Board index FlightGear Development Spaceflight

Space Shuttle

Discussion about development and usage of spacecraft

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby Johan G » Wed May 20, 2015 11:30 pm

@Thorsten: Those SSME plumes, as well as the way the change character during the launch looks stunning. :D

MIG29pilot wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 9:38 pm:Forum rules: Do NOT discuss law in the aircraft area!

It is a necessary evil, to some extent. The aircraft in FGAddon as well as FGMEMBERS must be released under the GNU General Public License license.

The GNU GPL is a license that will help aircraft live longer, by letting users copy, use, modify and redistribute aircraft (provided they are published openly; GPL is free as in 'free speech', not free as in 'free beer'). In essence they can be maintained even if the original author would have abandoned them.

Something I would wish aircraft developers starting a new aircraft would do is have the phrase or (at your option) any later version in the preamble. (See the 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' section after the license text of GNU General Public License, version 2. As it is now only some very few aircraft could be moved over to GPLv3 should the need arise.


@IAHM-COL: Relax a bit. :wink:


License discussion summary
Thorsten wrote in Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:28 pm:If you're really asking for the license, as it's based on GPL stuff ... it has to be GPL. If you're asking whether you can put it onto a repo, I can't prevent you from doing it, but there's a reason I have not done it, and it's not lack of commit rights.

IAHM-COL wrote in Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:36 pm:So I get that it is GPL.
I will mount it in FGMEMBERs so our FGDATA next users can fetch, and enjoy.
I Will leave a note there that you are not currently willing to receive issues and reports, so they won't be bothering you.

japreja wrote in Sat May 09, 2015 10:45 am:If I donate time to make models for this I prefer them to be under an MIT style license instead of a GPL so I hope that is OK.

IAHM-COL wrote in Sat May 09, 2015 2:57 pm:It is my understanding that airplane models looking for inclusion in FGFS need to be covered under GPL type of licenses, and thus I am afraid you may need to compromise with this one (as opposed with MIT license)

Hooray wrote in Mon May 11, 2015 8:12 am:Actually, once you understand the main differences between both licenses, you'll see that MIT is compatible with the GPL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
The license is also GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT License.[2]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_co ... patibility
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license- ... leLicenses
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3902 ... pl-license

Think about it this way: you can include public domain content into a GPL'ed project, but you cannot include GPL'ed content into a public domain project, due to the viral nature of the GPL and its requirements, which would render all of the work "GPL" otherwise.


IAHM-COL wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 4:00 pm:@Japreja
...
You mentioned your intent on your participation on the Shuttle was not GPL but Creative Commons.
Yet you began modifying and working on a GPL project with Thorsten.

Could you please verify that the SpaceShuttle remains a fully GPL compliant aircraft, in spite of your participation?

Thorsten wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 5:11 pm:
You mentioned your intent on your participation on the Shuttle was not GPL but Creative Commons.


No, he didn't - read the thread.

Could you please verify that the SpaceShuttle remains a fully GPL compliant aircraft, in spite of your participation?


He can't (and you know it) because he has no commit rights on the repository. So sorry, you'll have to deal with me for the time being. The statement stands that what goes to FGAddon is GPL material - live with it.

IAHM-COL wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 7:29 pm:I am unaware of the exact meaning of your statements above. In particular in what is related to the legal issues of the situation you are proposing. In particular I am having trouble to keep recognizing that 1) you have good intents related to the GPL license of the shuttle, and 2) that you want to be an open participant in the development of GNU covered software =such as Flightgear and the Shuttle.

Let me first remind you of the declaration of intent for Flightgear, as seen in the Readme file of FGDATA

http://sourceforge.net/p/fgdata/submodules/ci/next/tree/README
This project is GPL'd. For complete details on our licensing please see the "COPYING" file.


An important provision of GPL (among the most important ones) is "Copyleft".
It is not a very complex concept really. But it is centerfold to the enpowering of user's freedom provided under the GPL letter.
...
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby japreja » Wed May 20, 2015 11:33 pm

IAHM-COL wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 7:29 pm:Hi Thorsten

I am unaware of the exact meaning of your statements above. In particular in what is related to the legal issues of the situation you are proposing. In particular I am having trouble to keep recognizing that 1) you have good intents related to the GPL license of the shuttle, and 2) that you want to be an open participant in the development of GNU covered software =such as Flightgear and the Shuttle.

Let me first remind you of the declaration of intent for Flightgear, as seen in the Readme file of FGDATA


You are wrong IAHM-COL, the cockpit model is released under Creative Commons for this project http://www.blendswap.com/blends/view/74692 you better go ask him if he wants his license changed. I don't want to see two free software providers in a legal battle FlightGear and the Blender Foundation. The Blender Foundation can shut down this site if they felt like it.

Its best for the entire participatingh community to make certin of the facts first and not flame out in arrogance!
japreja
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: MT, USA
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby Richard » Wed May 20, 2015 11:58 pm

japreja wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 12:21 pm:...Richard just did a commit of changes to the cockpit and windows but I need the info from him to match the settings so there are no conflicting models. I tried to contact him yesterday through SF.net but nothing yet. I guess I have to wait.


My settings; using io_scene_ac3d - I just checked with the version that Thorsten mentioned from the c172p-detailed project and it seems fine.

Image

I tend to use mainly blender now; I might have used AC3D to do some of the work on the exterior - but I can't be sure.

Blender is less tolerant of non triangulated surfaces; so sometimes an AC3D model that works fine in FG will need work after importing - so I tend to keep the models in Blender and just export.as required to AC3D. There are at least two versions of the AC3D export; one that works (io_scene_ac3d) and one that doesn't (IME).

At the moment I'm still working on the texturing of the panels in the cockpit model - once I've got it into a sensible state I'll push the blend into the repository - until then I'd appreciate it if you didn't change the cockpit model.

As you might have noticed the internal and external windows don't line up; I've made it as best I can for the moment - but couldn't figure out which was right; there seems to be differences between the original FG models, the NASA model and the photographs.

I didn't receive the email from sf.net; you can send direct to rjh aht zaretto doht com; but please CC Thorsten in any emails.
Last edited by Johan G on Thu May 21, 2015 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: The are spiders crawling the net for email addresses...
Richard
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:17 pm
Version: Git
OS: Win10

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby japreja » Thu May 21, 2015 12:29 am

At the moment I'm still working on the texturing of the panels in the cockpit model - once I've got it into a sensible state I'll push the blend into the repository - until then I'd appreciate it if you didn't change the cockpit model.


That would be perfect, I will load in the UI settings that are saved with the file. I am going to check if the plugin triangulated any of the faces I turned to quads in the SSME model I posted a few posts back. I am not going to touch any work you have done until I can open and export a sample that matches the development version.

@the rest
I personaly don't mind the GPL for anything I do, the only reason I prefer MIT style licensing is because it allows me to sell my work and allows anyone recieving a copy to use and sell as well without asking permission. So it gives even more freedom even for commercial use.

However, anyone can still just hop over to NASA and grab the model and put their changes/additions to it to use it in FG and distribute it off site under whichever license they want, they can also sell it if they choose and their license permits it.
japreja
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: MT, USA
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby japreja » Thu May 21, 2015 12:41 am

As you might have noticed the internal and external windows don't line up; I've made it as best I can for the moment - but couldn't figure out which was right;


The hard way to do it is to just join the meshes, connect the verts by selecting one from the window first, then the one on the windowframe (where it was detached from) and hit "alt M" and select last so it goes to the proper position. The you will need to split them after they are all connected and make sure you can see through them again.

Thats the only way I have ever done it, I haven't learned any other way to do it.

there seems to be differences between the original FG models, the NASA model and the photographs.

The NASA model is inaccurate, OMS Pods are incomplete, the wing shape is off. and the size is about 2 feet off for the body, the SSME's are 1ft under what they should be for width which is 7 1/2 feet. Pluss nasa did an update to the model recently.
japreja
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: MT, USA
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu May 21, 2015 1:17 am

@Japreja

Thanks for answering

1) I am still going unclear here
2) I understood the 3d model on the SpaceShuttle cockpit is not the one on the webpage you pointed out (which was brought up way before in this thread), but one being currently work-out independently by R. Harrison ==to the purpose of allowing this cockpit to be included in the FG distribution. Basically if it is not GPL, it will not be included into the FG official aircraft collection (a.k.a FGAddon)
3) The same over 2 above applies to your work on this aircraft
4) I am uncertain why you believe MIT license gives you more commercial freedom than GPL. I may need help there too, since it is my understanding, GPL does give you entirely commercial freedom on selling your derivative (or even non-derivative) copy of the software. It also gives others complete commercial liberty over the same. (just as you described over MIT). Thus, you aregument over the license preference here may be misinformed.
5) Creative commons, will totally obliterately the advantage outlined over 4 above, so it will be more compilcated to take "commercial" liberties if some/all of this work is Creative Commons.
6) Deriving work over the shuttle (a GPL aircraft) and began creating more restrictive work upon it, is a rather more complex legal scenery. And thus, I am asking for specific, but True and accurate information on this case. [and thus I brought CopyLeft concept: This is where the legal mayhem begins]
7) No emotions involved. So, don't worry about "arrogant flaming wars". I want to fly, not fight.

@Johan

I am not much relaxed. But this topic is very unimportant to me, compared to my personal issues at the moment (reffer to JAFVA thread).
In this particular case, I just need clear specific information on what's happening to the licensing of this GPL aircraft, and particularly how/why.
I don't want this to become legally blurry --which seems to be potentially the path this is now taking.
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? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby japreja » Thu May 21, 2015 2:33 am

IAHM-COL wrote in Thu May 21, 2015 1:17 am:@Japreja

Thanks for answering

6) Deriving work over the shuttle (a GPL aircraft) and began creating more restrictive work upon it, is a rather more complex legal scenery. And thus, I am asking for specific, but True and accurate information on this case. [and thus I brought CopyLeft concept: This is where the legal mayhem begins]


I don't know who created any restrictions, I posted that I dont mind the GPL, hence anything I do is fine to be licensed GPL. Someplace is the credit to Kuhn Industries for the cockpit, I dont recall if it was in the wiki, or on this forum, or in this thread, etc... but it was here on FG someplace.

All I am stating is that anyone can download the origional model from NASA directly and make modification, that does not mean that anyone can claim that modification as GPL just because it is linked in a forum. I am going to be realy technical for a moment and don't intend to offend anyone:

Any aircraft manufacturer whose aircraft representation FG is using can, at any time, demand to see written authorization of proper licensing of their aircraft. If no written authorization can be provided (usualy within 30 days) they have legal right to contact FG's service provider and shut down the entire server.

That being said, I like flightgear, I don't want to see it dissapear. So please don't just grab things and use them because you want to, please get written authorization, paper writing (hard copy), from the proper owners of the materials. Most likely, if they allow their crafts to be used, they already have awesome models that they may be willing to share a suitable version for everyone to enjoy. They usualy charge a fee for this licensing, even if it is only for the paperwork and shipping/mailing of the license.

That is why I am choosing the Shuttle to work with, it is Public Domain Licensed by NASA and the US Government (taxpayers who paid the craft). The other aircraft in FG I am unsure of and am steering clear of them so I don't get arrested for Piracy just by downloading an unauthorised aircraft representation or license.

So please be carefull just grabbing things and putting them in the official distribution, and that is for everyone putting models there...

All the Developers should group together and have a meeting somehow on the web, find out what aircraft are suitable for the official distribution and then contact the aircraft manufacturers of each for approval/licensing requests. It can be split up between devs to minimize the work of making phone calls and sending emails. Then FG will be able to put a great big "Officialy Licensed Aircraft" on them and the community and userbase will grow exponentialy.

I think you will, anyone would, agree that that would be awesome! Thats all I am going to say on that subject. I am only downloading/flying the public doamin and properly GPL'd aircraft. All others are deleted from my drive.

Besides, in order to become legaly GPL licecened, you have to submit a copy of the GPL'd work to the GNU Foundation for approval and inclusion or they will not cover you in any legal disputes.
japreja
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: MT, USA
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu May 21, 2015 2:53 am

japreja wrote in Thu May 21, 2015 2:33 am:I don't know who created any restrictions, I posted that I dont mind the GPL, hence anything I do is fine to be licensed GPL.



Thanks! :D
That's just the clarification I needed!
Best
IH-COL
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? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby japreja » Thu May 21, 2015 4:59 am

IAHM-COL wrote in Tue May 19, 2015 6:50 pm:
Cloning as you did is the correct proccedure
Then you need to checkout to the branch you want to work on
Basically, inside the repository tree you do:

Code: Select all
git checkout -t origin/development


Then your tree will be in the development branch and your changes will be committed in that branch instead.
(thus you can pull/push appropriately)

I hope it helps


The code I am going to refer to is a bit off topic for this thread but it shows the only other time I have used git which is with the Blender Source tree. The code I was given to update my local files for building Blender was the following: (I placed this in a batch file so I can just double click for the code update)

This is blender specific .bat script (disregard the first three lines)
Code: Select all
cd lib\windows_vc12
svn update
cd ..\..\blender
git pull --rebase
git submodule foreach git pull --rebase origin master
pause


this project does not use SVN that I am aware of but will I be able to use the last two lines just changing master to development and removing "submodule foreach git"? Do I need to use this --rebase option for anything? or is this --rebase specific to .lib files and such (binary files)?

This was the only way I was able to successfuly build blender from sources on Win 7 32-Bit using Express and Community versions of VS 2012/2013.
japreja
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: MT, USA
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu May 21, 2015 5:07 am

That's quite a non-simple example right there japreja

1. blender is using submodules to manage internal dependencies. You can forget about that with the shuttle.

2. first of, clone as indicated before:

Code: Select all
git clone git://git.code.sf.net/p/fgspaceshuttledev/code SpaceShuttle


(note I used SpaceShuttle for the directory name, so FG uses the aircraft as is)
Enter the directory of the repository

Code: Select all
git branch

Verify that you have both branches. The answer should be

* master
development

The asterisk tells you which branch you are located at, currently

Code: Select all
git checkout development
git branch


git checkout changes you to development. git branch verifies. The answer should be

* development
master

also

Code: Select all
git checkout master

is self explanatory now

you can pull just by doing

Code: Select all
git pull


Need not use the --rebase part of it
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? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby Thorsten » Thu May 21, 2015 5:13 am

Israel, if that's the only language you understand: I place code to FGData or FGAddon with the explicit understanding that it is GPL. This does not automatically hold for code I have written even if you can grab it in the forum or from anywhere else as you seem to assume.

There is code which is based on GPL material I have expanded which is then automatically GPL by inheritance. There is also stuff I have written from scratch not based on any material, for which I then hold the copyright and which I can license when and how I like.

The salient point which you should have read is:

All I am stating is that anyone can download the origional model from NASA directly and make modification, that does not mean that anyone can claim that modification as GPL just because it is linked in a forum.

Now you have your answer, kindly remove yourself from this thread and let us continue to work.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu May 21, 2015 5:19 am

please work.
Nothing makes me happier than see your progress.
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? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby Thorsten » Thu May 21, 2015 5:28 am

Just to make sure - you did understand that you do not automatically have permission to grab any of my code and re-distribute it as GPL on the mere grounds that you assume it will become GPL eventually and that you technically can access it? You understand that you actually need me to license the code (explicitly or implicitly by committing to FGAddon or FGData) first?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby japreja » Thu May 21, 2015 11:03 am

@Thorsten :)

I think you will like this, its a fit! :D You just have to imagine it with the tail cone and supports and it will line up nicely. The 747 can use a few touchups BEFORE being re-textured. There are alot of stray verts on the 747 meshes and some extra meshes overlapping. Open the thumbnail and the click the image on that page to get full size render. but the full size image is about 8Mb, for some reason :/

Image
japreja
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: MT, USA
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64bit

Re: Space Shuttle

Postby MIG29pilot » Thu May 21, 2015 4:23 pm

Johan G wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 11:30 pm:@

MIG29pilot wrote in Wed May 20, 2015 9:38 pm:Forum rules: Do NOT discuss law in the aircraft area!

It is a necessary evil, to some extent. The aircraft in FGAddon as well as FGMEMBERS must be released under the GNU General Public License license.



Does this mean A) The copying, modeling and redistribution of Aircraft by Flightgear would be illegal otherwise, or B) We are not taking the chance?
User avatar
MIG29pilot
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 4:03 pm
Location: 6 feet under Snow
Callsign: MIG29pilot
Version: 3.7nightly
OS: Windows 10

PreviousNext

Return to Spaceflight

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest