On 2010/10/19 07:53, Scott Penrose <[email protected]> wrote: > What I was trying to point out, is that they should not be obliged to upgrade > to V6. > > However if they don't, they should support their release of 5.
According to the web site, they are obliged to upgrade to V6. At least that is my interpretation, and that is what I would have expected if I had bought an Altair. > I am disappointed you think so. You are doing a stella job, but don't forget > that for 4 years before your time, this was maintained project, and a large > amount of code was written by Sam. You may have difficulty seing that, as we > used Subversion and the patches were applied by JW and myself. > > Please remember that software is a living thing. Even if a developer rewrote > an entire class, the old class still provided the knowledge and template to > get started. Starting from scratch would not have taken the same amount of > time. This of course is the beauty of open source that we love :-) > > I have delivered you no patches in the last 12 months - does that mean my 4 > years of development is now worth nothing? Of course not, you are still using > my code :-) Every new version is standing on the shoulders of the preceding version, and every patch contributes to those shoulders. But that was not the point; my point was that the contributions by Triadis were not large enough to say "they have paid back many times over". Maybe Triadis' patches were merged without giving credit to them being the author. That would have been a mistake (by John/you, not by Triadis), and would falsify my impression. > FYI - It is not a copyright violation not to give changes back, just to not > make them available. And then it would be a license violation, not copyright. > Sorry, I have spent way too much time around this space :-) Worked on lots of > big projects discussing these specific issues, so I get a little semantic. There is no such thing as a "license violation". That is common speech, but it is legally incorrect. If you don't follow the rules of the GPL, the privileges of the GPL just don't apply to you. That means you must not distribute the code (modified or not). If you do anyway, you violate copyright law. > P.S. My glider is no longer supported by the manufacturer ! I can fix things > myself of course, or hire experts, but it is a good example :-) The > manufacturer exists, they just don't even release air worthiness notes any > more. Sad story, but good example. Would you trust that manufacturer any of your money again to buy a new glider? My club has a glider which is 40 years old, still supported by the manufacturer. I bought my glider from the same manufacturer, because I trust them. Max ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download new Adobe(R) Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4 The new Adobe(R) Flex(R) 4 and Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4 (formerly Flex(R) Builder(TM)) enable the development of rich applications that run across multiple browsers and platforms. Download your free trials today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Xcsoar-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcsoar-user
