Programming Question How can I get the source code.

[donald3102]

Orbiter is open source, then how can I get the code.
I really want build my own orbiter! THX.

 

[Izack]

It isn't open source. Was there any information on the web stating that it is? That would need to be corrected.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Not open source. But open to customization due to the many add-ons available.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Orbiter is open source, then how can I get the code.
I really want build my own orbiter! THX.

Orbiter is licensed freeware AFAIK, free for use but intelectually the property of the good Doctor. The main reason for this is to allow coordinated standard releases, & to keep scumbag types from selling Orbiter as a "games pack". Having the program licensed means that Mr. Schweiger could prosecute them if he wanted, whereas the creators of Flightgear cannot.

Open-source and freeware are two distinct things

 

[Enjo]

Mr. Schweiger could prosecute them if he wanted, whereas the creators of Flightgear cannot.

... don't want to, I think.

 

[Spacethingy]

There may be a bit of confusion, as Orbiter is on Sourceforge, but this is just for distributing the binaries. I think quite a few mods are open source projects though.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

... don't want to, I think.

Why not?

 

[Face]

There may be a bit of confusion, as Orbiter is on Sourceforge, but this is just for distributing the binaries. I think quite a few mods are open source projects though.

Orbiter itself is on Sourceforge? Are you sure you are not mistaking it for OVP?

 

[Enjo]

Why not?

Because they know what license they chose and that it doesn't prohibit commercial distribution. Yes, people can be that generous. Unless they didn't know what they were doing that is...

 

[Face]

Why not?

I think he meant that the author of Flightgear could well sue if he wanted to, because open source does not immediately mean abandoning all copyrights. If scumbags try to make money with it by presenting open source products as their own work, they are vulnerable. If they are clever and just sell distributions, but give credit, they might have a chance, though.

Edit: :ninja:'d, but the point is still valid.

 

[Matias Saibene]

When I met Orbiter, was in Softonic.com. Softonic says Orbiter is GPL. Must be a confusion between the term "free" (freeware) and free software (GPL, etc.). On my language was differ in the free software (software libre, GPL) and freeware (software que no se necesita pagar, pero no es GPL).

Link to Softonic: http://orbiter.en.softonic.com/

 

[Enjo]

And you're right. Orbiter is technically Freeware.

 

[jedidia]

Link to Softonic: http://orbiter.en.softonic.com/

Ummm... that shouldn't be there as far as I'm aware... I think the license prohibits distribution by third parties, especially if they pack it into a lousy installer that comes with dubious software included... :shifty:

 

[Urwumpe]

Ummm... that shouldn't be there as far as I'm aware... I think the license prohibits distribution by third parties, especially if they pack it into a lousy installer that comes with dubious software included... :shifty:

Exactly. But that is martins job to complain there... we can only notify softonic that they do something that can cause problems in the future.

If softonic packs Orbiter with an installer to generate revenue... martins could invest some money into a lawyer and send a C&D to softonic - and finance a new computer that way.

 

[Face]

Ummm... that shouldn't be there as far as I'm aware... I think the license prohibits distribution by third parties, especially if they pack it into a lousy installer that comes with dubious software included... :shifty:

I think this applies here:

You are allowed to distribute Orbiter, as long as you do not charge any fee for the software or distribution without explicit permission by the licensor. If you offer Orbiter as an online download (Orbiter mirror site), the site must refer to the software as "Orbiter Space Flight Simulator" and contain a link to the Orbiter home page. The download and access to the download page must be unrestricted and free of charge.

The softonic site is not listing it as "Orbiter Space Flight Simulator", the link to the home page is not there, the download and access is not unrestricted, as it is a downloader binary. Three strikes for one license term is enough to warrant a lawsuit.

Still it is Martin's call, and since there is no direct money transfer involved, I guess the gain is not worth the troubles. Chances are high that you won't even get your lawyer costs back...

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Still it is Martin's call, and since there is no direct money transfer involved, I guess the gain is not worth the troubles. Chances are high that you won't even get your lawyer costs back...

Still worth a try though. I think similar issues have been resolved before by simply sending an email explaining the situation to the parties in question.

Besides, who would try to sell Orbiter to the general public? They'd have to be crazy :lol:

 

[Face]

Still worth a try though. I think similar issues have been resolved before by simply sending an email explaining the situation to the parties in question.

Sending an email assumes that the other party just wanted to help out by means of mirroring the Orbiter distribution. In this case, I strongly doubt that this is the intention. I think it is all about distributing a downloader software that is riddled with ads, or in other words: to make money. I bet an email will be well received with an ignore rule.

I disagree that it is worth a try to send a C&D, because there is too little evidence for direct money making with Orbiter per se. I think you could only base your case on the shown license violations, which will not get you a new PC or somesuch. As I wrote: chances are high that you won't even get your lawyer costs back.

 

[Spacethingy]

Orbiter itself is on Sourceforge? Are you sure you are not mistaking it for OVP?

Ah, it used to be, but now I'm vaguely remembering Martin having to remove the binaries for some reason. (Someone needs to update this SF wiki page to remove the dead SF links.)

So, you're right, it is just OVP on SF now. :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

I disagree that it is worth a try to send a C&D, because there is too little evidence for direct money making with Orbiter per se. I think you could only base your case on the shown license violations, which will not get you a new PC or somesuch. As I wrote: chances are high that you won't even get your lawyer costs back.

If installer is bundled with ad-ware, every download of Orbiter involves a transfer of money from the company ordering the ad-space to the company providing the ad-space. It doesn't even matter if softonic makes one cent or one Euro with it. It will only be temporarily simpler and cheaper to just email them as copyright owner so they will (for sure) remove it for while.

But should then keep on happening again, a C&D is a very potent method, even if appearing expensive at first. Even if a civil court will likely expect a settlement, that costs martins more money than he will eventually get.

Violating a C&D is VERY expensive for softonic. Then it will not be about how much money softonic made by the ad-ware, but about violating a valid contract between martins and softonic. And civil judges don't do jokes about such a violation. This will then be a punishment based on softonics assets.

So you can be sure, after a C&D, softonic will mark Orbiter as "don't touch" in its company knowledge base.

 

[jedidia]

Ah, it used to be, but now I'm vaguely remembering Martin having to remove the binaries for some reason.

He had to remove them exactly because they were closed source, which goes against sourceforge rules. It is a bit nit-picky because they were only binaries (don't take up much space) and needed to build an actual open source project (OVP), but the complaint wasn't wrong per se.