A new Flight Simulator

[IAHM-COL]

The License Problem

If I understand your point correctly, every sub-category in Plane here Are very different areas of expertise.

I agree with you that they could be designed in a pluggable manner.

But here is where you loose me: with the License issue: Lets say every author differs on their opinion of what license to give any given of those units. We end up with the scheme



1. Under what license can we offer the plane in the sense of that plane being an installable unit?
2. If we allow the user/player/developer to say what license he is willing to accept, and say he wants the GPL content? He could get the config, the 2d and the effects. Is he getting something useable by all means?

mix and match licenses is an standing problem in the software world. If we think of it as a functional unit, then that I think would be the plane, and whatever license covers the whole work one has to agree that the whole plane should be obtainable in a way that operates. So, saying FDM-guy, you make your FDM package and you fully control from distribution to licensing at your way, effectively limits that FDM to be implanted and redistributed with other content, unless the FDM author is on agreement with same licensing rules.

Licensing nightmare continues:

One could produce, lets say a CC-NC-SA fdm and a propietary payware sound package that plugs in nicely in a plane that every other component is GPL. Clearly, if the system is plug-and-play enough, then implating/installing that sound and FDM packages does not need to be technically challenging. May be as simple as copying a folder in the aircraft and then having a launcher of the aircraft that allows for selecting sound package (just as changing liveries). Fine. But then comes the problem of effective isolation. You would need to make clear that in spite you are copying the content in the GPL aircraft for your use, now that act has consequences of the licensing of your copy of your plane. Initially it was all GPL and now its not. So, per example, you could have been ok with modify it a little, and sell it somewhere. The GPL let you do that. But now, your Sound that you imported hasnt such Commercial provisions. What do you do? Abandon the permissions that the rest of that plane gave you in the first place? Or risk entering in licensing issues and violations of the sort?

So, again, I dont disagree with you Bomber that a plane is modular enough and that every sub-area of development brings diverse skills, but I dont know exactly what you mean with "the developer of each part gets to pick and choose their rules of the licensing and that prevails over its section of the work".

That works if you don't offer "planes" but if you offer plane-parts and a person obtaining a copy mixing and matching on their machine. And hoping that this person is aware of the restrictions impossed by choosing every single subunit of work.

So that's where I am not following your idea.

[Richard]

Ok this is the simple version; I've removed all of the connections and the multiple models.

[valery]

@IHAM:
- its seems you mix up codes and data or 3rd party addon. A modular program is just a way to allow everybody to share its works the way he want. Do you think Android with its opensource variants like Cyanogen (RIP) infringed some IT ? You can use a Cyanogen smartphone and use Googleplay at the same time in order to buy your favorite game, right ? So, you could see an Android App like an addon and Cyanogen like the engine that run it.
The point is to make something that welcomes everybody. Nowaday, making something valuable requires a lot of work. If someone want to get some money back from its work, I think you could provide a way to help him. Everything that improves your project is good for everybody.
Furthermore, you must know that some 3D Models requires closed format files, eg this could be a nice idea:
http://opengex.org/

@SomeGuysThatLikeToMakeWeirdDiagrams!
Well, perhaps it could help if you look at what is a "3D Game Engine".
The 1st that comes in mind to me could be:
http://tombstoneengine.com/video.php
Try searching for "C4 Engine" and see the framework (http://d1936nln04xw7t.cloudfront.net/cache/images/engines/1/1/237/crop_940x1253/architecture.png)
then you could take a look at:
https://godotengine.org/
or perhaps at:
https://www.leadwerks.com/
of course, don't miss some old stuff like:
https://github.com/blitz-research/blitz3d
and a lot more (free or not like eg UE4 or Unity)

So, what's a Flightsimulator ? A game engine that could render large scale landscape as well as very closed objects. A game engine that provides a physic system dedicated to flight dynamics. A game engine that provides a wheather system, and so on.
Once you get the idea of what is a Game Engine for a Flightsimulator, you could design its framework and think it like a "service" that provides a way to share and exchange data btw many entities like FDM, MP, SoundSystem, Animations, etc. A lot of way are available for exchanging data: IPC, DBus, IP, whatever you think it fills your needs and requirements.
Performances will lead you to think about the 3D rendering layer, and compatibility could lead you to choose or make your own OpenGL API or use an already done like OSG. Once you get the idea, you could go further inside each parts.

I think the Blender's story worth more than a penny:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg
I like this project because the way they makes their own OpenGL API (Ghost) while everybody uses Glut/Glew at this time.
If you have time to take a look inside the sources and the Blender framework, you will discover what Blender named DNA.
And if you have time to listen this very interesting interview, you will see the way a project evolves with time is not as linear as one could think.

Since my so bad story elsewhere on the internet (what a fury against me !), I really don't like the "forum way" to communicate. So, probably my last post here (and around).
Finaly, perhaps the best way to share something is to simply make something .. and not to speak too much about it.

@bomber: it seems we see things the same way

++
Val.

[bomber]

A plane doesn't exist as a single entity, you've accepted this.

But yet you then insist on wrapping it up in one single licence... why would you do this when its constituent parts are already covered by valid licences....which allow them to be published ?

I thought this was wanting to be a core developer topic.... a plane is clearly NOT core...

There for as core devs you have no authority or responsibly with regards the data it uses from 3rd party source.

Keep this simple to understand.

[bomber]

Richard, thanks for redoing your diagram, much appreciated (I was very concerned I'd gone too far)

I wasn't intending to call you a fool, but looking back it can be read that way... sorry if it was even in the slightest.

Not sure i understand why jsbsim and 3d exists twice or why things like weather and others aren't through a plugin module.

So what is plug in module ?

Model dynamics manager ?

Cockpit linkage ?
Why is this not within a planes definition. ?

[bomber]

Also consider that if you have to explain a diagram using words, then the diagrams failed. Because a diagram should be pitched at the correct level of detail for its audience.

[bomber]

And Richard can I ask, does the copyright you place on the diagram have any place in this discussion ?

Is the implication that it can't be copied ?

[IAHM-COL]

But yet you then insist on wrapping it up in one single licence... why would you do this when its constituent parts are already covered by valid licences....which allow them to be published ?
***
Keep this simple to understand.

Hi Bomber,
I do not know if you have dismissed my question. I do not understand it, yet you said that it should be kept simple.

I request you explain me how this is suppose to work.

The way I see it:
Let's say we have the simulator "NewFlight". The core is GPL. The "content" is kept appart. The "content" is kept modularly split and every part of such content is under ownership and licenship of any specific "author" or "module-owner".

Now you say, per example that a plane is a modular whole which comes together somehow to work. Let's call it "NewFlight c172p aircraft".

Now, someone interested in this project could get a "New Flight " Core that allows the part to come together and operate, under GPL. What content is this someone going to be using? Let's then say the user will get whatever is licensed GPL, but nothing else. So, according to this plan, this someone would get, of this "NewFlight C172p" some systems, and some liveries. That's it. The 3D models (external and cockpits) owner by "I want to make some money person #1" has it licensed as pay-me for it. The FDM model is owned by "I want to prevent my work to be sold person #2" who has licensed it CC-NC. And the sounds are non-free buy a single-pc usage license renewable yearly owned by "a person #3 with a money scamming method Microsoft Style".

So, I feel that thinking plane this way makes a New Fligth sim, that does not fly.

I said I can see this working if we can have a complete module set under LGPL. You disagree. You call me to keep it simple, but avoid addressing my concerns directly?

As I am understanding, 1) I dont see the advantage of making such new flight sim if X-Plane, P3D, and FG already exist, where you can try these kind of software licensing games already. Most importantly, 2) It would seem that any effort on making such flight simulator core and making it GPL would be to work for free in order to facilitate a third party offering "addons" to find a "I make the money" mechanism.

Me. Bewilder.

[IAHM-COL]

@IHAM:
- its seems you mix up codes and data or 3rd party addon. A modular program is just a way to allow everybody to share its works the way he want. Do you think Android with its opensource variants like Cyanogen (RIP) infringed some IT ? You can use a Cyanogen smartphone and use Googleplay at the same time in order to buy your favorite game, right ? So, you could see an Android App like an addon and Cyanogen like the engine that run it.

Hi valery.
never heard of, nor use any of the things you mentioned here. Or so I think.
never bought a game from google-play.
I only work/obtain software that is GPL, and therefore that is free for me to hack, reuse, redistribute, etc.

The non-GPL universe that may or may not exist out there, I am uninformed.

But the way I see it. Making a New Flight sim core whose main objective is just facilitating developers to have a "sell your propietary software" platform, is a very void objective. Dont we have X-Plane already?

Besides, why arent then we talking instead how the money obtained by sellin' addons will trickle down to the core developers too? It would seem a reasonable talk to have. Not with me, off course: I don't use non-GPL software. But hell, the world is out there to make things happen anyways.

[IAHM-COL]

@SomeGuysThatLikeToMakeWeirdDiagrams!

I make a motion.
Let's keep name-calling out so we can have the conversation going towards the goals here, not becoming yet another flame fest.

"SomeGuys" has a name: Richard Z.
his nickname "Richard" is seen on the forum handle at every post he is making


Motion over.
I think Richard point is interesting. He says: Why bother making a new simulator if its just too hard, long complex endeavor which I can draft a box-diagram in minutes?

Yup. Ok. Why bother making a box-diagram in the first place, except such effort is spend trying to dissuade people to engage doing it? I add one of my favorite sayings:

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.