Re: [Flightgear-devel] Proposed new set of splash screens

[leee <le...@sp...>]

On Wednesday 24 Feb 2010, Durk Talsma wrote:
[snip...]
>
> As follows from this, I have to add that I'm not too excited
> about all the invidual hangars, and scenery repository sites
> (such as "unitedfreeworld") that I'm seeing spring to life right
> now. I do realize that these sites serve their purpose as a
> temporary storage for material that needs further refinement, and
> also accept the fact that some materials simply cannot be added
> to cvs due to the fact that original materials were incompatible
> with the GPL, but apart from these cases, I do believe that it
> should be encouraged that eligible materials go into CVS.
>
> Cheers,
> Durk

While I agree with the reasoning behind only using aircraft that are 
owned by the FG project for promotional screenshots I simply don't 
understand the sentiments behind what you said above.

If people _want_ to offer their work to the FG project that's fine, 
and I was always happy to do so, but your statement above seems to 
suggest to me that you believe that the FG project should be 
_entitled_ to ownership of any works produced in connection with 
it.  Not even Microsoft seeks such a monopoly over applications and 
data that is used with its products.

While the GPL is liked and approved of by many, myself included, it 
must be recognised that not everybody likes it or wishes to release 
their work under it.  Furthermore, it is not a case of the GPL 
being _right_ and everything else being _wrong_: people should be 
allowed to release their work under whatever conditions they 
choose.

I'm afraid that that last paragraph really smacked of control 
freakery to me, which is precisely what what open-source is _not_ 
all about.  And that's not even getting into the issue of control 
without responsibility, for if the FG project is to control 
everything, is it in a position to accept the  responsibility of 
maintaining and fixing it all?

LeeE