Jump to content

Craig Watson 1344682

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Craig Watson 1344682

  • Birthday 07/09/1987
  1. Thanks for taking the time to reply. My entire reason for bringing up the NDA is my view that it is holding the network back and contributing to the glacially slow response to a problem that should not exist. I am not, under any circomestances, bashing anyone for a lack of intent - it's clear that there are people in the community who genuinely do want to further things. I also write, contribute to, maintain and publish several open source projects, and am actively involved in a community of open source development - please don't think me ignorant of what actually goes into writing and pub
  2. Wow ... thanks to everyone for getting involved - lots of great discussions Finally, a reason for an NDA that I can (kind of) understand - although it is still flawed. There is one world-famous community that is currently in a fair amount of uncertainty due to the danger of a fork - and that is Bitcoin. That said, the Bitcoin fork is primarily being debated due to splits in the leadership. In actual fact, the danger of forking could be a concrete case for open source - bear with me! Say, for example, that the VATSIM network gets into a state where a good number of people are
  3. There is an important distinction to be made here: I am more than happy to see the NDA docomeent, but I will not sign or be governed by it. Because the basic nature of a Non-Disclosure Agreement is to state that I am not able to discuss the NDA'd details in an open and transparent public arena - and it's something which I feel extremely strongly that should be possible in the 21st century. While I'm happy to offer my [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance to the BoG in dealing with open source matters, I'm not willing to be governed by any legally-binding agreement that would end up hamper
  4. What's stopping me plugging my iPhone into my microphone or line-in port and holding down my PTT key - with the current protocol and client software? I don't see the link between "closed source" and "less bugs" or "more secure". That way of working is as out-dated as the dot matrix printer, and is no longer true - it's security by obscurity at best, which is as near as makes no difference to no security at all. No, it's very very possible - you just move the authentication layer to the server architecture, where it belongs, and if you're seriously paranoid, you can either GPG
  5. Possibly by using a variant on the HTTP 400 "Malformed Request" response header. If you write a server application so permissive that any client can connect and send garbage, then yes - you will have problems. If, however, the server software is intelligent enough to reject non-compliant requests, you are than indirectly enforcing the standard in software. Now this sentence is every single thing that is wrong with the current NDA. Solutions are being discussed to a known problem in an open, public forum, and those discussions are being hampered by a piece of (IMO) pointless bureau
  6. Point taken, but the ire that has perhaps boiled over is extremely real, and it has to be said, is not just mine alone. I originally wrote the post with the intention of asking how it can be that a "community" can be so closed, but the more I wrote, the more frustration came out. The original catalyst to this discussion was the voice problems that have plagued a vast number of people for a long time (and have consequently been put aside as PEBKAC issues). I then looked into why those problems exist, and eventually found an organisation that seems to be effectively ruled by committee, softw
  7. I'm not sure I see this as a reason to keep the network closed-source. Every platform, whether it is open or closed, has its share of hacks. Just look at the Apache webserver, OpenSSH, Firefox, Google Chrome, Android and the Linux kernel. In fact, open source projects could be argued to be more secure, as there are far, far more eyes available to pour over the codebase than any software company can muster. Change? Not bashing, necessarily. I'm getting at the fact that it feels as if the NDA which - IMO - is at the crux of holding the community back, is there to protect th
  8. That last sentence says it all, really. Can you give some examples here? Are we talking security holes, copyright infringement, or people starting up their own networks and stealing VATSIM members? I would never in a million years sign any kind of NDA docomeent that is not related to my occupation and employer (and even then it would be through gritted teeth), so I'll have to decline here. Development on any platform should be because people actively want to help - this is a community, after all. What the BoG don't realise is that any kind of imposed NDA really creates mo
  9. I'm not necessarily querying how it works - I understand that core libraries are provided under NDA to developers under license, However, I am asking outright why the NDA even exists at all, and if the time has now come for the VATSIM core development team to embrace being more open and to lead from the front. Why bother open-sourcing a client when you have a locked-down, licensed binary in the middle that provides core functionality? If the entire ecosystem was more open, then clients would be more likely to adopt open development, and in turn if individual developers lost interest, gave
  10. Firstly, there has been a lot of discussion over on VATUK's forums over the last week or two about the much-maligned voice codec, and how the situation could be improved. Link here. Some very good points have been raised, and I'd like to pick up a few of those points here for the wider VATSIM community. I've read several forum threads that have descended into flame-wars on open source, and I am not looking to start another one, so can everyone please respect this, and think before posting inflammatory responses. --- In the nature of full disclosure, I will say the following: I am a
  • Create New...