On Sunday 25 Oct 2009, Durk Talsma wrote: [snip...] <preamble> > Obviously, since we are developing the program for free, this is > not of direct concern to us, but it does concern innocent > customers, who may unknowingly be lured into spending money on > something they could have gotten for free from us. This the money > goes to people who have done nothing but setting up an awkward > money making scheme.
</preamble> > Personally, I think that we have a moral obligation to do what is > in our power to prevent that. No we don't! It is explicitly allowed by the license under which FG has been released. I'm sorry Durk, but you still don't get it. The license is not there to protect anything but the freedom of the software. It's not there to protect or assert any rights of the the users (other than to use it as they wish for their own purposes) or the developers and is only there to ensure that the software may be distributed without the imposition of restrictions beyond those specified in the GPL license. If you feel a moral obligation to make people aware that the software they are paying money for is something that is obtainable for no money then that's up to you, but it has nothing to do with the license, and as I have already said, the only issue for the FG project, haven chosen to release the work under the GPL, is if someone tries to restrict the distribution of the FG project's work beyond the conditions imposed by the GPL. Until someone proves that whichever distributor is being discussed at the time is not complying with the conditions of the GPL, specifically regarding making the source code available when they decide to redistribute FG, there is no issue of relevance to the FG project. [from earlier in your post...] > I did come to the conclusion that we should be on guard concerning > piracy though. You cannot 'pirate' GPL'd software - this is the whole point of the GPL - the software is free. The software has been granted its own freedom. Moreover, if the FG project asks for nothing in return for its work, how can there be an act of piracy if there is no loss to the FG project? [snip...] > The code itself was committed under the GPL, with the explicit > intention of exposing crooks who had been tinkering with the > binary. GPL'd work cannot be stolen because it is free to everyone by definition. There cannot be any thieves or crooks, only people who try to restrict the redistribution of the work beyond the conditions of the GPL. Considering how many times this issue has come up, and is still being disputed, it is clear that many people still misunderstand what the GPL does and mistakenly think that it ensures ownership of their work when it does precisely the opposite. It is vital that people get their heads around this and really understand the conditions under which they are releasing their work. If people are concerned by this issue then they really _need_ to decide whether to accept or reject the conditions of the GPL. There is no room for dispute or modification; either it's ok for you personally, as it is, or it is not. The GPL cannot be reinterpreted to suit different peoples' opinions. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
