Board index Other Hangar talk

Boom

Talk about (almost) anything, as long as it is no serious FlightGear talk and does not fit in the other subforums.
Forum rules
Please refrain from discussing politics.

Re: Boom

Postby wlbragg » Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:03 pm

There's no way for me to know what happens to my code, and that is not acceptable to me.


Not trying to change your mind in any way, only to suggest that it is all in how you look at it. No one can change "your" code. They can only change the code in their version or repository. Your personal branch is your branch and under your control always. FGADDON branch is subject to potential changes beyond your control, but not likely to happen because of the respect of the core team and members who support you and your decisions. Even if FGADDON were to diverge, your personal repo is still yours and still "always" under your control and standards. No one can ever change that. If users get confused, that's on them not you.

You're not really gonna convince me of anything here - just like Linux folk will never convince me to switch from Windows. What I choosed works for me. What you all suggest DOESN'T.


And that is all good, i would hope no one would ever try to convince you otherwise. Personally I am of the complete opposite camp. I think Linux is a great concept and so appreciative that it exist. It truly is one of the only controls that we mere mortals will always have to retain some kind of control over the technology of OS. I can't imagine the computing world without free and open-source software. I despise Windows, C++ an every other bloated product out there. I am somewhat surprised with your talent and demand for excellence that you don't feel the same way. Note: I'm not suggesting that any or all open-source software doesn't come with the same flaws, because most of it does. But none the less, the concept is truly wonderful.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
Intel i5 3570K AMDRX480
wlbragg
 
Posts: 6074
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Linux/AMDRX480

Re: Boom

Postby Thorsten » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:01 pm

You're not really gonna convince me of anything here


I'm not trying to - I'm pointing out the contradictions in your statements. What you do with that info is completely your business.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Boom

Postby Octal450 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:09 pm

Its my code - and maybe I don't want my code in other peoples repos where they can do strange stuff to it. I worked extremely long and hard on it. So I want control of it. Simple as that. But I can't since GPL. *shrug*

Also I made no contradictions.

Kind Regards,
Josh
Skillset: JSBsim, Systems, Canvas, Autoflight/Control Systems, Basic Animations
Aircraft: MD-11 (Mainly), A320-family, MD-80, Contribs in a few others

Octal450's Hangar|Launcher Catalog
|MD Dev Discord|Airbus Dev Discord
User avatar
Octal450
 
Posts: 4921
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm
Callsign: WTF411/Octal
Version: next
OS: Windows 7/10 x64

Re: Boom

Postby Thorsten » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:31 am

Its my code - and maybe I don't want my code in other peoples repos where they can do strange stuff to it. I worked extremely long and hard on it. So I want control of it. Simple as that.


Fair enough.

But I've also worked long and hard, so have many other people at Linux, OSG, JSBSim, you name it.

The simple fact is that if all these people would follow your argument, you would not have JSBSim (among other things) or Nasal or canvas - upon which your current code builds. From that follows that your position can not become a general maxim (and become an ethically acceptable position in the Kantian sense) unless you consequently do not use JSBSim or other free software/libs in the future.

Also I made no contradictions.


You haven't seen them - but you sure are making them. :mrgreen:

but we ran it like a closed source - no contributions from outside members unless we specifically test and integrate all changes - no support for users downloading from ANYWHERE else but our repo - no advice on how to change code how they want or adapt it - not allowing code at all that doesn't follow the strict guidelines that we set up, its extremely locked down. For this I was called dictator - but it is a good dictator as you can see from the result.


I'm not sure you even understand how OpenSource is run - you seem to confuse it with FGMembers where everyone was supposed to commit to everything.

Do I offer support for Shuttle versions obtained from anywhere but FGAddon or my devel repo? No, I sure don't - that'd be sllly because I can't know what 3rd parties do with the code.

Do I give advice how to change code? Only in cases where I am convinced that the other person has studied the problem and has a sound case to make (and would, after testing, commit the change in some form).

Do I allow any random code to be committed to either FGAddon or my devel repo? Of course not, I have an idea of efficient code structure and a purpose for the project and people don't get to mess with it.

Have I been called a dictator? Plenty of times (we should have a dictator-afternoon get-together) - the whole FG team has been identified with Nazi leadership (all those Germans from Edinburgh and Minnesota...) - pretty much every attempt to protect the repository against random inefficient code bits someone thinks cool is met with the charge.

So - in what way do you run a closed source model please? :mrgreen: FG has been like this since more than a decade. Closed source means non-disclosure agreements with your paid coders, it means people get coding on stuff whether they like it or not because they get paid, it means distributing binaries only,...

***

But do I mind people forking stuff and working with my code on their own repository? No, not really. See - it's about information flow. Someone else thinks 'thermal management - how to implement that? Perhaps remembers that the Shuttle has an implementation - takes a look into the code - because it's... open. Gets an idea how this can be done, perhaps adapts the code, perhaps re-does it in JSBSim. In the course of doing so, finds a flaw and sends me a message - we both win.

I see some cool thing implemented in an aircraft, so I take a look at the code to study how it's done, think about how I would implement it in my project.

Some may also tinker with silly things - it's their playground, doesn't have to bother me - as long as they're honest about what they're doing when they re-distribute.

Do I mind people just taking stuff, selling my work as theirs and so on? Yeah - but they do that with my copyrighted stuff just as well unfortunately, and your chance of making a successful legal case in Russia for a few hundred Euro damage are... slim. The fact is that people who believe in just taking do that and find a justification later.

So basically the only way to actually control your code is to close it and never let anyone see the source - but that locks down the information flow just as well. Which - as I said above - works fine if you're the only closed guy in an open environment, but it doesn't scale - once everyone does it, we all loose.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Boom

Postby tdammers » Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:39 am

Octal450 wrote in Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:46 pm:I am a nice man. If somebody ask to use my code, 9/10 times I will say yes. But I want to be aware of it. And I want to be 100% sure that it's not being sold.


Then you shouldn't have granted people the explicit permission to do with it whatever the **** they want except change the license. Which is what you did by releasing under GPL. You can say that it was a "trap", that you "didn't know" that that would be the consequence of using GPL, but that's your responsibility as the copyright holder, not that of the licensee or the people who wrote the license you chose to adopt. You chose to release under a license you didn't fully understand, that's on you.

People don't need to ask your permission, you already gave it. "No takesie-backsies".
tdammers
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:35 am
Callsign: NL256
IRC name: nl256

Re: Boom

Postby bugman » Thu Oct 17, 2019 7:53 am

Octal450 wrote in Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:18 pm:...But you don't listen good - the code is open source, but we ran it like a closed source - no contributions from outside members unless we specifically test and integrate all changes - no support for users downloading from ANYWHERE else but our repo - no advice on how to change code how they want or adapt it - not allowing code at all that doesn't follow the strict guidelines that we set up, its extremely locked down. For this I was called dictator - but it is a good dictator as you can see from the result.


Please note, this is exactly how the main FlightGear project is run. This is absolutely not the development difference between open source and proprietary (closed source). This is the difference between a well managed project (open or closed) verses an anarchistic ideal for development that, as you have experienced, simply does not work. The anarchistic model removes all barriers to entry. But it results in rubbish being introduced and it generates guaranteed conflict within the project. The tightly controlled development environment might discourage some low-quality contributions from being submitted - yet high quality contributions are generally submitted in this environment as the developer has invested significant time and is motivated to not loose the work. The controlled environment results in a much higher quality product. E.g. All of FlightGear as well as the IDG models.

(This sentence is for the casual reader, not you Josh) You may remember that there were a group who strongly disagreed with the tightly controlled FlightGear development environment, and they therefore attempted to fork the project to implement the anarchistic utopia. However this development strategy does not sit well with most content developers, primarily the lead developers of projects who loose the control to say no to rubbish.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Boom

Postby bugman » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:00 am

Josh, can you please identify where your models are being sold? Please don't say that you've only basing these arguments against the GPL on the almost decade old Flight Pro Sim / Pro Flight Simulator / FlightProSim / ProFlightSimulator / FlightSimPro / Earth Flight Sim / FlightProSim / Real Flight Simulator saga.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Boom

Postby tdammers » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:17 am

There is a difference between "you are free to do with this code whatever you want", and "you are free to push whatever code you want to this repository, publish whatever you want on this website, say whatever you want on this forum, claim full authority over this subject, publish your version under this brand name".

The former is an essential requirement to open source development, and the anarchy that comes with it is absolutely essential. Without it, you're not really doing "open source development", you're running a company that doesn't pay its employees and releases their code under open-source licenses. The freedom to fork, and publish forks, is a core part of an open source workflow. It's not a utopia either, I see it at work on a daily basis.

The latter is completely unreasonable and should be challenged whenever it occurs.

But you need to separate the two, and you currently don't. And I predict that I'm not going to convince you either, and even if I could, the kind of code restructuring that would be required to make that practical would be prohibitive.
tdammers
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:35 am
Callsign: NL256
IRC name: nl256

Re: Boom

Postby bugman » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:08 am

Sorry Josh for catalysing this discussion, but it is one that had to be had. As a moderator of both this forum and the wiki I need to carefully follow all that happens. Your behaviour outlined previously, D-ECHO's simultaneous nuking of all his wiki content and tagging all pages for deletion, and Jonathan's reactions were all red flags. I had enough concerned users contacting me in private, that I thought that the situation needed to be clarified (in public). So thank you and Jonathan for those clarifications.

As for despising the GPL, your opinion is yours to have. However here is a little Gedankenexperiment (a though experiment): Do you think that the Immersive Design Group would have come together had you started with a proprietary licence? And do you think that all the contributions from people outside the IDG would have been made? I am willing to bet on 'no'.

Development groups in open source form quite differently to development groups in proprietary systems. The motivation here is to have fun and develop as a hobby. It is essentially a gift to the world, but one that can never be taken away from you. People might fork but you can take back all their changes, assuming it is not rubbish, as they are legally obliged to licence their new content as GPLv2+. A hostile takeover of the whole project by a fork is very rarely successful. If you develop on top of the work of others that is GPLv2+ licensed, you must also use the GPLv2+ licence. That includes some of your models that were forked from FGAddon aircraft as well as the forks of your models. It seems highly contradictory to state that you now wish that you did not use an open source licence for your models, as you wish to stop people forking your models. Because this is exactly what you did to create some of your models - David Megginson for the PA28 and Gary Neely's MD-81 for the MD-88 (for the other IDG aircraft I cannot track down their origins to see if those were also GPLv2+, as the git history has just been nuked).

Also note that in the proprietary world, you are not protected from users complaining about unauthorised copies. Pirating is an inevitable part of life in P3D. And the user reporting problems with their 'modified' aircraft will never, ever tell you that it is pirated.

In the proprietary world, development is driven by money. The motivation of the team members there is quite different. The way P3D development teams and FlightGear development teams materialise and operate are quite different. Think self-interest vs. altruism. Think competitive work environment vs. leisure time.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1801
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: Boom

Postby merspieler » Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:24 am

bugman wrote in Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:08 am:(for the other IDG aircraft I cannot track down their origins to see if those were also GPLv2+, as the git history has just been nuked)


Just in case you want to have a look at the history of the A320 and A330
https://gitlab.com/merspieler/IDG-A32X
https://gitlab.com/merspieler/IDG-A33X
Be the change you wish to see in the world, be an ally to all! Love is the answer.

If everything is going against you, keep in mind that airplanes take off against the wind, not with it.
merspieler
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:43 am
Location: Wish to be in YBCS
Callsign: JST935. ORI1711
IRC name: merspieler
Version: next
OS: Debian Bullseye

Re: Boom

Postby Octal450 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:19 pm

@Thorsten,
I can't really bothered to respond to all that AGAIN as I've done so more than enough times. I did not write any contradictions. You just don't understand.

Same goes for @tdammers - I explained more than enough times and you not understanding is your problem.

@bugman
Jesus christ, you seriously have no clue what you are talking about. Stop trying to argue. You just make a joke of yourself. Pretending like you know what goes on, come on bro, I've spoken personally with several P3D development teams already and I actually know how it goes on.

Second - for the VERY LAST TIME - what I did not do anything destructive. WHAT D-ECHO does in regarding to non-IDG content - IS NOT MY PROBLEM! Maybe he had something going on, and me leaving caused him to decide to do something. Who knows. DO NOT MAKE MY INTO THE PROBLEMS THAT DO NOT CONCERN ME! (Also it was 3 pages. 1 plane, 1 user page. Overreact much?)

And yes - IDG would probably still exist. Stop trying to guilt-shame me, I am 100% confident in my decisions - I AM NOT YOUR IDIOT! And if not, at least I would have learned this lesson of FG'ers attitude long ago and moved on earlier and saved me years of wasted time.

Lastly, regarding piracy - they are not really modifying my code - so I don't have a problem there, and as for the actual piracy itself, that's illegal. At least I can be against it without being called out for it. Plus, ever heard of software activation? Difficult to circumvent, plus we can do what Flight1 does and lock our support forums behind a proof of purchase tied to an account to prevent giving support to that. See again, you are CLUELESS to how these things operate but yet you pretend to know about it.

You're behavior in this thread is a BIG reason I lost motivation, interesting, and enjoyment from here.

And as for @merspieler - everytime you post in one of my threads I hate you more. Clearly my decision to ban you from our dev channel was a good one.

Now... - ALL you's just push me FURTHER away from FG every post - and this time - I CUT ALL THE ANCHORS to pull me back. So I hope you are proud of yourselfs.

Kind Regards,
Josh
Skillset: JSBsim, Systems, Canvas, Autoflight/Control Systems, Basic Animations
Aircraft: MD-11 (Mainly), A320-family, MD-80, Contribs in a few others

Octal450's Hangar|Launcher Catalog
|MD Dev Discord|Airbus Dev Discord
User avatar
Octal450
 
Posts: 4921
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm
Callsign: WTF411/Octal
Version: next
OS: Windows 7/10 x64

Re: Boom

Postby Thorsten » Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:10 pm

I did not write any contradictions. You just don't understand.


Sorry, but you quite plainly did - whether you understood that or not. :D

Now... - ALL you's just push me FURTHER away from FG every post - and this time - I CUT ALL THE ANCHORS to pull me back.


Oh, the drama (which supposedly you hate so much - speaking of yet another contradiction) ... :D

Bottomline - you get to do whatever makes you happy. You just don't get to declare that 'the only reasonable way' without opposition. What you say here is neither fair nor reasonable - and people keep telling you that,

Which is, I think, what annoys you so much...
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Boom

Postby tdammers » Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:56 pm

Octal450, I understand you perfectly well. You released your code under a GPL license, and now you realized that this means you cannot legally forbid people to use it.

I understand. I'm just telling you that it's nobody's fault but your own. If you don't want people to freely use your code, don't release it under a free software license. And when you do release your code under some license, *any* license, make sure you understand what privileges you are granting (or be prepared accept unintended consequences like this one). What you're trying to do here amounts to allowing someone to take your code and run with it, and then when they do, complain that that's not what you had in mind. That's not how it works.
tdammers
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:35 am
Callsign: NL256
IRC name: nl256

Re: Boom

Postby hans05 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:19 pm

Thorsten wrote in Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:10 pm:[.....]
What you say here is neither fair nor reasonable - and people keep telling you that,


This is my personal high light so far :-)
tdammers, Thorsten, bugman, wlbragg, Catalanoic are the world standard for "fair" and "reasonable".
There can be no doubt about that.
Do you understand that, Octal450!?!

Thorsten wrote in Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:10 pm:Which is, I think, what annoys you so much...


Why do you think?
Just read what Octal450 writes. Try to imagine that he is no stupid idiot and very well capable of deciding himself what annoys him so much (probably that what he wrote, which is not what you seem to think).

It is a pattern that everybody who talks negative in relation to FG is put down in a very aggressive way in this forum.
This is just special since Octal450 has maybe contributed more than most of the other "victims".
Still you do it :-(
hans05
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Boom

Postby Thorsten » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:23 pm

hans05 - just the guy I've been waiting for. Every time there's an argument, hans05 comes by to enjoy the show and stir things up a little bit more.

We know you absolutely do not like the way FG works Hans - we really do. But - once again - there doesn't seem to be anything positive you have to contribute to anything.

tdammers, Thorsten, bugman, wlbragg, Catalanoic are the world standard for "fair" and "reasonable".


Actually if you'd been following the debate, you'd know that Immanuel Kant may be (you know him? Famous philosopher not involved in FG) - but of course you haven't.

Why do you think?


Largely because I believe it's a good habit to do so :mrgreen:
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12048
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to Hangar talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest