Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Jabberwocky » Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:07 pm

Soooo ... we have a good idea and it is nobody's fault?
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby KL-666 » Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:14 pm

Probably it just grew in the discussion. Nice example of collaboration :-)
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Johan G » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:54 pm

I guess that is collaboration at its best. :)
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: 5719
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: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby DFaber » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:32 pm

IAHM-COL wrote in Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:04 pm:Sure. We use GPL policy. That is, we take for granted that when author X releases under GPL he had already granted license to copy, distribute and modify. We don't reask : "Did you mean, really, you accept GPL?".


We all know what it means to publish an aircraft under GPL. What you don't seem to understand is that it is a relationship of respect and a common interest. A polite offer to give and eventually recieve help wit the complex task of building an Aircraft. It's not just sending patches and cry havoc when they get rejected.

IAHM-COL wrote in Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:04 pm:Next, we preffer inviting those authors to join the FGMEMBERs team.


Thanks a lot, but I won't participate in your forkig game and prefer to stay with FGADDON.


Greetings
Detlef Faber
FlightGear Development:
http://flightgear-de.net

German FlightGear Forum
http://forum.flightgear-de.net
DFaber
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Aachen, Germany
Version: GIT
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby IAHM-COL » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:34 pm

Hooray wrote in Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:43 pm:I really suggest to tread carefully here - just imagine for a second that some really popular aircraft like the 777 is being developed concurrently, and independently, in different forks (not just topic branches), I am not "just" referring to XML files, 3D models or textures, but also a flabbering amount of Nasal code - most of which cannot be easily maintained/refactored, let alone unified/integrated, by a 3rd party..


I already imagined.
I already saw it happening

And what I am seeing, is good

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/c172p-deta ... rk/members
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: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby IAHM-COL » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:53 pm

DFaber wrote in Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:32 pm:prefer to stay with FGADDON.


Greetings


Greetings DFaber
That is another interesting point as well, that is rarely commented on

Nothing prevent an aircraft developer to have commit rights in both areas.
Its not a matter of staying over one side or the other.


As a matter of fact, there are people with write access to the FGMEMBERS repository, that also have commit rights over the FGAddon. Don't think this as "stay or leave" please.

People also develop frequently in repositories of their own, with no direct association to FGMEMBERs, but FGMEMBERs fork their work for redistribution via FGData next with submodules; if their work is GPL. Sometimes this work is commited later to FGAddon, sometimes is just not.

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: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Thorsten » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:53 am

It's not a matter of staying over one side or the other.


Quite so - there's not even a choice staying over one side or the other, as you don't give people the choice to opt out.

And that's a strange way of touting 'freedom for aircraft developers' - you ignore their stated intentions in the name of their freedom? Seems like a philosophical problem to me...

The freedom given by GPL is a harsh one - it allows people do use things I have created in ways I might find utterly abhorrent. In FG at least, we have the tradition of tempering it by talking to each other and trying to accomodate the intentions and wishes of developers. It doesn't always work, but we don't systematically disregard them because we can. You do away with that in your fork.

In FG, it never ever happened to me that I said 'X is not ready' and it got committed anyway. That experience was my first close contact with your FGMEMBERS fork. Go figure...
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11605
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby DFaber » Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:23 pm

IAHM-COL wrote in Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:53 pm:
Nothing prevent an aircraft developer to have commit rights in both areas.
Its not a matter of staying over one side or the other.


I know, but I simply don't want to maintain an Aircraft in 2 or more repositories. I don't want to scan multiple places to eventually find something useful. I prefer to spend my spare time developing, rather than digging through tons of commit logs. If anybody likes to contribute to an Aircraft I maintain there is always the possibility to contact me via E-Mail or the Developers List. I'm with FlightGear for 8 Years now and it has always worked that way: I recieve and review contributions for Aircraft maintained by me. If I like to add something to another Aircraft I contact the maintainer.

Greetings
Detlef Faber
FlightGear Development:
http://flightgear-de.net

German FlightGear Forum
http://forum.flightgear-de.net
DFaber
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Aachen, Germany
Version: GIT
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby drdavid » Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:59 pm

Hello All-- I have just opened a new thread titled "On the Current State of Affairs in FlightGear." http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=26115 In it I discuss the massive changes FlightGear is facing as we enter into our second generation and how this current ongoing controversy is evidence of that change. All that and much, much more!

Regards,

DrDavid
drdavid
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:05 am
Location: KEUG; KPDX, CYXT; KXTA
Callsign: SkyBoat
Version: 3.2.0
OS: Windows 8.1

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Buckaroo » Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:45 pm

Thorsten wrote:The freedom given by GPL is a harsh one - it allows people do use things I have created in ways I might find utterly abhorrent. In FG at least, we have the tradition of tempering it by talking to each other and trying to accomodate the intentions and wishes of developers. It doesn't always work, but we don't systematically disregard them because we can.

This.

I am not opposed to an alternative method of version control and collaboration. If FGMEMBERS had been founded using only works voluntarily submitted by authors, then I might have tried it myself. But I cannot support an environment that acquires works that it did not originate, GPL or otherwise, without first seeking the consent of active authors. The automatic copying of works in FGADDON or the taking of content found in private sites is not necessary to demonstrate the value of the alternative repository. This policy is disrespectful, risks damaging the community, and generates unnecessary opposition to an idea that might otherwise have merit.

-Buck
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Author: Lockheed 1049H Constellation, Grumman Goose, MD-81, Edgley Optica, Velocity XL RG, YASim Guide
User avatar
Buckaroo
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:45 am
Location: Bloomington IN USA
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Version: 2.10
OS: Windows & Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Jabberwocky » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:07 pm

Hi Buck,

The point for both repositories was actually to provide a place where users can find all aircrafts or at least most of them. Thorsten in his usually malignant use of words tries to twist it as if there would be any force to join FGMEMBERS. There is not. On the other hand, FGADDON tried exactly that by misusing the term "official" ad nauseam, aggressive courting (see Curt trying to pull me over at the 727 thread) and twisting the reality.

But here is the rub: I am in FGMEMBERS now. Nobody forced me. And I don't need to "pull people over" or "pressure" them. If you are happy at FGADDON, stay there, no problem for anybody in FGMEMBERS. Just no problem.

J.
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Hooray » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:14 pm

honestly, if I were making postings misrepresenting things like yours above, I would be kinda expecting to be censored eventually - you could run a forum search and would find countless of instances/postings, and even whole threads, where I strongly disagree with things Thorsten has said - and even most recently, you'll find some "snide" remarks, too - but I don't think you're currently being truthful by doing what you are doing - no matter how often I may have disagree with Thorsten on some details, and no matter how often I may end up having a different opinion in the future.

Some of you seem to be thinking that Thorsten has any official capacity/authority on the forum - which is far from the truth, Thorsten just happens to be a regular poster on the forum with a remarkable track record, which makes him pretty credible and accountable among, both, long-term contributors and forum users - and in fact, usually, you'll see him trying to "interface" between both camps, and often even pretty successfully so.

As far as I am aware, Thorsten doesn't have any privileges to moderate the forum currently - even though I do think that such privileges would be in better hands than in mine admittedly :lol: (which still isn't to say that I agree on everything Thorsten says or does, I think we can still respect him for what he's done and is doing).

fgaddon is the only official aircraft repository, and stating that each and every day from now on, is no misuse - unless the main project decides to introduce another repository.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11783
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Jabberwocky » Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:27 pm

Tryijng to censor me again for saying the truth, Hooray?
Now, here is the rub again: FG is an open source project. As thus, FG has NO official management, just volunteers of which some coordinate things. So by definition, there is no "official" because there are formally not even people who are official leaders. Everything depends on what someone does. But to claim leadership and just to decide is under this conditions some kind of big over stepping the boundaries. The repeated use of "official" is therefore actually a misuse because for obvious reasons, there can't be a thing like "official" in an open source project. As you told me in our first discussion per PM yourself. Maybe you still remember what you wrote me then?

J.
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby KL-666 » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:30 pm

Fgaddon as i see it is (meant to be in the future) a repository of quality planes that can proudly be presented to users. Any plane that meets the requirements (also from fgmembers) can become a fgaddon plane. Of course there can be always disagreement about meeting the quality criteria. But then the plane can still be straight downloaded from fgmembers, just like we do now from countless obscure private hangars.

That some people like to call fgaddon "official" should not cause so much problems. It is just a word. And if anyone thinks the word is inappropriate it does not have to irritate them. Just think of fgaddon what it is. The people that use the word "official" actually mean the same.

About the the point of Buck:
There are indeed two realms. One of what can be done (GPL) and one of what would be nicer to do (contact the main developers). I think the makers of fgmembers did not want to be unnice, but in their eagerness to create a global repository for users like me (so i do not need to search the internet, often in vain for a plane), they have forgotten this point.

I hope they still get the chance to correct this by mailing everyone involved to ask if the repository can stay or not. [edit] And get a fair answer as if this had not happened. [/edit] As you said, it is "an idea that might otherwise have merit"

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby IAHM-COL » Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:54 pm

@Buck and @ALL

Dear Buck,

As I had mentioned to you via PM as well as publicly, FGMEMBERs copies/modifies/and redistribute material related to FG Aircraft that are under GPL, and keep them GPL. The rule and regulation is not a "FG written or unwritten rule about author's preference" but a written legally binding document: The GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Copying of material from sources such as FGAddon (recursively restoring new updates with a cronjob) as well as exploring private hangars with FG aircraft is done continuosly. GPL material is then copied to the FGMEMBERs repositories, and when required a GPL notice is left over the root of the repo (as per GPL "clauses").

There is no need to request for authors "authorization". The authorization is already given. As soon as one releases GPL, the authorization to do it is granted. I will say "graciously" "generously" "altruistically" granted. And I would not ever call such advantages provided by GPL "abhorrent" .

There is not a lack of respect to any aircraft author when this is done. On the contrary, when someone else forks our FGMEMBER repo to make changes of his own over a give aircraft, I understand that a due respect is pay to everyone with a previous contribution. Thus, no-one will ever copy a material that's unworthy the time.

In addition, authors, after releasing GPL don't get to say what of this 3 liberties are applicable. (example limitations on redistribution, or limitations on freedom of modification and redistribution of modification --if these are remained as GPL).
GPL actually protects itself for such type of convenants, or at least on the ability of enforce such type of convenants:

GPL2 wrote:6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.


***

There are fundamental reasons why I actively "pursue" re-copying of new material over FGAddon and other private GPL Aircraft sources.
FGMEMBERs attempts to be an alternative replacement for FGAddon. That is, we can tell users to feel free to get their aircraft from FGMEMBERS. By rebasing work from FGAddon on a regular basis, we can guarantee those FG users, that they are getting updated material over FGMEMBERs, and thus that replacement is valid. Users of FGMEMBERs are not getting outdated material, but material that has been updated from the FGAddon or other sources within the week.
Every commit over FGAddon transfers with a cronjob. And that is part of the piece of mind for users using FGMEMBERs. They can stay on top of the newest greatest development FG Aircraft constructors are doing in FGMEMBERs, FGAddon, and elsewhere.

FGdata next with submodules is equally in this situation. As a branch of FGData next, new commits and advances over FGDATA are equally available to users that had decided to obtain from the branches that allows submodularly to recover aircrafts, as well.
We keep FG progress over FGDATA on a daily basis. Thus, fetching FGDATA next with submodules, again, can be guaranteed, does not represent a loose of the tip of development ocurring in FG.
Again, we admire all this work, and we keep with its progress.

***

I definitely understand how that makes a clear distinction over previous "private hangars" in that FGMEMBERs can be used for a complete alternative over FGAddon (for both developers and end users).

But that distinction is not bad. No one looses. Not the developers, nor the users. Using FGMEMBERs is a really effective mechanism to reach integration. You can look for planes all over the internet sphere, but you may also try to use FGMEMBERs as a hub, where a coincidence of these happen.

And such distiction is not enought to make FGMEMBERs a fork of Flightgear (understanding flightgear as the complete "core" of the project, as opposed as understanding fligthgear as a collection of aircraft -for flightgear-)

****

I am monitoring closely FGMEMBERs about having all GPL content. So far only 1 repository in FGMEMBERs contains a few non-GPL files (the piper-archer).
This means in addition that developers that join FGMEMBERs know that they agreed, as an example, that their commits and work can be copied and distributed elsewhere: example the FGAddon.

That means that commits that exist in FGMEMBERs can be rebased to the Svn repository if someone finds a commit of interest for that area. So, really, it is a double way highway.

***

I did invite you, Buck, and also DFaber, and also Thorsten, and Curt, and everyone to join the FGMEMBERS developer's groups. The invitation had been accepted by some. Rejected by others under one / or other/ or several other positions. There is not "enforcement" to join. But all the negatives -those that decide not to join- receive a rain-check for a response. You can reconsider, and join later if it fits.

FGMEMBERs really is a new paradigm in aircraft development for FG. You can fork any repo and then submit a merge request -a posteriori -. That is, effectively, a 'note' to the aircraft maintainer. Development can happen in one or several individual forks, and merge back to FGMEMBERs for a centralized distribution. That's all there is to it. And that's why "freedom" as in "free software" applies. GPL tells us we can. And we do. On that plane field, all contributors are thanked.
We also encourage new blood to start getting into the idea that FG project has so much work to do in so many entertaining planes, that everyone can learn a little skill and start collaborating now. Everyone has been already granted permission to participate. Since the progress can occur in separate forks, no need to be afraid of beginners messing their own repository. When it happens, it can be restored.


So, I think is somewhat fair to say I court the whole community to join us. Because I do. And I will do. And I think that's for the best common good of FG community

****

I have already express several disagreements over the FGAddon operations, but that need to continue no further. There are two areas, and people can develop in either or both, as they wish. I still disagree, thou with certain "overpowering" attitudes over FGAddon write commit access by some group of developers, but really, that should not speak strongly about me.

http://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mai ... /33990398/

L. Brenta wrote:If he has not responded so far and if nobody on this list can tell you
how to contact him, I think you should go ahead and apply your patches.
The official FGAddon repository cannot afford unmaintained aircraft or
MIA authors; the people with commit permission to FGAddon should have
no qualms about applying trivial "basic maintenance" patches to any
aircraft in that repository and the reason why they have received
commit
permission is because they have shown their good judgment in this
matter.
Aircraft authors who don't like other people touching their aircraft
should not try to make their aircraft official in FGAddon in the first
place.


So I say, go ahead.

--
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

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest