On Feb 24, 11:22*am, wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:07*am, Max Kellermann wrote:

wrote:
The statement put on the XCSoar Facebook page is not accurate,

Not accurate? *Let me paste a verbatim email you wrote to a XCSoar
developer yesterday:

*"Thanks for your views. *When we construct our list, we now know to
*put XCSoar on the list as non compliant and not approved for use in
*US competition."

*[unclhank 24. Februar 2012 00:44]

I hope this is accurate enough for you.

Max

This statement was in response to the position by the XCSoar
individual that indicated that they would not be providing a version
that would permit users to comply with US rules as requested by the RC
of the XCSoar group.
At no point have we indicated intent to not permit open source
software.
To be fair, there are others within the XCSoar group who are more
inclined to help work this out so pilots can have complying software.
Hopefully they will succeed.
UH

Context matters. Often, knowing the writer personally helps.

I was in on this exchange, I know UH personally, I knew it wasn't the
end of the conversation. I can understand that my German friend
Tobias on the other end may have understood things differently, not
for the least reason being that it was close to midnight his time.

As I see it, we have short term problems on some platforms... and a
longer term potential solution that might work. I'm handicapped here
in that I haven't written any code in 15 years and I was just a hack,
never in the class that our XCS developers are. So really, I can
suggest solutions, but I cannot implement them. I'm pretty sure the
level of willing help and cooperation is going to go down FAST if the
name calling and finger pointing keeps up.

-Evan Ludeman / T8