Free Flight, Free Speech

I don't disagree bomber.

1. Most likely instead of start from scratch we can fork the FG core and use it
2. Some work around (by bugman, and Curt) already worked in implementing the capabilities of embedding python into FG.
3. After that, maybe the first two parts of the puzzle would be being able to config both aircraft as well as FDM with python modules.

Now, if we team up, with your understanding of how-to for JSBsim we could be able to get some of this running. Do you think we should start here considering beginning troubleshooting how-to do it, and move a bit from the philosophical stage?

bomber wrote:All I'd ask is that we have a high level understanding of just what the intentions are and if any restrictions such as forced licencing types are to be in place.

I have no problem with being a bad guy that hostile forks FG...

YES..... it's a hostile fork, brought about because of the hostile attitude shown towards me.

"What you sow, so shall you reap......"

But prudence tells me before entering into any partnership, the rules and politics of it are hammered out with no confusion between parties.

Simon.

Politics?
Not sure what to say or what you mean by that.
If I could guess, you are concern on licenses.
My take:
modification IN the FG core, that are to remain in the core must be GPL. I understand that we are allow to fork it and modify it and redistribute it, but not change its license of it, nor of the derivative material.

Adding some libraries, like per example a new python library that would create FDMs, per example, or libraries that would allow to create new planes via python, I say, we try them to reside outside the flightgear core, and make them LGPL v3.0.

This could legally allow developers to create addons that non-statically link it and choose their own licenses without further constraining. (static linking would require LGPL/GPL licensing, but linking should be doable non-static). I think that could solve that concern from the licensing stand-point.

***

About making decisions. Flightgear pretends to be a meritocracy. I say I prefer meritocracy, raw and real. This is: If somebody comes with an idea, choosing to consider it based on merit: if you can make it happen, you have the power and the authorization to make it happen. That's a real meritocracy, I think.

****


About collaborators:
Yup. JWocky and others are part of my team.

****

About Flightgear Core

No beggin' from my part. Not anymore. If they want to collaborate and cooperate, I'm happy to facilitate it. But I am not beggin from something to be moved "upstream", nor expecting them too. It's absurd to hope that they will be interested on any idea that does not come from their ass.

I guess the bottom line for me to join your team or to work on any collaborative flight sim is that ALL content authors be it for fdm, 3d, 2d, scripted systems have control over the licence rights for their work.

Each discipline being a separate work brought together to create a working content be it a plane, ship, building etc.

FG has allowed 2d authors to give textures as jpeg which is NOT the original file format and 3ders should have the same rights.

I just can't see you guys going for that.

I dont think I understand you.
Can you explain this a bit more?

Maybe a simple architecture diagram is needed at this point...... I'll knock one up when I get a moment.

Whilst I do that you could maybe elaborate on the teams membership as I thought there was only two of us in this conversation talking about going forwards.

team membership is open to anyone willing to collaborate, I think. (should this include Thorsten? probably not. Would he even consider something like this? so unlikely that past beyond of any concern )

looking forward to see an architecture diagram...

Reads to me that you are already excluding people from the start Not so free right?

I find the shear amount of division in the FG community sad and a bit concerning for the future of FG. Do we even have enough developers to support the whole development from FDM to rendering without being short in some spots for a new flight sim as it stands now? I'd hate to see a flight simulator project get started and shortly collapse under its own weight because it got abandoned due to lack of developmental resources.