Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi Folks, Can whoever is working on the NZ scenery put Andrew Casey's house on the ground so we can buzz it until he complies. :) That was a joke (possibly a bad one). dave. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:15:08 +1300, James wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: perhaps the simplest means of resolution would be for the infringing party to take down the screen shots, take their own screen shots, and apologise for the mistake. Agreed. :-) ..under GPLv2, they _also_ need to ask _every_ copyright owner violated, for a _new_ _explicit_ permission to distribute. GPLv3 is more lenient, here you must just comply. Hmm, I'm not sure why you are bringing the GPL to the screen shot discussion... ..I am? I thought I was responding to Melchior talking about his rights under copyright law and the GLPv2 to his own code. We know that: The screen shots are not GPL. ..which means you had _no_ permission to put them on your or Andrew's etc websites. ;o) The code is GPL. ..correct, and I was just pointing out Melchior's right to deny you guys the commercial re-branded sale of his code under GPLv2. ;o) The subject has infringed the copyright of the screen shots. They claim they have not infringed the terms of the GPL. ..how interesting, urls? ;o) No other license has been given for the screen shots, the GPL does not apply to them. The GPL does still stand for the code itself and the person infringing the screen shot copyrights can continue to distribute the code under GPL without seeking further permission to ..I would have consulted the relevant GPL version before drawing such bombastic conclusions. ;o) do so, so long as they meet the GPL conditions for the code which is licensed under the GPL. This of course does not change the fact that in order to use a screen shot one must obtain permission from the copyright holder of that image -- or cease to use the image and beg forgiveness, which is probably the much more likely solution than getting permission. ..not to mention the probable punitive tremble damages. ;o) --- James Sleeman - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi all, ..first I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Matthew, for taking his prudent caution, for reluctance to enforce copyright for a wee while, which had me _wonder_, I'm afraid I'm much better at finding 'n sensing vague subtle things quickly, rather than understand them as quickly. ;o) On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:00:03 +1300, James wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..excellent, then you would be in an excellent position to verify there indeed _is_ a house [...] I found none and said so. Err, you can see it yourself, at least the roof... if you look on Google maps, click Map view, type in the address. It will show you the house section numbered 5A slightly to the left and down from where Google puts the marker, put your finger on the section, now click Satellite view, it will show you the house. It's a back section with a grey roof. ..not the green one? Bordering onto the park, #5A is behind #5 which is the one with the dark grey roof facing the cul-de-sac: http://maps.google.com/maps?num=100hl=enq=%225a+Jasmine+place%22+Wigram+%22Christchurch,+Canterbury+8004%22ie=UTF8ll=-43.552829,172.539025spn=0.001819,0.004447z=19g=%225a+Jasmine+place%22+Wigram+%22Christchurch,+Canterbury+8004%22iwloc=addr Zoom in _all_ the way down to see #'s property border lines. Then check against the eye in the sky: ;o) http://maps.google.com/maps?num=100hl=enq=%225a+Jasmine+place%22+Wigram+%22Christchurch,+Canterbury+8004%22ie=UTF8g=%225a+Jasmine+place%22+Wigram+%22Christchurch,+Canterbury+8004%22ll=-43.552829,172.539023spn=0.003631,0.004866t=hz=18iwloc=addr Got to love the eye in the sky. ..aye, thank you, looks like I might owe Andrew an apology for suggesting he used a fake address, instead we now have a few new verified addresses. ;o) ..respect for who? Well I think it's just rude to post such personal details on public lists, sure it's available elsewhere I guess (whois) but still, I don't personally feel comfortable in posting such information. ..I can understand that. ;o) Now tell us all, James, all about: http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg16485.html How did it all work out for you, etc? ;o) ..I certainly missed _your_ half of this conversation, _did_ you try post this to FG-dev or Eh? You've lost me here. I posted only to FG-dev. ..ok, I didn't see it there before I responded to Matthew's response to you. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Arnt Karlsen wrote: [a whole bunch of stuff cut] Sigh, I'm sorry Arnt but trying to debate this with you seems to be a waste of time, and it's just getting off topic in my opinion. For once and for all, I have nothing to do with this other than as an observant bystander trying to be helpful, I am not a sock puppet of this fellow Casey as you seem clearly to think I am, I have never so much as met the guy. If you Google me, that will be quite clear for you to find out more about me. In fact I'll make it easy, have some links for free: My company site: http://code.gogo.co.nz/about/james_sleeman.html My open source project: http://www.xinha.org/wiki/Developers Aircraft club, you will see me here as #2: http://www.recwings.com/contact.html My blog: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/sleemanj/ My FG Multiplayer flight log: http://tinyurl.com/6feb76 Here is even my /. id: http://slashdot.org/~Bitsy+Boffin/ And with that, I bid you adieu, I hope that a resolution can be made between the developers and Mr Casey quickly so FlightGear developers can sleep easy again, but I can't and won't waste further time on this. PS: I apologise to the list unreservedly if I have upset readers in any way or dragged this so far off topic, my intention was to help, not cause an argument. I'll just go back to lurking now in the perhaps vain hope that one day FlightGear may need something done which is in my small realm of skill that I may render assistance to this noble project. --- James Sleeman - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
James Sleeman wrote: Arnt Karlsen wrote: [a whole bunch of stuff cut] Sigh, I'm sorry Arnt but trying to debate this with you seems to be a waste of time, and it's just getting off topic in my opinion. For once and for all, I have nothing to do with this other than as an observant bystander trying to be helpful, I am not a sock puppet of this fellow Casey as you seem clearly to think I am, I have never so much as met the guy. And with that, I bid you adieu, I hope that a resolution can be made between the developers and Mr Casey quickly so FlightGear developers can sleep easy again, but I can't and won't waste further time on this. Thanks very much for your efforts to find a resolution to this. I really appreciate that you took the time to contact Andrew and bring him onto the list. BTW, don't think Arnts opinion carries any particular weight on this list. AFAIK he has not contributed anything to FG other than the occasional request for dynamic sea-levels (nice idea, but way down the priority list) and noise about GPL violations liberally sprinkled with groklaw URLs and paranioa. PS: I apologise to the list unreservedly if I have upset readers in any way or dragged this so far off topic, my intention was to help, not cause an argument. I'll just go back to lurking now in the perhaps vain hope that one day FlightGear may need something done which is in my small realm of skill that I may render assistance to this noble project. I'm sure you'll find something :) - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On dimanche 23 novembre 2008, Stuart Buchanan wrote: James Sleeman wrote: Arnt Karlsen wrote: [a whole bunch of stuff cut] Sigh, I'm sorry Arnt but trying to debate this with you seems to be a waste of time, and it's just getting off topic in my opinion. For once and for all, I have nothing to do with this other than as an observant bystander trying to be helpful, I am not a sock puppet of this fellow Casey as you seem clearly to think I am, I have never so much as met the guy. And with that, I bid you adieu, I hope that a resolution can be made between the developers and Mr Casey quickly so FlightGear developers can sleep easy again, but I can't and won't waste further time on this. Thanks very much for your efforts to find a resolution to this. I really appreciate that you took the time to contact Andrew and bring him onto the list. BTW, don't think Arnts opinion carries any particular weight on this list. AFAIK he has not contributed anything to FG other than the occasional request for dynamic sea-levels (nice idea, but way down the priority list) and noise about GPL violations liberally sprinkled with groklaw URLs and paranioa. PS: I apologise to the list unreservedly if I have upset readers in any way or dragged this so far off topic, my intention was to help, not cause an argument. I'll just go back to lurking now in the perhaps vain hope that one day FlightGear may need something done which is in my small realm of skill that I may render assistance to this noble project. I'm sure you'll find something :) Yes +1 , thanks James. And thanks to Arnt , who give us some good information regarding the Law. We just have to select from it ( the Law) what can be really done. When i am talking with my lawyer , at the end of the talk , i never understand what can be done :) so, i let him to do instead of me :) . Which could be the case with these snapshots , if necessary :) :) :) Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ J'ai décidé d'être heureux parce que c'est bon pour la santé. Voltaire - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi, * KcKpers Ltd -- Saturday 22 November 2008: [source code] (to clear up this matter it is supplied on the CD the purchaser receives) Good. (basically re-branding this which I understand is also within the terms of the GPL) Agreed. That's allowed. And unethical, as you let your customers pay for our free work and let them find out later. You mention that your offer is based on FlightGear. But it's not only based on it. This *is* FlightGear with some camouflage. You are deceiving your customers. Most of them would probably not have paid $27 for something that they can get for free from us. No I am not a lawyer or pretend to be one and if there is something that I have done incorrectly, Selling a rebranded version is OK. Using our screenshots is a clear copyright violation! We only (used to) allow that for reviews and announcements of FlightGear. You don't have permission. (At least you don't have permission for any of my screenshots! Not that you are using any ATM.) Once this goes live I also wanted to contribute some funds to the project developers, [...] This would make us profiteers of your deception, and I don't think we want to be part of that. But that's Curt's decision. People should know that FlightGear is free, and if they want to support the project with money, then they should buy from here: http://www.flightgear.org/cdrom/ Ripping someone off and donating parts of that is only OK if you are Robin Hood. Thanks for your reply! m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi all, Thanks for the comments so far. I have been looking over the use of images. I will remove any images if you notify me that you wish them to be removed. However I do have something I wish to find out for future reference. If flight gear is under a GPL license, does this not mean work created with the use of flight gear is also under this license if it an output of this software If say a screenshot is taken of this software, does this also not mean this screenshot is licensed automatically under the GPL as it displays in graphical form, the code that was used to create this software. If this is the case then can they not be freely used and not copyrighted individually by the owner. If this is the case, people saying that these images they created are copyrighted goes against and breaches the GPL License I am unsure if this is the case, but it makes sense perhaps. Could someone please clarify this if they know the ruling? Regards Andrew - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
* KcKpers Ltd -- Saturday 22 November 2008: I will remove any images if you notify me that you wish them to be removed. No! Remove all of them, unless someone gives you explicit permission to use them! You don't have any permission so far! You are violating our rights and international copyright law! Copyright doesn't work on an opt-out basis! If flight gear is under a GPL license, does this not mean work created with the use of flight gear is also under this license if it an output of this software No! My editor is GPL, but what I write with it is not! m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
KcKpers Ltd wrote: If flight gear is under a GPL license, does this not mean work created with the use of flight gear is also under this license if it an output of this software In the words of the GPL (v2) the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). It is a little grey I'll give you, but no, it would be common understanding that a screenshot would not fall under that definition, ergo, it's not GPL. Same as a spreadsheet made in a GPL spreadsheet program wouldn't be GPL. This is particularly the case for FlightGear as the screenshot is produced by FlightGear itself. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
KcKpers Ltd wrote: Hi all, Thanks for the comments so far. I have been looking over the use of images. I will remove any images if you notify me that you wish them to be removed. However I do have something I wish to find out for future reference. If flight gear is under a GPL license, does this not mean work created with the use of flight gear is also under this license if it an output of this software If say a screenshot is taken of this software, does this also not mean this screenshot is licensed automatically under the GPL as it displays in graphical form, the code that was used to create this software. If this is the case then can they not be freely used and not copyrighted individually by the owner. If this is the case, people saying that these images they created are copyrighted goes against and breaches the GPL License I am unsure if this is the case, but it makes sense perhaps. If you use mysql to store your customer database does this make your customer list GPL? If you use gnumeric to prepare your accounts can we all have a copy? Jon - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Melchior FRANZ wrote: Agreed. That's allowed. And unethical, as you let your customers pay for our free work and let them find out later. You mention I think while an ethical debate is good, perhaps flightgear-devel isn't the place really, probably just clouds the issue, which was originally, is this a GPL violation. If the source code is delivered on the CD as has been stated, then it would seem quite likely that the distribution is in accordance with the GPL (or at least largely). I would suggest perhaps the distributor could send some prominent concerned developer a copy of their distribution to confirm the source code (for the binary as distributed) is included. Selling a rebranded version is OK. This is not aimed at you Melchior as obviously you and the other developers are well versed in the GPL, but just a note for the fellow lurkers here who may be wondering how it can be permitted; The GPL does not forbid selling the software (for want of a better word). It also does not restrict the price one may charge. It only restricts the cost of distributing source code if and only if the source code is not distributed at the same time as a binary (ie. the distribution contains only an offer to give you the source on request, in which case that offer must be redeemable at cost price). There are some other conditions, but by and large, if you give the source code along with the binary, you are good to go for whatever price you can convince somebody to pay. Using our screenshots is a clear copyright violation! We only (used to) allow that for I think this is really the main issue to resolve. I would suggest that it could be resolved in several ways, and that this is ultimately between the copyright holders of the images and the infringing party (and now that the developers are aware, not really something that needs to create noise on the list), but perhaps the simplest means of resolution would be for the infringing party to take down the screen shots, take their own screen shots, and apologise for the mistake. PS: I really don't want to sound like I'm blindly sticking up for a fellow Kiwi, or this practice, or anything like that, because I'm absolutely not -- I'm just a lurking FlightGear user (zk-jrs on multiplayer). I thought just that people were getting carried away on assumptions, diverting much needed developers from doing what they do best, which is creating more coolness for the mere users like me. --- James Sleeman - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
* James Sleeman -- Saturday 22 November 2008: I think while an ethical debate is good, perhaps flightgear-devel isn't the place really, [...] Don't worry, flightgear-devel is the right place for that. This is very much on-topic. And I don't take orders about what I write about, except from Curt. I've already stopped posting to the forum after the self-proclaimed forum police tried to tell me what I should write about and what not. This doesn't work here, as long as I'm flightgear developer. Once I've turned into a mere lurker -- and this will certainly happen at some time --, I'll shut up. perhaps the simplest means of resolution would be for the infringing party to take down the screen shots, take their own screen shots, and apologise for the mistake. Agreed. :-) m. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:19:40 +0100, Melchior wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * KcKpers Ltd -- Saturday 22 November 2008: I will remove any images if you notify me that you wish them to be removed. No! Remove all of them, unless someone gives you explicit permission to use them! You don't have any permission so far! You are violating our rights and international ..actually, it's local to each and every country, but it works pretty much the same, jail and tremble damages and disgorgement and all. ;o) copyright law! Copyright doesn't work on an opt-out basis! ..it's really _Comply_ to the GPL, _OR_, Face the Teeth and Wrath of Copyright Law Enforcement. If flight gear is under a GPL license, does this not mean work created with the use of flight gear is also under this license if it an output of this software No! My editor is GPL, but what I write with it is not! ..except if you write FG etc code and commit it into cvs, svn or git etc so it gets into FG, I rather strongly suspect you would own it and commit it under the GPL, and I haven't seen anyone here do that under GPLv3, so the GPLv2 would require Sean, James, Andrew et al to come kneeling to Melchior and Curt et al like Heinrich IV came kneeling to Pope Gregory VII in Canossa, and ask for explicit permission to start distributing FlightGear etc, _after_ they have apologized and paid e.g. tremble damages to fix the damage they have caused FG. ..should e.g. Melchior decide No. like the Pope did (in the first 3 days) at Fortress Canossa, then Sean, James, Andrew et al must remove _all_ of Melchior's code from their re-branded commercial version of FG and supply that version to _all_ of their customers or gift etc recipients. Etc. ..function and use is irrelevant under the GPL, the GPL and copyright law merely concerns Copyright. ;o) ..and Melchior as copyright owner may want to try out https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_external-webformf=pps_prohib that Thomas so promptly adviced me of. ;o) ..on Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:12:27 -0500, Thomas advices in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let's look at what actions should be taken. Given that I am not a copyright owner, I have nothing at stake beyond community membership. ..me neither. ;o) Actually, he's got a lot more at stake. Namely, if he is not complying with the license, then he has no license. So any money made is at state, plus potential punative damages. Regarding flightgear, I am still trying to connect the dots on how we can be sure there is a GPL violation. ..aye, first I'd like to carry on find and verify such verifiable facts. This is VERY simple. Is there a written offer to get the source code required to rebuild the application as they ship it? Yes, or no. *all* the source code. If no, then they have sold products. While I am not a lawyer, obviously, this is pretty straitforward in a case of blatant repackaging and re-branding. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:54:34 +0100, Melchior wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: * James Sleeman -- Saturday 22 November 2008: I think while an ethical debate is good, perhaps flightgear-devel isn't the place really, [...] Don't worry, flightgear-devel is the right place for that. This is very much on-topic. And I don't take orders about what I write about, except from Curt. I've already stopped posting to the forum after the self-proclaimed forum police tried to tell me what I should write about and what not. This doesn't work here, as long as I'm flightgear developer. Once I've turned into a mere lurker -- and this will certainly happen at some time --, I'll shut up. perhaps the simplest means of resolution would be for the infringing party to take down the screen shots, take their own screen shots, and apologise for the mistake. Agreed. :-) ..under GPLv2, they _also_ need to ask _every_ copyright owner violated, for a _new_ _explicit_ permission to distribute. GPLv3 is more lenient, here you must just comply. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Arnt Karlsen wrote: perhaps the simplest means of resolution would be for the infringing party to take down the screen shots, take their own screen shots, and apologise for the mistake. Agreed. :-) ..under GPLv2, they _also_ need to ask _every_ copyright owner violated, for a _new_ _explicit_ permission to distribute. GPLv3 is more lenient, here you must just comply. Hmm, I'm not sure why you are bringing the GPL to the screen shot discussion... We know that: The screen shots are not GPL. The code is GPL. The subject has infringed the copyright of the screen shots. They claim they have not infringed the terms of the GPL. No other license has been given for the screen shots, the GPL does not apply to them. The GPL does still stand for the code itself and the person infringing the screen shot copyrights can continue to distribute the code under GPL without seeking further permission to do so, so long as they meet the GPL conditions for the code which is licensed under the GPL. This of course does not change the fact that in order to use a screen shot one must obtain permission from the copyright holder of that image -- or cease to use the image and beg forgiveness, which is probably the much more likely solution than getting permission. --- James Sleeman - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:25:22 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Comments within. (I am personally uncomfortable including the GPL violations people until we have a clear direction from the leadership of the flightgear project as to the direction the project would like to go). ..ok, this far I have found a fake physical address, suggesting my suspicion is confirmable. So I cc. ..unless New Zealand allow a fake address, a fake company, a fake name etc, these are illegally registred web sites. On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ... Still, the question is if this company is violating the GPL. We have no proof of that. ..I'm checking my wee mirrors to find out. ;o) The GPL can only be violated when they distribute the software. Their website doesn't entail them distributing. Action can only be taken if there is a clear violation (ie: they distribute a flightgear derived product without an offer of distributing source. Who knows, they may include the source in the DVD or CD that they ship. I personally don't want to charge forward and claim a violation when nothing has been distributed. ..well maybe you don't have to ;o), there's 7Zip, Wesnoth etc at http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ all rather strongly suggesting at least a conspiracy to commit software piracy, rather than lawful distribution under the GPL. So, I am not worried about defending my suspicions in courts. ;o) (The gpl-violations.org guys go after people who are not honoring the release of source for both distributed and derived works - typically in embedded systems. Usually they settle when the company honors the GPL and provides source or stops distributing the offending product.) ..aye, this means they have valuable experience and can guide us. ;o) At this stage it appears that they are simply selling a binary distribution of a set of OSS applications. ..then, in good faith, they shouldn't mind saying so. My opinion now is, these people are common criminals, or a tSCOG-style Microsoft proxy team. http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html But they do say that - http://flight-aviator.com/ === [image: flight]Based on the award winning Flight Gear project [image: flight]All from the thriving Open Source Community, this sim is forever changing === ..but _no_ mention of _which_ license. As mentioned before, ethics or questionable business practices aside, we need to focus on what they are actually violating. Even the wikipedia screen shots are licensed under the GPL can be re-used freely. ..aye. Removals of FlightGear.org and GPL etc around these screen shots, would prove a few things though. ;o) I don't see what you are saying. The screenshots don't seem to be trimmed - beyond a possible crop here or there. ..we shall see. ;o) http://www.flight-aviator.com/images/fps/multiplayer-map.jpg as well as http://www.flight-aviator.com/images/getstart11x.jpg don't seem to be hiding it from being (or being derived from flightgear). The lack of attribution is not quite nice, but is a common mistake. .._active_ removal takes it that one step further. ;o) Again, if the flightgear leadership, or the creators (and hence copyright owners) of the images have particular concern then that can put forward when a direction is chosen. ..this is not just us (FG). ..and keep in mind, top posting is not quite comme-il-feaut at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;o) I understand, but the google mobile client provides no options to inline quote or bottom quote. (I would actually expect that from a legal perspective a top-posted email thread is far more valuable than a inline posted... But that is a different discussion. :) ..in those cases we have real mail clients that can handle mail list threads in a manner convenient for litigation discovery. ;o) Please note that I am not saying take no action, I am just saying take a few days to gather what each copyright owner who is impacted wants and ensure a plan is prepared before taking action. Remember, the emotive aspect - although it is real and affects people personally - should not be the prime driver for individuals. The legal framework that each person has implicitly or explicitly has agreed to is what should be driven. (I had a long discussion with some people from Creative Commons that people should also be made aware of what they are giving up. If you CC-Share Alike an image, and then see that image being used to promote something you personally find distasteful - have given up your right to control what the downstream person does with the image. You have no fundamental recourse unless the downstream restricts other people from the Share
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..ok, this far I have found a fake physical address, suggesting my suspicion is confirmable. So I cc. ..unless New Zealand allow a fake address, a fake company, a fake name etc, these are illegally registred web sites. Are we taking about whois data Arnt? The whois data on the domains seems to be sensible to me, infact, it's about 3 KM as the Cub flys from my own house in Hoon Hay. He is very nearby to a very historic airfield which is sadly going to close in a couple of months forever to be made into housing by the landowners :-( I have noticed this rebranding of FG for sale on the dominant auction site here in NZ for quite a long time, but never really felt concerned by it - http://www.trademe.co.nz/Gaming/PC-games/Simulation/auction-188794636.htm Now I look, the trademe username is casey-a from Christchurch, the whois data for the domain indicates this is Mr Andrew Casey of that address. Phone number etc is in the whois. I won't post it here for respect. The whois on flight-aviator.com and idbproductions.com match up. The whois on idb.net.nz doesn't quite, but could just be an work address, it's not very far away. The company name in the whois KcKpers Ltd is a legitimate company, and the Director's address agrees with the whois on the .com domains, you can search the company at www.companies.govt.nz . Mr Casey is the only shareholder (nothing sinister in that, common practice). The company was incorporated in 2002, and Mr Casey was he who did that incorporation and had the same Wigram address at the time. I don't see any fakeness Arnt? Or have I missed half of a conversation somewhere? --- James Sleeman - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Okay. So, let's look at what actions should be taken. Given that I am not a copyright owner, I have nothing at stake beyond community membership. Regarding the images. We now sufficient information for individuals to assert their copyright on the individual using them. Regarding flightgear, I am still trying to connect the dots on how we can be sure there is a GPL violation. Arnt, Can you describe which parts of the GPL you believe he is violating? Since this list is a public record, I would like to stay away from potentially libelous claims, and stick to verifiable facts. Also, what would your expectation be for any action. There is no morality or advertising clause in the GPL, and almost all of the rights conferred by the GPL are really oriented towards distribution - of which no one has been a recipient. Realistically, if he ships the source on CD, I don't think there is any wrongdoing from flightgear's perspective. Regards... Matthew Regards... Matthew On 11/21/08, James Sleeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..ok, this far I have found a fake physical address, suggesting my suspicion is confirmable. So I cc. ..unless New Zealand allow a fake address, a fake company, a fake name etc, these are illegally registred web sites. Are we taking about whois data Arnt? The whois data on the domains seems to be sensible to me, infact, it's about 3 KM as the Cub flys from my own house in Hoon Hay. He is very nearby to a very historic airfield which is sadly going to close in a couple of months forever to be made into housing by the landowners :-( I have noticed this rebranding of FG for sale on the dominant auction site here in NZ for quite a long time, but never really felt concerned by it - http://www.trademe.co.nz/Gaming/PC-games/Simulation/auction-188794636.htm Now I look, the trademe username is casey-a from Christchurch, the whois data for the domain indicates this is Mr Andrew Casey of that address. Phone number etc is in the whois. I won't post it here for respect. The whois on flight-aviator.com and idbproductions.com match up. The whois on idb.net.nz doesn't quite, but could just be an work address, it's not very far away. The company name in the whois KcKpers Ltd is a legitimate company, and the Director's address agrees with the whois on the .com domains, you can search the company at www.companies.govt.nz . Mr Casey is the only shareholder (nothing sinister in that, common practice). The company was incorporated in 2002, and Mr Casey was he who did that incorporation and had the same Wigram address at the time. I don't see any fakeness Arnt? Or have I missed half of a conversation somewhere? --- James Sleeman - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 If we add a little lable / watermark on all screenshots on the homepage with http://www.flightgear.org/; (or one of our logos...) it makes reusing them much more difficult... Perhaps adding a copyright statement as well would be even better. This doesn't prevent any copying - but it might stop any accidental reuse... Stuart Buchanan schrieb: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAkknR8cACgkQoWM1JLkHou2GtwCfU05asnlTCReczaSNAnUtRJHW uRsAnjNeZBWnI6kzGOoaqlDkMbc41Anm =Yrun -END PGP SIGNATURE- - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Matthew Tippett wrote: So, let's look at what actions should be taken. Given that I am not a copyright owner, I have nothing at stake beyond community membership. I think everybody is jumping to conclusions without any actual information, we need to first hear from Mr Casey. I have now sent an email to Mr Casey inviting him to present his side of the story here on the developers list and offering my personal assistance in helping him assure the developers that he is compliant with the GPL (yes I'm giving the benefit of the doubt) as an independant user who just happens to live nearby to him. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
James Sleeman wrote: I have now sent an email to Mr Casey inviting him to present his side of the story here on the developers list and offering my personal Mr Casey has already quickly replied to my email and indicates he will take a look at this thread. He indicates he is following the GPL and sounds happy to confirm this with the developers, so hopefully he will contribute to the discussion soon and any issues arising can be amicably resolved. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:16:25 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Okay. So, let's look at what actions should be taken. Given that I am not a copyright owner, I have nothing at stake beyond community membership. ..me neither. ;o) ..but the copyright owners here and at 7Zip, Audacity, Wesnoth etc down http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ , might want to know, so I Bcc them, and cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe talk PJ into doing an article on http://groklaw.net/ ? Regarding the images. We now sufficient information for individuals to assert their copyright on the individual using them. ..I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Try again, you must have left something important out of your statement above. ..if you meant to say: Regarding the images. We now have sufficient information for individuals to assert their copyright on the individual using them., then good, I would agree. Regarding flightgear, I am still trying to connect the dots on how we can be sure there is a GPL violation. ..aye, first I'd like to carry on find and verify such verifiable facts. Arnt, Can you describe which parts of the GPL you believe he is violating? ..not yet, first I look for facts. Facts we need to know, includes under which license each picture and each documentation document has been published. I guess the guys behind 7Zip, Audacity, Wesnoth etc down http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ , would want the same. Since this list is a public record, I would like to stay away from potentially libelous claims, and stick to verifiable facts. Also, what would your expectation be for any action. ..first find the facts, then confront these people with the facts and the license that walks away on violations and leaves them at the mercy of the teeth of the law. ;o) There is no morality or advertising clause in the GPL, and almost all of the rights conferred by the GPL are really oriented towards distribution - ..correct. of which no one has been a recipient. ..this _may_ be a possible verifiable fact, but you state it _as_ a fact, do you in fact _know_ it to be a fact? ..these websites has lots of statements from what I understand is alleged satisfied recipients, suggesting both GPL violations and fraudulent marketing. Realistically, if he ships the source on CD, I don't think there is any wrongdoing from flightgear's perspective. ..realistically, whenever I see such massive rebranding activity on graphic etc binaries, I expect to find some. ;o) Regards... Matthew Regards... Matthew On 11/21/08, James Sleeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..ok, this far I have found a fake physical address, suggesting my suspicion is confirmable. So I cc. ..unless New Zealand allow a fake address, a fake company, a fake name etc, these are illegally registred web sites. Are we taking about whois data Arnt? The whois data on the domains seems to be sensible to me, infact, it's about 3 KM as the Cub flys from my own house in Hoon Hay. He is very nearby to a very ..excellent, then you would be in an excellent position to verify there indeed _is_ a house at 5A Jasmine Place? Pictures? I found none and said so. historic airfield which is sadly going to close in a couple of months forever to be made into housing by the landowners :-( ..you could try FUD them away from your airfield? Finance crisis and all? Wait and see!? ;o) I have noticed this rebranding of FG for sale on the dominant auction site here in NZ for quite a long time, but never really felt concerned by it - ..you should have, the bad guys try to undermine the GPL and copyright e.g. thru software piracy and by establishing an established practice to form case law. This is a long term strategy and they have deep pocket and when exposed, they try to intimidate their way out of it with e.g. subtle litigation FUD. ;o) Check http://groklaw.net/ ;o) http://www.trademe.co.nz/Gaming/PC-games/Simulation/auction-188794636.htm Now I look, the trademe username is casey-a from Christchurch, the whois data for the domain indicates this is Mr Andrew Casey of that address. Phone number etc is in the whois. I won't post it here for respect. ..respect for who? ..assuming you respect the copyright holders of FlightGear, 7Zip, Audacity, Wesnoth etc down www.idbproductions.com/Products/ way, then maybe you could mail it so we can help check it all out? The whois on flight-aviator.com and idbproductions.com match up. The whois on idb.net.nz doesn't quite, but could just be an work address, it's not very far away. ..sounds reasonable, it's 7.1 km – about 18 mins according to:
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..excellent, then you would be in an excellent position to verify there indeed _is_ a house [...] I found none and said so. Err, you can see it yourself, at least the roof... if you look on Google maps, click Map view, type in the address. It will show you the house section numbered 5A slightly to the left and down from where Google puts the marker, put your finger on the section, now click Satellite view, it will show you the house. It's a back section with a grey roof. Got to love the eye in the sky. ..respect for who? Well I think it's just rude to post such personal details on public lists, sure it's available elsewhere I guess (whois) but still, I don't personally feel comfortable in posting such information. ..I certainly missed _your_ half of this conversation, _did_ you try post this to FG-dev or Eh? You've lost me here. I posted only to FG-dev. - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ - Well: --Flight-Aviator.com acknowledges that there may be an undisclosed amount of the pictures and / or other content found on this site that are not property of Flight-Aviator.com. If you feel you own one of these pictures and / or content, feel free to contact us at through our site. We will either remove the photo(s)and / or content or add credits I can't remember that I had given them the pictures I made- why I can see them on their site? The thing I really hate is, hat they earn money with our work! But tats our licence, I know... Cheers HHS - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
--- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Thursday 20 November 2008, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. One clear issue: I could find no reference to source code availability on that web-site. Possible second issue: Does the GPL require that GPL'd works are identified as such? The first issue is a requirement of the GPL, but I'm not sure if GPL'd works need to be identified as such when being redistributed. One of the recognised FG project team members _needs_ to get clear legal advice regarding this sort of issue. It keeps cropping up and each time it happens no one has a definitive answer to it and it leaves people running around like offended headless chickens. The GPL specifically allows redistribution of GPL'd works, and for profit - the only real issue here is whether this distribution conforms to the requirements of the GPL. It's got people in a flap too many times already - don't guess - find out. LeeE - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Nov 21, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. They might replace the string with binary editor. Encoding a massage in some way can be good against such case, maybe not enough but it is a bit hard to find a way to crack it. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! We can also hardcore some small image (probably with a checksum validation) showing such message on or next to splash image. This way it may take a while to modify it even they can get source code. But I think there was some discussion on similar idea but not implemented yet, so this probably is not a suitable idea. Maybe a good combination of obfuscation and clear message without messing code is a good idea. Tat - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
A quick review of the site doesn't indicate they are doing anything fundamentally wrong. The acknowledge that it is derived from Flight Gear and that FG is an Open Source project. I am not saying that the way they are presenting it is a nice way to do it. But it is not fundamentally different than what most of the for-profit distribution vendors do when they create a binary distro. The key differentiator of the 'correctness' of what they are doing is if they are not distributing the code - if requested. Or if they are enhancing the source but not distributing it. A polite email from a potential customer asking if the source is available since it is Open Source should clear that concern up. Regarding the use of screenshots, wikipedia seems to always claim 'fair use' for using screenshots to discuss software, but again if as a creator of a screenshot you haven't explicitly declared a license, then a simple request should clean that up too. I am willing to attempt to contact them as an individual to get some more information if people are interested. Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 21, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. They might replace the string with binary editor. Encoding a massage in some way can be good against such case, maybe not enough but it is a bit hard to find a way to crack it. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! We can also hardcore some small image (probably with a checksum validation) showing such message on or next to splash image. This way it may take a while to modify it even they can get source code. But I think there was some discussion on similar idea but not implemented yet, so this probably is not a suitable idea. Maybe a good combination of obfuscation and clear message without messing code is a good idea. Tat - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart --- --- --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Sent from my mobile device --- -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
They use our screenshots, not even taking the time to make their own. I wonder what licensing applies to them? The mac version advertised on ebay also uses our screenshots, but with their copyright message! That smells illegal to me... And if you look closely, you can find this gem: Box is illustrative only and NOT included. Other than the images, I don't think they are doing illegal stuff, just unethical. They could at least ship full world scenery, but not even a box? I can only guess what kind of support they provide... They seem to offer 60 days money back guarantee, so if we can inform people within that period, they could ask for a refund. To that end, we could put up a general notice to our home page, the mp map and the forums. -- Csaba/Jester - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100url=/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:11:27 -0700, Ron wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 15:43 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ Best regards, Curt. -- http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/FlightProSim/original/FlightGear% 20Flight%20Simulator.htm They're mirroring the home page for us... ..how nice. ;o) And it's not only us: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ and http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ ... I shall be _really_ intrigued to hear _this_ story. ;o) ..and I think this story belongs here http://groklaw.net/ and here: http://gpl-violations.org/mailinglists.html . ..same people: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/0a16 $ jwhois idbproductions.com [Querying whois.verisign-grs.com] [Redirected to whois.godaddy.com] [Querying whois.godaddy.com] [whois.godaddy.com] The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WhoIs database, while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided as is with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you in obtaining information about domain name registration records. Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written permission of GoDaddy.com, Inc. By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes. Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified in the registrant field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc. is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database. Registrant: KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: IDBPRODUCTIONS.COM Created on: 27-Aug-07 Expires on: 28-Aug-10 Last Updated on: 27-Aug-07 Administrative Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand 0211863057 Fax -- Technical Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand 0211863057 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS1.SWIFTCO.NET NS2.SWIFTCO.NET [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/0a16 $ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/0a16 $ jwhois flight-aviator.com [Cached] [whois.godaddy.com] The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WhoIs database, while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided as is with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you in obtaining information about domain name registration records. Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior written permission of GoDaddy.com, Inc. By submitting an inquiry, you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular, you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible, dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for any purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and and solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agree not to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronic processes designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose, including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes. Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified in the registrant field. In most cases, GoDaddy.com, Inc. is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database. Registrant: KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: FLIGHT-AVIATOR.COM Created on: 25-Aug-08 Expires on: 26-Aug-10 Last Updated on: 25-Aug-08 Administrative Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch, Canterbury 8004 New Zealand (021) 186-3057 Fax -- Technical Contact: Casey, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] KcKpers Ltd 5a Jasmine place Wigram Christchurch,
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain rights are gained, others are given up. The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a part of a community, the worst we should expect is that they add no value and sell it as a package. ..in this case I think we have an excellent opportunity to stand up for the GPL by enforcing it, copyright law and criminal law. ;o) I don't believe that FG I structured in a way to be able to receive funds as an organization, and consequently we can only hope that they will be a good community member and sponsor and assist where they can. If people want me to slueth around and find some more info and ..by all means go ahead. ;o) possibly reach out, please advise. ..here I'd like the copyright owners to weigh in, me, I recommend hiring a lawyer for this job, to make sure we get it _right_. ;o) ..given http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ and http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ this is _not_ just us, so I'd have Harald Welte and the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ weigh in with advice on how to proceed. I cc this there. ..playing with dig, jwhois and a web browser and the names I find, it's _amazing_ how I get thrown back to: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ ;o) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the link here to get some more eyes on it. http://flight-aviator.com/ One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include www.flightgear.org prominently in the startup screens, in the same way that we include initializing sub-systems, initializing scenery. Possibly with an added message along the lines of Welcome to FlightGear, the free open source flight simulator. That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! -Stuart --- --- --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Still, the question is if this company is violating the GPL. We have no proof of that. (The gpl-violations.org guys go after people who are not honoring the release of source for both distributed and derived works - typically in embedded systems. Usually they settle when the company honors the GPL and provides source or stops distributing the offending product.) At this stage it appears that they are simply selling a binary distribution of a set of OSS applications. As mentioned before, ethics or questionable business practices aside, we need to focus on what they are actually violating. Even the wikipedia screen shots are licensed under the GPL can be re-used freely. Regards... Matthew On 11/21/08, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain rights are gained, others are given up. The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a part of a community, the worst we should expect is that they add no value and sell it as a package. ..in this case I think we have an excellent opportunity to stand up for the GPL by enforcing it, copyright law and criminal law. ;o) I don't believe that FG I structured in a way to be able to receive funds as an organization, and consequently we can only hope that they will be a good community member and sponsor and assist where they can. If people want me to slueth around and find some more info and ..by all means go ahead. ;o) possibly reach out, please advise. ..here I'd like the copyright owners to weigh in, me, I recommend hiring a lawyer for this job, to make sure we get it _right_. ;o) ..given http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ and http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ this is _not_ just us, so I'd have Harald Welte and the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ weigh in with advice on how to proceed. I cc this there. ..playing with dig, jwhois and a web browser and the names I find, it's _amazing_ how I get thrown back to: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ ;o) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't contribute a proportional amount upstream.) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: Someone pointed
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Hi, ..my apologies to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the FlightGear top-mix posts fw'd and cc'd to you, FlightGear strives to be multi-platform. ;o) On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:02:06 +0100, Arnt wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... Certain rights are gained, others are given up. The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a part of a community, the worst we should expect is that they add no value and sell it as a package. ..in this case I think we have an excellent opportunity to stand up for the GPL by enforcing it, copyright law and criminal law. ;o) ..FG is still GPLv2? That means these people will need _explicit_ permission from _each_ copyright owner, _if_ there has been _any_ violation of the license. ..absent such explicit permission from _any_ copyright owner, his or her no longer permitted code must be removed, and the vendor's binaries must be recompiled to exclude that forbidden code. ..the GPLv3 is a bit more lenient right there, ;o) the bad guys are forgiven under the GPLv3 once they become _good_ guys by _complying_. ;o) ..fwiw, I ran wget -m -l0 http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ too: ;o) FINISHED --2008-11-21 07:09:33-- Downloaded: 4624 files, 169M in 52m 37s (54.7 KB/s) I don't believe that FG I structured in a way to be able to receive funds as an organization, and consequently we can only hope that they will be a good community member and sponsor and assist where they can. If people want me to slueth around and find some more info and ..by all means go ahead. ;o) possibly reach out, please advise. ..me, I find this rather instructive: ;o) http://gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html ..here I'd like the copyright owners to weigh in, me, I recommend hiring a lawyer for this job, to make sure we get it _right_. ;o) ..given http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ and http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ this is _not_ just us, so I'd have Harald Welte and the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ weigh in with advice on how to proceed. I cc this there. ..playing with dig, jwhois and a web browser and the names I find, it's _amazing_ how I get thrown back to: http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ ;o) Regards... Matthew On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. But I do care if that affects our project in either technically or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not like the current situation. I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL thingies. You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness aspects. I think there is still much room in improving the usability, functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear community, that'll be super good. Look forward to seeing reply from them, Tat p.s. Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is missing copy-past and cut-paste things. On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, Matthew Tippett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it happening. The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by extension you give up the right of control as an author when you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of aggregations is a confusing area). Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. (A
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Another person selling FlightGear under dubious pretenses
Comments within. (I am personally uncomfortable including the GPL violations people until we have a clear direction from the leadership of the flightgear project as to the direction the project would like to go). On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ... Still, the question is if this company is violating the GPL. We have no proof of that. ..I'm checking my wee mirrors to find out. ;o) The GPL can only be violated when they distribute the software. Their website doesn't entail them distributing. Action can only be taken if there is a clear violation (ie: they distribute a flightgear derived product without an offer of distributing source. Who knows, they may include the source in the DVD or CD that they ship. I personally don't want to charge forward and claim a violation when nothing has been distributed. (The gpl-violations.org guys go after people who are not honoring the release of source for both distributed and derived works - typically in embedded systems. Usually they settle when the company honors the GPL and provides source or stops distributing the offending product.) ..aye, this means they have valuable experience and can guide us. ;o) At this stage it appears that they are simply selling a binary distribution of a set of OSS applications. ..then, in good faith, they shouldn't mind saying so. My opinion now is, these people are common criminals, or a tSCOG-style Microsoft proxy team. http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html But they do say that - http://flight-aviator.com/ === [image: flight]Based on the award winning Flight Gear project [image: flight]All from the thriving Open Source Community, this sim is forever changing === As mentioned before, ethics or questionable business practices aside, we need to focus on what they are actually violating. Even the wikipedia screen shots are licensed under the GPL can be re-used freely. ..aye. Removals of FlightGear.org and GPL etc around these screen shots, would prove a few things though. ;o) I don't see what you are saying. The screenshots don't seem to be trimmed - beyond a possible crop here or there. http://www.flight-aviator.com/images/fps/multiplayer-map.jpg as well as http://www.flight-aviator.com/images/getstart11x.jpg don't seem to be hiding it from being (or being derived from flightgear). The lack of attribution is not quite nice, but is a common mistake. Again, if the flightgear leadership, or the creators (and hence copyright owners) of the images have particular concern then that can put forward when a direction is chosen. ..and keep in mind, top posting is not quite comme-il-feaut at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;o) I understand, but the google mobile client provides no options to inline quote or bottom quote. (I would actually expect that from a legal perspective a top-posted email thread is far more valuable than a inline posted... But that is a different discussion. :) Please note that I am not saying take no action, I am just saying take a few days to gather what each copyright owner who is impacted wants and ensure a plan is prepared before taking action. Remember, the emotive aspect - although it is real and affects people personally - should not be the prime driver for individuals. The legal framework that each person has implicitly or explicitly has agreed to is what should be driven. (I had a long discussion with some people from Creative Commons that people should also be made aware of what they are giving up. If you CC-Share Alike an image, and then see that image being used to promote something you personally find distasteful - have given up your right to control what the downstream person does with the image. You have no fundamental recourse unless the downstream restricts other people from the Share Alike rights within the license. You may not like it, but you gave up your right to control that when you licensed it. The same goes with the GPL. As mentioned before, I see the baseline direction should be at least the following. 1) Respect copyright - The images and and so on should attributed fully 2) Respect the GPL - If the flightgear derived binaries that are distributed are not accompanied by source or an offer to provide the source that created the binary, then actions should be taken to ensure that it is available. 1) is fairly obvious, but 2) will need someone to buy the CD before taking further actions. Regards, Matthew - This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
