
> Sent: 06 September 2012 10:47
> To: FlightGear developers discussions
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
>
> There remains this strange discrepancy between what people are outr
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 05:16:47 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
:
> Ron Jensen wrote:
>
> > IANAL. The issues are non-commercial and attribution. The
> > attribution clause is effectively the BSD advertising clause, which
> > is a horrible idea on multiple levels.
> > http://www.gnu.org/philos
There remains this strange discrepancy between what people are outraged about
and what could potentially stand in court.
> Wah. They're immoral scammers by any examination. They're suckering
> people into not only buying free software, but public domain materials as
> well!
> I think the trut
Ron Jensen wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote:
>> It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text.
>> One of the - various - reasons for not providing 'official' FlightGear
>> Scenery with OSM roads is the clause in CC-BY-SA 2.0, which says:
>>
>> "I
On Wednesday 05 September 2012 05:04:06 Martin Spott wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main
> > points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is
> > "Share-alike" and "Derived works allowed with attribution".
>
> It really depend
..if these scammers feel slandered by that, scammers,
they are entitled to file lawsuits.
..the reason they don't, is they and their lawyers knows
the truth is an allowable and complete defense, and that
judges often award litigation costs to the prevailing
decent truthful people, and to d
. If it was up to me, they'd
> be tightly wrapped in wet leather and left in the hot sun as an example to
> others considering similar things.
>
I'd be more than happy to assist you with that.
Syd
--
Live Security Virtua
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Renk Thorsten wrote:
>> We haven't
>> been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl,
>> but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical.
>
>> They're immoral scammers, plain and simple.
>
> It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, bu
Thorsten,
I think you are over analyzing these guys and giving them far too much
credit. I think the truth is simpler. They only make sales by misleading
the customer into thinking they are getting something else. They cast a
wide net of shady tactics. So the situation (I believe) is closer to
> We haven't
> been able to pin them down on a specific technical violation of the gpl,
> but that doesn't mean they are legitimate, honorable, and ethical.
> They're immoral scammers, plain and simple.
It galls me to speak up for FlightProSim, but such statements are, as far as I
am concerned,
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Martin Spott wrote:
> Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
>> FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
>
> According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
> comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
>
Nor do they comply with the GPL
>> FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
>
> According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
> comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
Well, since there's always small-print (which I don't know) I would leave that
to the courts to es
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
> Renk Thorsten wrote:
>
> > FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
>
> According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
> comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
I have heard of so
Renk Thorsten wrote:
> FlightProSim does not defraud its customers as far as I am aware.
According to reports on this very list (hint) and elsewhere they don't
comply with the money-back guarantee they advertize.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about wh
>>Hence I would use the same license to keep off scammers.
(...)
> Anything but code should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not
> allowing any commmercial use.
My two cents:
First of all, define your use of 'scammer' here. From Wikipedia, I get "A
confidence trick is also known as a
Scott wrote:
> But more seriously, I'm no license guru, and you picked one of the main
> points I'm not clear on, the original CC in this example is
> "Share-alike" and "Derived works allowed with attribution".
It really depends on the particular phrasing in license text.
One of the - various - r
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 10:35 +, Martin Spott wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> > So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content
> > in scenery that must be GPL???
>
> Under the "this is no legal advice"-clause I'd say it should allow
> derived works to be published under the GPL
Scott wrote:
> So my question then is, what path is there to incorporate CC content
> in scenery that must be GPL???
Under the "this is no legal advice"-clause I'd say it should allow
derived works to be published under the GPL.
BTW, I'm uncertain if we're having the same SRTM-1 in mind. The la
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 12:11 +0200, HB-GRAL wrote:
> Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott:
> >
> >While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective.
> >
> >There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data)
> > that is provided under Creative Commons with licens
Am 05.09.12 11:52, schrieb Scott:
>
>While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective.
>
>There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data)
> that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar
> as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it wo
While we are on the topic, I'd like to take a different perspective.
There are a number of source data files (eg: national SRTM-1 data)
that is provided under Creative Commons with license terms very similar
as GPL, however it isn't GPL, but it would appear to have the same aims
as everything
On 5 Sep 2012, at 09:06, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On a practical note I'd also point out that some FG development has
> been paid for through the commercial use of FG. In the past I've been
> paid to develop simulations for my local museum of flight, the results
> of which have been fed back int
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Erik Hofman wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote:
>> No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called.
>>
>> I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code
>> should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any
>> co
On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Michael wrote:
> No, FlightProSim and whatever they're called.
>
> I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. Anything but code
> should be possible to license similar to GPL, but not allowing any
> commmercial use.
Disallowing commercial use means Linux dis
> I still think we need another license for sceneries etc. ... not allowing any
> commmercial use.
Why? Freedom Zero matters just as much for things other than code.
-- Chris
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusiv
Dual licensing..should be easy?
--- On Mon, 9/3/12, Tim Moore wrote:
> From: Tim Moore
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] license
> To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
>
> Date: Monday, September 3, 2012, 4:43 PM
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM,
> Michael
&g
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> Looks like the dialog is GPL and the screenshot image is CC.
The screenshot license is CC purely as this is the default for the
wiki upload. No political statement was intended :)
-Stuart
---
Looks like the dialog is GPL and the screenshot image is CC.
Torsten--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can
o: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Flightgear-devel] license
>
> Hi
> saw this:
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg
>
> which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.
> Will that go into default 3.0? Hen
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Michael wrote:
> Hi
> saw this:
> http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg
>
> which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.
> Will that go into default 3.0? Hence I would use the same license to keep off
> scammers. Sorry,
Hi
saw this:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Joystick_Configuration_Dialog.jpg
which is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.
Will that go into default 3.0? Hence I would use the same license to keep off
scammers. Sorry, seems I've missed if default releases only contain GPL lice
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:29:48 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
<201104052229.49...@rk-nord.at>:
> * Arnt Karlsen -- Tuesday 05 April 2011:
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:14:03 +0200, Melchior wrote in message
> > > Caution: this is *not* part of the GPLv2. It's *below* the line
> > > stating "END OF TE
Ron Jensen skrev:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 03:30 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote:
>> o...@arcticnet.no skrev:
>>> Ron Jensen skrev:
http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb
>>> Yes, but it's in the "oldlibs" section. No current package in Debian use
>>> it. Every
Erik Hofman wrote:
> If this code is just used by a utility that is useful for developers
> only (normalmap) then I'd move the code oevr to that specific directory
> and leave it at that.
I had a few spare minutes and the code is moved over now.
Erik
--
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that
> modification is fine? I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my
> machines for many years. I admire how carefully they follow through
> with these licensing issues ... but my word ... no wonder their
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 03:30 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote:
> o...@arcticnet.no skrev:
> > Ron Jensen skrev:
> >> http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb
> >
> > Yes, but it's in the "oldlibs" section. No current package in Debian use
> > it. Everything is linked
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:33 PM, wrote:
> ... [curt] no wonder their package versions are 4 years behind every other
> distribution.
>
> Oh, why is that?
That was said mostly in jest. Maybe I should have said, by the time Debian
finalizes a release, the kids who watched the pixar movie with th
Curtis Olson skrev:
> Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that
> modification is fine?
That's what I plan to do for now.
> I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my
> machines for many years. I admire how carefully they follow through
> with these licensing issues ...
Can we just quote Mark Kilgard's comment in that thread that modification is
fine? I like Debian and I ran their distribution on my machines for many
years. I admire how carefully they follow through with these licensing
issues ... but my word ... no wonder their package versions are 4 years
behi
o...@arcticnet.no skrev:
> Ron Jensen skrev:
>> http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glut/libglut3_3.7-25_all.deb
>
> Yes, but it's in the "oldlibs" section. No current package in Debian use
> it. Everything is linked against freeglut, which supersedes it.
Upon further examination, I'll h
Ron Jensen skrev:
> I think this 5 year old "bug" might help answer the question
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997
Hmm, thanks. I guess I can show them that, then, when I package simgear
up again. Hopefully it's enough.
> I am not sure if texture.{cxx,hxx} qualifies as
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 14:24 +0200, o...@arcticnet.no wrote:
> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
> modifiable. Is this file r
I've tried to figure out the origin of that code, and it seems there's
consensus that Kilgard's code really cannot be modified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL_Utility_Toolkit
"Kilgard's GLUT library is no longer maintained, and its license did not
permit the redistribution of modified version
Looking at the code it is heavily modified in the mean time, although
parts of the original texture loading code are still in place.
Erik
--
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Curtis Olson wrote:
> I don't see any thing in the license terms that states we cannot modify
> the code. Are we running on the assumption that we can only do what is
> expressly allowed? Perhaps Erik Hofman should address this. As I look
> at the code I see it's a full C++ class. But I'm p
Curtis Olson skrev:
> Are we running on the assumption that we can only do what is
> expressly allowed?
When it comes to someone else's copyright, it's not only an assumption.
It's the law. And Debian is adamant about following it... so, yes.
Thanks.
-
Tim Moore a écrit :
> Frederic Bouvier wrote:
>
>> Hi ?
>>
>> o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
>>
>>> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
>>> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
>>> it says that the code is "freely distributabl
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:24 AM, wrote:
> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
> modifiable. Is this file really under an Ope
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
> Hi ?
>
> o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
>> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
>> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
>> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
>> modifiable. Is thi
Hi ?
o...@arcticnet.no a écrit :
> It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
> does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
> it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
> modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source
It seems that the license header of simgear/screen/texture.{cxx,hxx}
does not have the same LGPL header as the rest of the sources. In fact,
it says that the code is "freely distributable", but not freely
modifiable. Is this file really under an Open Source license? Could you
clarify (at least for
54 matches
Mail list logo
