Hi! Even though I don't like the kind of behaviour the seller is exhibiting, from the article page alone I cannot see any legal problem regarding the GPL. Changing the name is legitimate in general as the GPL IIRC does not require the distributor to credit the original authors with anything else than not removing copyright messages and similar.
I also don't see why the seller should be forced to disclose the location of the source code or to add the note that source code will be provided on demand or to provide the source code at all _before_ distributing, i.e. selling in this case, the package. As long as nobody makes a test buy and finds that such an offer is not included, we also cannot conclude on whether the seller violates the terms of the GPL afterwards. There's only two of the things mentioned, that remain unclear, which is the thing about the snapshot copyright/license and the question about the deep link for the download. The question about the latter is: Would it be illegal if someone put a link on their homepage pointing to the download region on the FlightGear servers? I don't think so. If that wouldn't be illegal, what would change when someone would be taking money for the hint to the page? For the screenshots we would need to check the FlightGear homepage for any mention of a license for the material found on it. If there is none, the seller has no license for that at least. So this ebay-issue is probably one of the disadvantages of the GPL, but the project is stuck with it. Just my 2ct. Cheers, Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
