Discussion OVP software license change

[jarmonik]

Out of topic content removed. Apology for Face remains.

 

[Face]

Out of topic content removed. Apology for Face remains.

Ditto and apology accepted.

 

[Lucy]

Oh, you were just being Facetious. Then I apologize making a wrong conclusions (with my bad English) regarding your out-of-context joke. I would prefer no-more jokes in this thread if that's O.k.

The "facetious" term was from Donamy, and I am pretty sure it was tongue-in-cheek. I was not joking regarding my opinion, and the out-of-context quoting was done by you, not me.

Now that this is settled, can we perhaps keep the thread on-topic?

 

[kamaz]

Of course we have the commit logs. I was mostly referring to a code changes posted by some people through the Orbiter Forum without any kind of license with the changes.

In order to be copyrightable, the work must be creative. Works which are short and trivial (like most bugfixes) are not creative and thus not copyrightable.

 

[jarmonik]

In order to be copyrightable, the work must be creative. Works which are short and trivial (like most bugfixes) are not creative and thus not copyrightable.

Yesterday, I spend 6 hours to browse through the D3D9Client development thread and now I have a pretty good contributor list available. Besides me and Kuddel only three persons have contributed something that is creative and therefore copyright-able. It would seem that runway lights are the biggest concern right now. I suppose it would be easier and probably faster to scrub the file and re-implement it from a scratch. If that is a valid option ? Now, I'll try to reach all other contributors.

 

[kamaz]

I suppose it would be easier and probably faster to scrub the file and re-implement it from a scratch. If that is a valid option ?

Yes.

 

[Bibi Uncle]

I wrote the runway lights code (and Jarmonik finished it) and, as I stated here, Jarmonik's answer to the license change will be mine. Therefore, I agree with the change for LGPL and my code can be kept.

 

[jarmonik]

I wrote the runway lights code (and Jarmonik finished it) and, as I stated here, Jarmonik's answer to the license change will be mine. Therefore, I agree with the change for LGPL and my code can be kept.

Yes, you did that and I appreciate it a lot. But does it contain code from Asmi ?
If Yes, then we need his approval as well. It would be better to have it anyway just-in-case. I'll sent some e-mail in a few days.

 

[Bibi Uncle]

As far as I remember, I wrote all the code by myself. I inspired myself on Asmi's runway lights config settings (such as the approach distance, etc.), but I didn't use any of his code. I agree that it's a good idea to ask his permission anyway, it can't harm anybody.

 

[martins]

I have now changed the license terms for OVP to dual GPLv3 + LGPLv3. Hopefully this satisfies all requests regarding OVP licensing.

 

[DaveS]

As I apparently have a say in this matter due to my work on the sunrise/sunset effects in D3D9Client, I don't have a problem with the license change. It all looks good here.

 

[Felix24]

I approve of the license change. Carry on.

 

[Poscik]

I also approve for LGPL

 

[Phoenix]

I received a message about the license change to the D3D9Client, and it lists me as a contributor. I don't recall being a developer for the D3D9Client, although my memory is poor.

I recall making one post in a forum about making a small change to a shader to enable anti-aliased lines on lesser computers such as mine, and another shader fix for a night lights problem on certain Intel machines, like mine, and maybe a few recommendations about runway lighting, but I think that was it. I don't think any of my code made it into the standard distribution, so I don't think I have contributed anything, really.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the license change.

Thanks.