Hi All, Thanks very much for the additional feedback.
As before, I've compiled the feedback since the last version, and included a new version (v1.2) at the bottom of this email. Assuming people are happy with the update, I think we're pretty close to a statement that could be posted onto the main website and referenced from elsewhere. Curt - do you have any comment to make on this? -Stuart Durk wrote: >In addition to the points brought up by others, I have one suggestion for a >FAQ item: From the discussion on the flight simulator network, it struck me >that people (especially those with a freeware background) don't necessarily >understand why we are "allowing" third parties to make money off of >FlightGear. I guess this is already covered by the "is it legal to resell" FAQ >item, but maybe it's worth to specifically address this question from a >different perspective (i.e. that of somebody coming from a freeware >background)? I've added a "Why do the FlightGear developers allow this ?" FAQ to address this. Robert M. Shearman, Jr. wrote: > I think if we are deigning to say "Investigation by a number of the FlightGear > developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 > release other than a change of name."; then I also think that after "Under the > GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, > provided > that they distribute the source code (or make it available)," it's fair to mention > something along the lines of "Our developers and users have not conclusively > determined whether or not the offer from FlightSimPro is indeed in compliance with these terms." > > I believe that statement sticks to the facts while expressing our stance of > skepticism. Done. Torsten, myself and others have done some investigation, and this is unclear. Arnt wrote: >> Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand >> FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 > >..have you guys decide _against_ GPLv3 and GPLv2-and-later >and instead decided to go GPLv2-_only_??? > >..if not, FG is "GPL" and "GPLv2-and-maybe-later." ;o) I don't think there has been any decision either way, so the 1.9.1 release is GPL v2. Arnt wrote: >> Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to >> the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is >> open-source > > ..say "is GPL software", BSD, MIT etc are also "open-source." Good point, done. John Denker wrote: >> Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? >> A: >> Yes. Technically, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the > >Since we are not lawyers here, I would shy away from answering >bluntly "yes" to a legal question. > >How about something like: > >Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? >A: Under some conditions, yes. There are legal ways of distributing the >program, and also illegal ways. This FAQ expresses no opinions about the >legality of any particular distribution scheme. Generally speaking, the >license allows a distributor to charge "any price or no price" but requires >the distributor to comply with a number of restrictions, including making >the source code available and giving you a license to make further copies. >For details, refer to > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html That's a good point, but I think the subtlety might be lost. I've reworded this below, let me know what you think. Scott Hamilton wrote: > Being really really picky with English, the opening statement uses the word > "heavily" too often; it's not good style. As a suggestion of replacement, perhaps; > > "As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that > is being heavily > marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. > As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between > the two. To help provide > some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was > appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ." > > "almost entirely" leaves an impression that there is little difference, while not making a binding statement that we may not be able to substantiate.. > > And in the next paragraph; > > "It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of > individuals for the last 12 years." > > though I feel "over the Internet" could almost be left out, it really isn't important how we collaborate, the number and length of time are the important bits here. > > "Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear," > > the word "extreme" feels like it is trying to pull emotional strings here, it could be removed without changing to meaning of the sentence. > > Viewing this statement in to the future, how does it feel if a legitimate commercial contributor crops up, is there anything here that would > deter or prevent an engaged contributor from working with the project? I think by restating the GPL principles it has left open a contributor > we would be happy to work with. I've made the suggested updates below. Thanks. ====== FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.2): As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and develop with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at not cost from http://www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). Our developers and users have not conclusively determined whether or not the offer from FlightSimPro is indeed in compliance with these terms Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller respects a number of restrictions detailed in the GPL. Generally, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the software, and it reasonable to charge a fee for this. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is GPL software. Q: Why do the FlightGear developers allow this ? A: The freedom to modify and enhance FlightGear is a core part of the project, and of open-source in general. Restricting the modifications that are allowed and what people can do with the software goes against that ethos. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear? A: Not that we are aware of. As far as we are aware, the makers of Flight Pro Sim are not FlightGear developers. Q: Has Flight Pro Sim contributed to the FlightGear project at all ? A: There is no evidence that the makers of Flight Pro Sim have contributed to the FlightGear project, either through code or money. They did offer to provide money ($250) for a monthly competition, but this offer has not been taken up. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the makers of Flight Pro Sim. We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
