From: Stuart B. <stu...@ya...> - 2009-03-31 07:22:39
|
gerard robin wrote: > On lundi 30 mars 2009, George Patterson wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, LeeE wrote: > > > > If the aircraft is going to be maintained ex-cvs but not maintained > > > within cvs, then retaining it within cvs just adds another > > > unmaintained aircraft to the list. > > > > > > While someone, at some point in the future, may adopt it, until that > > > actually happens all you're achieving by keeping it in cvs is > > > making an obsolete version available, which is worse than useless. > > > A link to the maintained version makes much more sense. > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > Agreed, except for the situation where the author of an aircraft > > decides to change the license. When this happens, a fork has been > > created, even if there is still only one version. > > > > If an aircraft is not available in CVS or somewhere else that is > > authoritative, where does that leave a community. The "former license" > > community has rights to extend the pre-fork version of the > > software/data. > > > > Just a thought. > > > > Regards > > > > > > George > > > I can gives some precisions, if that help , to decide. > > To me there is not any modification regarding the "Licence" , Before and > Today. > > The same model which was available from my HomePage could not be sold, and was > available from FG CVS could be sold. The rule has not changed. > > The difference is the content which is not the same on both side, since > the "not allowed to be sold" version is more advanced than the "allowed to be > sold version" which is frozen. > None is the "fork" of the other. I think this is a major argument that the CVS versions of the aircraft should remain rather than being deleted. As Martin has already mentioned, aircraft maintainers change over time, and while an aircraft may go without much attention for some time, someone will often step forward. A fine example of this is Heiko's work on the c172. -Stuart |