20,741
edits
Frequently asked questions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Content Protection
| Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
{{See also|FlightGear Plugins}} | {{See also|FlightGear Plugins}} | ||
{{Cleanup}} | {{Cleanup}} | ||
Every once in a while, the question comes up if it is legal to provide closed source plug-in to FlightGear (more exact OSG file reader plug-in). The only need to keep code close is the prevention of reverse engineering. <ref>{{cite web | |||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/27996073/ | |||
|title = <nowiki> [Flightgear-devel] Content protection for modders? </nowiki> | |||
|author = <nowiki> Paul Guhl </nowiki> | |||
|date = Aug 25th, 2011 | |||
|added = Aug 25th, 2011 | |||
|script_version = 0.37 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
FlightGear has no provision to load aircraft from shared libraries. You can distribute your aircraft under a proprietary license, like Vitos does, but not as a shared library. It would take a lot of work to change FlightGear so it can load aircraft from shared libraries. Who would do that work and why would anyone do that when their time could be spent improving free software? And why would the core developers of FlightGear accept such a "contribution"?<ref>{{cite web | FlightGear has no provision to load aircraft from shared libraries. You can distribute your aircraft under a proprietary license, like Vitos does, but not as a shared library. It would take a lot of work to change FlightGear so it can load aircraft from shared libraries. Who would do that work and why would anyone do that when their time could be spent improving free software? And why would the core developers of FlightGear accept such a "contribution"?<ref>{{cite web | ||
|url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35073736/ | |url = https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/mailman/message/35073736/ | ||