I've /probably/ done the most extensive amount of research into this at the moment, some key points:
1) If we want or need legal representation, please visit http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ I have already contacted them, so please don't send them a bunch of emails about FlightProSim. 2) FlightProSim has at least one violation of the GPL2 because they distribute the source code on their website; they need to either distribute the source code with their product or provide a written offer for up to three years under subsection 3b of the GPL. 3) FPS may be in further violation of the GPL under section 2a, which states the modified files must contain notices they were modified from the original FlightGear source code. I have not done this investigation. 4) I have strongly recommended in the past that FGRun or FGFS contain some sort of copyright statement. However, my suggestion was dismissed. JUST BECAUSE YOU CONTRIBUTE TO FLIGHTGEAR DOES NOT MEAN YOU FORFEIT YOUR COPYRIGHT. So let me make this suggestion again. On the splash screen, or somewhere on the launcher, or under the "about" menu, include the following text: "FlightGear is copyright by its respective contributors. Please refer to the source code for the copyright to specific components of the software. You may redistribute FlightGear under the terms of the GPL version 2. FlightGear comes with absolutely no warranties." Perhaps the reason this suggestion was dismissed so readily is that I suggested that FlightGear become one copyright holder by aggregating the copyrights of the contributors. However, the reason I believe adding this text to be important is: 1) Any future distributors cannot obfuscate this copyright or else they are in violation of the GPLv2 section 1; 2) If they do obfuscate the copyright, they must also edit the file to say they obfuscated the copyright under the GPLv2 section 2a to be compliant, which is sort-of beside the point; 3) It makes it easy to check to see if there's been a GPL violation even if everything else appears okay, because the copyright appears on something other than the source code. Even just adding text such as "www.flightgear.org" to the splash screen would require someone who modifies and redistributes the program to comply with 1) and 2) in the second-list set out above if they wished to disguise the program as being FlightGear. Now, there ARE some people who legitimately use FlightGear who need to may wish to disguise the fact the program is FlightGear - I'm thinking airplane simulators - but they can easily comply with the GPL by remarking how they modified the file from the original FlightGear version. Finally, we should be seeking to make violators comply with the GPL, not shut them down, even if they're distributing our program for profit. If it's GPL-compliant, this still helps us, even if someone is making money off our work. Now, some opinion: In my opinion Aircraft and scenery models in the base package need to remain GPL, as this allows for easier license management. If you don't want other people profiting off your work, release your add-on as a third party add-on under a different license. I'm sure there are people who legitimately make money as a direct result of FlightGear, and because of the GPL, you may even be able to "dishonestly" make some money off of the product, but if you're compliant we can't constrict your right to do so, Cheers John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
