I can see that getting the licencing right is important; but IIRC this is one of the reasons for the blanket GPL/LGPL in FG; to keep the licencing simple.
@Israel - probably you should investigate building something a prototype using Panda3d with tobspr's render pipeline; with a 100km square region of test terrain.
Panda3d is already very python friendly and someone did a python JSBSim interface.
https://github.com/stelic/limitload may be useful as a reference although it will probably need some attention to work with current versions as it is unmaintained.
A new Flight Simulator
Re: A new Flight Simulator
@Richard. That is exactly what I had been suggesting to draft upon
Panda3d as 3d rendering
Tobsr render pipeline
and JSBsim python interface
(All of these I had outline in earlier posts in this thread)
There's more. There is even a rather capable python metar decodermodule lying around, as well.
I am slowly putting the ideas up, and I had panda3d running up and checking how its capabilities are.
More about terrain:
I say GeoMipMapping is a very intriguing approach, which I think can takes us to good results for worldwide encoding:
https://www.panda3d.org/manual/index.ph ... MipMapping
This looks like a complete Jigsaw, where the only thing missing is assembly. (oversimplifying it, but the parts come together)
Best,
IH
Panda3d as 3d rendering
Tobsr render pipeline
and JSBsim python interface
(All of these I had outline in earlier posts in this thread)
There's more. There is even a rather capable python metar decodermodule lying around, as well.
I am slowly putting the ideas up, and I had panda3d running up and checking how its capabilities are.
More about terrain:
I say GeoMipMapping is a very intriguing approach, which I think can takes us to good results for worldwide encoding:
https://www.panda3d.org/manual/index.ph ... MipMapping
This looks like a complete Jigsaw, where the only thing missing is assembly. (oversimplifying it, but the parts come together)
Best,
IH
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: A new Flight Simulator
The thrust of the point I'm trying to get across is to ensure 'core' and 'content ' are kept at arms length away from each other.
I don't see that happening.
As there's too much dictating of what content licences should be within a 'core' topic.
I don't see that happening.
As there's too much dictating of what content licences should be within a 'core' topic.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: A new Flight Simulator
bomber wrote:
I don't see that happening.
As there's too much dictating of what content licences should be within a 'core' topic.
Not the case. Had you actually read my responses? or I am speaking a missing language?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1233&start=120#p23964
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1233&start=120#p23965
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: A new Flight Simulator
2. Yes. We can safely provide a GPL core and content, and then addons. If these addons extend features or provide feature that are in addition to the functionality of the program and content then these addons can be distributed in isolation, and in absentia of ANY of the GPL core code and content. These addons licenses can be of any nature, and ultimately it would be an independent agreement between users and the extension authors to agree on their licensing terms
It's pretty clear you're aiming to distribute core and content not at arms length...
Necesarily at least some content needs to exist GPL or LGPL otherwise the simulator wouldn't fly free.
Did I miss where a person ever paid for my CC licenced fdm's ?
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: A new Flight Simulator
bomber wrote: distribute core and content not at arms length...
I dont know what this means
bomber wrote:Did I miss where a person ever paid for my CC licenced fdm's ?
Free as in free speech. Not as in free beer.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?
Re: A new Flight Simulator
Sorry I'm just not into writing code that others can use to scam innocent people out of money, and do nothing about it.
I prefer to write code that others can freely copy, modify and distribute for the benefit of our hobby.
Without the feeling of being treated like a second class citizen.
Btw it's a shame you can understand all that GNU write when it agrees with your thinking , but refuse to understand the things they write when it doesnt..., Arms length, licences in each file.
This topic is about 'core' development yet you've shown nothing different from the attitude FG shows towards content providers, dictating terms.
Have you and your secretive team learned nothing from their mistakes ?
Create a core that is detached from content, be it a plane, building or terrain. That uses content as the data it is, provided by others regardless of the licences the authors choose. That doesn't raise any content provided above others based on the licence of their work. Don't divide a community but instead allows all to contribute content for the enjoyment of our hobby.
Then I'd see a difference between what you're proposing and FG.
I prefer to write code that others can freely copy, modify and distribute for the benefit of our hobby.
Without the feeling of being treated like a second class citizen.
Btw it's a shame you can understand all that GNU write when it agrees with your thinking , but refuse to understand the things they write when it doesnt..., Arms length, licences in each file.
This topic is about 'core' development yet you've shown nothing different from the attitude FG shows towards content providers, dictating terms.
Have you and your secretive team learned nothing from their mistakes ?
Create a core that is detached from content, be it a plane, building or terrain. That uses content as the data it is, provided by others regardless of the licences the authors choose. That doesn't raise any content provided above others based on the licence of their work. Don't divide a community but instead allows all to contribute content for the enjoyment of our hobby.
Then I'd see a difference between what you're proposing and FG.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: A new Flight Simulator
Since I am no expert in programming nor FG I warn you that I might write a big nonsense here 
Anyway, I fail to see any difference in what bomber requests and Israel's ideas *shrug*
I see three different license "domains": The core domain, the add-on domain and the content domain (aircraft and scenery I guess).
If you want to be able to allow different licenses to the different domains, then all you would need to do is define the interfaces between them accordingly (at arm length).
Now, do I understand correctly (or not) that bomber would prefer a CC license for the core and Israel a GPL? Is that the core difference in stand points here or am I missing something?
Because if you build an architecture so that the core treats add-ons and content as external modules to be executed (add-ons) / loaded (content), and not as linked libraries (be it dynamical or static) I believe you can freely choose one out of CC/GPL/commercial for any of the domains, no?!?
My understanding at the moment is that you guys would need to agree on the license of the core (CC/GPL) because I feel that you both agree that any module in the add-on domain or the content domain should be allowed to have a different license per module as the creator of the module wishes.
What would be downloadable from the web page of this project would probably be 100% free of proprietary and commercial modules and would still offer a full blast of core features, basic add-ons, as-good-as-possible world scenery and a decent amount of good aircraft.
Then all you need to do is define interfaces so that creators of additional modules can offer a download so that installation for the user is super-simple. In that way commercial people could e.g. create (or even port from another simulation!!) ultra-professional aircrafts, all they need to do is adapt to your hopefully easy to use interface.
But also developers can create GPL or CC aircrafts.
It would be a mixture of everything, but only in the add-on and content domains.
Let the most successful win in those two domains (of course we all hope that it will be the free versions ) while keeping the core CC/GPL, what ever you will decide on.
Again: If I just talked total crap due to not understanding things correctly, please just ignore.....or have the courtesy to tell me so that I can delete and not embarrass myself too much
Anyway, I fail to see any difference in what bomber requests and Israel's ideas *shrug*
I see three different license "domains": The core domain, the add-on domain and the content domain (aircraft and scenery I guess).
If you want to be able to allow different licenses to the different domains, then all you would need to do is define the interfaces between them accordingly (at arm length).
Now, do I understand correctly (or not) that bomber would prefer a CC license for the core and Israel a GPL? Is that the core difference in stand points here or am I missing something?
Because if you build an architecture so that the core treats add-ons and content as external modules to be executed (add-ons) / loaded (content), and not as linked libraries (be it dynamical or static) I believe you can freely choose one out of CC/GPL/commercial for any of the domains, no?!?
My understanding at the moment is that you guys would need to agree on the license of the core (CC/GPL) because I feel that you both agree that any module in the add-on domain or the content domain should be allowed to have a different license per module as the creator of the module wishes.
What would be downloadable from the web page of this project would probably be 100% free of proprietary and commercial modules and would still offer a full blast of core features, basic add-ons, as-good-as-possible world scenery and a decent amount of good aircraft.
Then all you need to do is define interfaces so that creators of additional modules can offer a download so that installation for the user is super-simple. In that way commercial people could e.g. create (or even port from another simulation!!) ultra-professional aircrafts, all they need to do is adapt to your hopefully easy to use interface.
But also developers can create GPL or CC aircrafts.
It would be a mixture of everything, but only in the add-on and content domains.
Let the most successful win in those two domains (of course we all hope that it will be the free versions
) while keeping the core CC/GPL, what ever you will decide on.Again: If I just talked total crap due to not understanding things correctly, please just ignore.....or have the courtesy to tell me so that I can delete and not embarrass myself too much
Re: A new Flight Simulator
I have no problems with a core being GPL.....
What you've written is exactly what I and others would want as content developers for a new sim... A separation between core and content.
Where the licence of content is not required to be GPL first and then any other licence second. Where content is NEVER distributed with the core but ALL content regardless of licence is kept at arms length and used by the core in an identical and consistent manner.
Then I could write a CC flight model and it be used by a player flying a plane using either a GPL or proprietary 3D model.
As neither of the authors of these models break the licence I give to my work.... And I should know as it's my work.
It's quite clear that this is not what Israel is proposing as he's talking about distributing GPL content , planes , terrain alongside the core, this creating a GPL whole. And then requiring content of other licences be distributed as a separate add on.... In effect creating a two tier system within the content domain, which is no different to FG.
What you've written is exactly what I and others would want as content developers for a new sim... A separation between core and content.
Where the licence of content is not required to be GPL first and then any other licence second. Where content is NEVER distributed with the core but ALL content regardless of licence is kept at arms length and used by the core in an identical and consistent manner.
Then I could write a CC flight model and it be used by a player flying a plane using either a GPL or proprietary 3D model.
As neither of the authors of these models break the licence I give to my work.... And I should know as it's my work.
It's quite clear that this is not what Israel is proposing as he's talking about distributing GPL content , planes , terrain alongside the core, this creating a GPL whole. And then requiring content of other licences be distributed as a separate add on.... In effect creating a two tier system within the content domain, which is no different to FG.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell
Re: A new Flight Simulator
It's quite clear that this is not what Israel is proposing as he's talking about distributing GPL content , planes , terrain alongside the core, this creating a GPL whole. And then requiring content of other licences be distributed as a separate add on.... In effect creating a two tier system within the content domain, which is no different to FG.
Mhhhm, I am not sure if that is really Israel's intent. I think that he wants to provide the POSSIBILITY for content developers to use e.g. instruments as modules in their aircraft. IF the instrument is GPL AND the developer decides to take it, then of course the aircraft might also have to be GPL.
But the developer can freely decide to make a proprietary and commercial aircraft, just that then he can not use the ready made GPL instruments (or what ever) but would have to program that herself.
So everybody providing content/add-ons would have to take care themselves to not violate licenses, that should not be bothering the core developers.
All you would need is good, clear and fast interfaces, right?!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests