Re: [Opengc-devel] status/Avsim conference update/RFC

[Damion S. <be...@cs...>]

Hi,

> Like you, I have been both disappointed and puzzled by the singular 
> lack of
> support and interest within the sim community (hardware and software) 
> for
> projects like OpenGC. Yet there are any number of websites about 
> projects
> and individuals building flightdecks, selling software, and offering 
> all
> forms of products and services.

My impression, after talking to the folks at Avsim (who I would say are 
among the most fanatic members of the simming world) is that their 
hobby is flying, or perhaps to a smaller degree, constructing home 
cockpits, and not writing code. I think this is similar to the case of 
image editing; a lot of people will edit photos as a hobby, very few 
are interested in writing Gimp-like tools to do so. Moreover, the fact 
that people are interested in paying money to let other people do so is 
(IMHO) merely an indication that they're willing to pay for a 
professional quality product.

> Over the course of the past year I been focused on expanding the FG and
> OpenGC interaction and network design. The result is that my system has
> evolved into a highly customized simulation with FlightGear and OpenGC.

Ok, but this has not been contributed back to OpenGC as a whole. You 
attribute this to (from a recent email):

"since Damion went off on a different direction with the OpenGC project 
it's become incompatible and I just don't have the time, talent or 
resources to set up a website and CVS server or try to sync up with 
X-Plane or FSxxx."

If the only reason the project is useful to you is as the starting 
point for a private development branch (with the split occurring a year 
back), I don't know if that's a particularly convincing argument to 
continue development of the public version of the code. While there is 
nothing in the GPL that prohibits private development, it does little 
to improve the project as a whole.

> Throw in recent hardware designs ( and software drivers ) that provide 
> for
> throttle/control input, momentary and static switches, rotary encoders,
> light and LED displays, etc and one has pretty much all the technical 
> means
> to build a world class simulator. Just a question of high deep are your
> pockets for cockpit hardware and visual systems and how much time to 
> devote
> to construction.

Agreed - I think this is the view that the cockpit crowd is taking. In 
terms of the price to pay for a polished software product (which I 
think we can all agree OpenGC is not), it's really quite minimal 
compared to, for example, a single flat panel screen for an interior 
display.

> I am still troubled by your claim regards the source and copyright. 
> The code
> was moved from SourceForge so there is a question of continuity and 
> again I
> don't think CVS logs (which can be altered and edited) are sufficient 
> proof.

<sigh> If anyone wants to accuse me altering CVS logs in a 
conspiratorial grab for power... well, I consider myself an honest 
person and you're right, there really isn't any indisputable proof I 
can provide that would convince someone beyond a shadow of a doubt that 
I'm not lying.

> I can recall making and committing changes to all segments of the 
> OpenGC
> code from the make files to basic modules such as ogcAppObject,
> ogcRenderWindow, and ogcDataSources.So again, I would challenge your 
> claim
> of copyright and lay claim to those portions and modifications within 
> the
> larger document(s).

Fair enough. Look, if this is a serious issue (and it apparently is) it 
would be a fairly minimal amount of work to start completely from 
scratch. Although, my ability to convince people that I have started 
from scratch is a different question...

> Again, if you wonder why there is a lack of interest, perhaps this is 
> a good
> reason.

Is the suggestion that the lack of interest is due to my "claim of 
ownership" on OpenGC? The first time I've ever expressed a commercial 
interest in glass cockpit software was three days ago, and that was 
largely BECAUSE of the apparent lack of interest in contributing code 
to the project. It has never been suggested to me by anyone that I'm 
maintaining an inappropriate level of control over the project.

As a question to everyone, my main goal at this point is the following: 
I have a personal interest in starting a small company to develop glass 
cockpit hardware and software for homebuilt aircraft. OpenGC was shown 
at the EAA airshow in Oshkosh and, though it was quite popular, there 
was zero interest in the open source aspect of the project. None. 
Pilots want a complete drop-in solution and that's it.

To provide this: terrain databases (the good ones) cost money. Highway 
map databases cost money. Hardware costs money.

If someone can suggest a model whereby the open source and private 
development aspects of OpenGC can coexist, I'm all ears. One option 
would be moving the license to something like BSD or LGPL, although my 
guess would be that that would not be a particularly popular move 
either. My problem is not with having the bulk of the code of OpenGC in 
the open source arena; if I were that paranoid, I would not have GPL'd 
it in the first place.

Things get complicated in trying to figure out a way of releasing a 
"value added" version of OpenGC as payware. Apple has done this fairly 
successfully by releasing the Darwin core of OSX as open source and 
close sourcing their desktop. If something similar could be done with 
OpenGC, great!

Any suggestions?

-Damion-

---------
Damion Shelton
Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute
A408-o Newell Simon Hall
412.268.3866 (office)
412.818.8829 (cell)
412.268.6436 (fax)
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~beowulf
---------
I hope that after I die, people will say of me: "That guy sure owed me 
a lot of money."