Can I make a couple of suggestions? Paragraph 1. Replace word 'heavily' for 'widely and actively'.
"As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being widely and actively marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim..." Paragraph 2. Replace 'develop' with 'distribute' - modification is the same as development. Correct typo of 'not' to 'no' "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 distribute 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 no cost from http://www.flightgear.org."; Paragraph 3. Remove unnecessary emphasis 'very heavily' "Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product based on FlightGear... " FAQ 2. Remove reference to 'our' developers determining anything conclusively' entirely. What is the point of saying that we don't know something? "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)." FAQ 3. Remove reference to 'restrictions' detailed in the GPL and replace with 'conditions'. Remove elaboration on what the GPL (v2) does or doesn't mean. The link to the licence in FAQ 2. is sufficient. The only lack of clarity in the GPL licence comes from not reading it carefully enough; it was developed to be understandable to software developers and doesn't need legal advice to be understood (unless you're trying to find a way around it). Correct typo of second 'is' to 'it'. "Q: Is it legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller respects the conditions detailed in the GPL." FAQ 6. Remove any uncertainty. Explicitly refer to the FlightGear project and just answer No. "Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and the FlightGear project? A: No." FAQ 7. Remove this FAQ entirely - it is irrelevant and just smacks of emotional bitterness. New FAQ 7 (was FAQ 8). Don't suggest any details about whatever contract exists between FPS and the buyer, especially when we can't say anything with certainty; we're just saying that we don't know again. "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." If the FG project is going to make a statement of any kind then it must be clear and unambiguous, and should not attempt to just imply things. If the FG project doesn't know a thing to be clearly true or false, don't suggest anything at all as it'll leave the FG project open to criticism and argument if someone interprets an ambiguity incorrectly. Also, if we continued to say that "We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee." and it turns out to be wrong (possibly in the future) then it risks invalidating everything else in the statement (see the recent brou-hahah about the university of Anglia's CRU cover-up e-mails) In addition, the FG project should not comment about activities or contracts between other parties; it can only talk about what the FG project does. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
