# SSU Development thread (4.0 to 5.0)

#### GLS

Well, a good model is easy to find. Getting one with a suitable license for our work is the problem. :facepalm:

We still have to talk about that... I think I'd like it to be GPL, as it is on the code header, but in SourceForge it is LGPL...
Also the link in the code header doesn't work, and I don't have enough access to see if there's a way to have a (new) page for the license or whatever. :shrug:

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
We still have to talk about that... I think I'd like it to be GPL, as it is on the code header, but in SourceForge it is LGPL...
Also the link in the code header doesn't work, and I don't have enough access to see if there's a way to have a (new) page for the license or whatever. :shrug:

Damn, there was something I wanted to do when I am back home. Which I am. Fixed it, we are GPL v2 now.

In other news: It looks like I am the last halfway active admin for the project, the others are kwan3218 and SiameseCat.

Should we get some redundancy there again? If yes, who should be promoted?

#### GLS

Damn, there was something I wanted to do when I am back home. Which I am. Fixed it, we are GPL v2 now.
Thanks!

In other news: It looks like I am the last halfway active admin for the project, the others are kwan3218 and SiameseCat.

Should we get some redundancy there again? If yes, who should be promoted?
I'm always up for a pay raise... :lol:

Donator

#### GLS

Well, we also have the GPL v2 in the Docs folder, it would be enough to refer to this.

Ok, after I finish the runways I'll change the headers to point people in the direction of that file.

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
Ok, after I finish the runways I'll change the headers to point people in the direction of that file.

If needed. I would point to the file and the URL as well, just for backup. Also, we should maybe include a text file that contains our definition of a system library.

#### GLS

Also, we should maybe include a text file that contains our definition of a system library.

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator

Well, we consider the Orbiter SDK to be a system library in our context, thus linking to a non-opensource-library is no issue. While easily understandable why, its better to make it explicit.

#### GLS

As SiameseCat isn't around, could the mods add line at the start of the description pointing people to the latest version?

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

I'm finally done with the runways! Still plenty left to be done, but IMO we now have a good global coverage and I'd like to move to other things.

Boxes still to tick before we can release:
1) AerojetDAP altitude in TAEM
2) new (or at least resized) vc
3) Crawler
4) correct EDW lakebed runways to Earth's curvature (waiting for Martin's input) (and maybe change White Sands to mesh too)
5) bare-bones SSUW?

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

Just so I don't have to change 222 files more than once, is it ok to replace the last line of the header with this?
Code:
  See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html or
file Doc\Space Shuttle Ultra\GPL.txt for more details.

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator

Just so I don't have to change 222 files more than once, is it ok to replace the last line of the header with this?
Code:
  See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html or
file Doc\Space Shuttle Ultra\GPL.txt for more details.

Well, the FSF worldview suggest copying the full preamble of their license in every file. As you can expect, this will get nasty if you have to update them all without functional changes to the sources.

But as I see it: Without a copyleft preamble in the sources, removing a single source file from our project would automatically make it MORE copyright protected than less. Just like copying a source code snippet from it without copying the preamble does not mean its suddenly public domain.

My suggestion would be just checking if the header of up to date before every commit. Since we are the master repository of these sources, we should actually not commit without checking if the files are of proper quality anyway (Conforms to the styleguide we lack!)

#### GLS

Well, the FSF worldview suggest copying the full preamble of their license in every file. As you can expect, this will get nasty if you have to update them all without functional changes to the sources.

But as I see it: Without a copyleft preamble in the sources, removing a single source file from our project would automatically make it MORE copyright protected than less. Just like copying a source code snippet from it without copying the preamble does not mean its suddenly public domain.

My suggestion would be just checking if the header of up to date before every commit. Since we are the master repository of these sources, we should actually not commit without checking if the files are of proper quality anyway (Conforms to the styleguide we lack!)

Ok, I'm not understanding if putting whatever is needed on all the files at once is bad because it's boring and/or a ton of work, or if it's (somehow) "legally bad". I can take the boring :lol:, and it would be a one-time thing so I have no problems in doing it "like a band-aid". :shrug:

On what should be in the header, here is what we currently have:
Code:
/****************************************************************************
This file is part of Space Shuttle Ultra

Translational Hand Controller Subsystem Operating Program definition

Space Shuttle Ultra is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

Space Shuttle Ultra is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with Space Shuttle Ultra; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA

**************************************************************************/
(the last line would be replaced with the updated link and file location)

Currently almost all .h files have this, and most .cpp files don't. :shifty:
If the whole "contract" must be used, then we replace the last line with it or even the whole thing.

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
Ok, I'm not understanding if putting whatever is needed on all the files at once is bad because it's boring and/or a ton of work, or if it's (somehow) "legally bad". I can take the boring :lol:, and it would be a one-time thing so I have no problems in doing it "like a band-aid". :shrug:

Currently almost all .h files have this, and most .cpp files don't. :shifty:
If the whole "contract" must be used, then we replace the last line with it or even the whole thing.

The preamble with the correct link or location should be enough, not the whole license.

Its just bad because it makes differential debugging impossible - if you change all source files because of a formality that does not change the functionality, how could we tell then where something went wrong in the worst case? I would do this shortly before release, after code freeze and and test phase, when we are getting ready to tag the new version.

#### GLS

The preamble with the correct link or location should be enough, not the whole license.

Its just bad because it makes differential debugging impossible - if you change all source files because of a formality that does not change the functionality, how could we tell then where something went wrong in the worst case? I would do this shortly before release, after code freeze and and test phase, when we are getting ready to tag the new version.

a) why would something go wrong?
b) any "bug hunting" would not be affected IMO, as SVN keeps track of all the previous changes, so this change would just not be on the code... :shrug:

#### Urwumpe

##### Not funny anymore
Donator
a) why would something go wrong?
b) any "bug hunting" would not be affected IMO, as SVN keeps track of all the previous changes, so this change would just not be on the code... :shrug:

If you try to limit the code changes to those done in a selected period of time by version management, you will get MANY files that way that had been changed. Its just as nuclear as letting a source code formatter run on the sources.

And we need no reasons for letting something go wrong, we only need opportunities.

#### Wolf

##### Donator
Donator
Is it normal to see RWY22/04 at EDW like this (no markings)or is something wrong on my end?

#### DaveS

##### Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Is it normal to see RWY22/04 at EDW like this (no markings)or is something wrong on my end?

View attachment 15645
You need to EDWRunway to your Base.cfg file for the texture to load.

#### Wolf

##### Donator
Donator
You need to EDWRunway to your Base.cfg file for the texture to load.

Can you please confirm the exact text to add and the folder?
I added "EDWRunway" in the Orbiter/config/Base.cfg file but nothing has changed, still a blank vanilla RWY

maybe

SSU\EDW0422tex ?

#### DaveS

##### Space Shuttle Ultra Project co-developer
Donator
Beta Tester
Can you please confirm the exact text to add and the folder?
I added "EDWRunway" in the Orbiter/config/Base.cfg file but nothing has changed, still a blank vanilla RWY
Correction: It should SSU\EDWRunway (I forgot to add the SSU subfolder to the path).

#### GLS

If you try to limit the code changes to those done in a selected period of time by version management, you will get MANY files that way that had been changed. Its just as nuclear as letting a source code formatter run on the sources.

And we need no reasons for letting something go wrong, we only need opportunities.

I see your point, but letting this drag on will only allow for files to "slip thru the cracks". Some files will probably not change in the foreseeable future, and thus will easily be forgotten.
About the number of files: let's say this requires 500 files to be touched (the .h files and let's say we want the .cpp files as well). Well, I was doing about 200 per revision (for several revs) when working the terrain, so for a one-time thing, 500 doesn't bother me particularly.