Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
Hi All, I've received a couple of final comments. V1.4 of the statement is below. I think we've now got a statement that everyone on the -dev list is happy with. Curt - Can you please uploaded it to the main FG website and add a link from the Announcements page. I'll then send out some emails to various FlightSim websites. Thanks to everyone for commenting. -Stuart Jon S. Bernt wrote: FlightGear is AN open source flight simulator. Whoops. Corrected. John Denker wrote: Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). We do not know if this is the case or not. It would be better to leave out the initial Yes here. A similar Yes was removed from the next FAQ. The same logic applies here. Good point. Sorted. Bob Faulkner wrote: Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the distributors of Flight Pro Sim. Change makers to distributors Curt also suggested affiliate, but I think that's something that will be lost on the average buyer, and (as Bob pointed out) distributor is the phrase used in the GPL, so I've used distributor. === FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.4): As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being widely and actively marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is an open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and distribute with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at no cost from http://www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). We do not know if this is the case or not. Q: Is it legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller is in compliance with a number of conditions detailed in the GPL. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is GPL software. Q: Why do the FlightGear developers allow this ? A: The freedom to modify and enhance FlightGear is a core part of the project, and of open-source in general. Restricting the modifications that are allowed and what people can do with the software goes against that ethos. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and the FlightGear Project? A: No. Q: Has Flight Pro Sim contributed to the FlightGear project at all ? A: No. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the distributors of Flight Pro Sim. -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:40:55 + (GMT), Stuart wrote in message 206864.11472...@web26005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com: Hi All, I've received a couple of final comments. V1.4 of the statement is below. I think we've now got a statement that everyone on the -dev list is happy with. Curt - Can you please uploaded it to the main FG website and add a link from the Announcements page. I'll then send out some emails to various FlightSim websites. Thanks to everyone for commenting. -Stuart Jon S. Bernt wrote: FlightGear is AN open source flight simulator. Whoops. Corrected. John Denker wrote: Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). We do not know if this is the case or not. It would be better to leave out the initial Yes here. A similar Yes was removed from the next FAQ. The same logic applies here. Good point. Sorted. Bob Faulkner wrote: Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the distributors of Flight Pro Sim. Change makers to distributors Curt also suggested affiliate, but I think that's something that will be lost on the average buyer, and (as Bob pointed out) distributor is the phrase used in the GPL, so I've used distributor. === FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.4): As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being widely and actively marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is an open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and distribute with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at no cost from http://www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). We do not know if this is the case or not. ..add: Without such source code made available, the GPL falls away and all Flight Pro Sim distributors face criminal litigation for their copyright violations. Q: Is it legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller is in compliance with a number of conditions detailed in the GPL. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is GPL software. ..this is a dead wrong way of answering these 2 independent questions, GPL being free-as-in-freedom, and No such payment is required because it just by some accident happens to be free-bee(r) too, these 2 independent questions needs to be split up, and they each deserves an independent answer. ..say: A. No. We the FlightGear Authors, do not offer FlightGear code under any other license than the GPL, nor under any commercial license agreement contract, since the GPL is fully adequate for any use and any and all lawful distribution. We are happy to accept donations and contributions, and even political and financial support, but this is not a requirement under the GPL. Q: Why do the FlightGear developers allow this ? ..define this, or rephrase the question to ask if or why we let the Flight Pro Sim get away with
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the distributors of Flight Pro Sim. Change makers to distributors Bob -- Delusional Mail (http://www.delusionalmind.com) -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Bob Faulkner wrote: Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the distributors of Flight Pro Sim. Change makers to distributors I believe flight sim pro may be using a distributor/partner sales model, so distributor might be the most appropriate term here? Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Bob Faulkner wrote: Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the distributors of Flight Pro Sim. Change makers to distributors I believe flight sim pro may be using a distributor/partner sales model, so distributor might be the most appropriate term here? Affiliate is the word I was looking for ... Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Curtis Olson wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Bob Faulkner wrote: Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the distributors of Flight Pro Sim. Change makers to distributors I believe flight sim pro may be using a distributor/partner sales model, so distributor might be the most appropriate term here? Affiliate is the word I was looking for ... Curt. I wouldn't argue too much over which term to use, but since the GPL covers distribution, distributor the word I picked. Bob -- Delusional Mail (http://www.delusionalmind.com) -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
Hi All, Thanks very much for the additional feedback. As before, I've compiled the feedback since the last version, and included a new version (v1.3) at the bottom of this email. Any final comments? -Stuart Vivian wrote: Typo? ... at not cost from ... Fixed. Awkward tautology? ... we are aware of. As far as we are aware ... I've made this more definite (see comments from Lee) LeeE wrote: Paragraph 1. Replace word 'heavily' for 'widely and actively'. Done. Paragraph 2. Replace 'develop' with 'distribute' - modification is the same as development. Correct typo of 'not' to 'no' Done. Paragraph 3. Remove unnecessary emphasis 'very heavily' Given that they have acknowledged that their product is based on FG, I felt it worthwhile to emphasise the level that had been taken to. They have claimed to have made significant improvements over FG, but there is no evidence of this. FAQ 2. Remove reference to 'our' developers determining anything conclusively' entirely. What is the point of saying that we don't know something? Various people (including myself) have done a fair bit of digging into their distributed source-code. While at one level it appears that they are compliant, there are enough question-marks that I felt it was worth pointing out. Removing this might be read as indicating that we think they are in compliance. I've replaced the phrase with We do not know if this is the case or not. FAQ 3. Remove reference to 'restrictions' detailed in the GPL and replace with 'conditions'. Remove elaboration on what the GPL (v2) does or doesn't mean. The link to the licence in FAQ 2. is sufficient. The only lack of clarity in the GPL licence comes from not reading it carefully enough; it was developed to be understandable to software developers and doesn't need legal advice to be understood (unless you're trying to find a way around it). Correct typo of second 'is' to 'it'. Done. FAQ 6. Remove any uncertainty. Explicitly refer to the FlightGear project and just answer No. Done. FAQ 7. Remove this FAQ entirely - it is irrelevant and just smacks of emotional bitterness. I've changed this to a No. I think it has some relevance, as there has been some suggestion that they have contributed on other message-boards. New FAQ 7 (was FAQ 8). Don't suggest any details about whatever contract exists between FPS and the buyer, especially when we can't say anything with certainty; we're just saying that we don't know again. Done. Arnt wrote: Q: Is it legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller respects /\/\/\/\ ..say: complies to or is in compliance with or acts in compliance with ... Good point. Done. == FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.2): As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being widely and actively marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and distribute with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at no cost from http://www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). We do not know if this is the case or not. Q: Is it legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller is in compliance with a number of conditions detailed in the GPL. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.3)
Correction in red, below. Otherwise, it looks good, I think. FlightGear is an open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and distribute with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at no cost from http://www.flightgear.org. -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
Hi All, Thanks very much for the additional feedback. As before, I've compiled the feedback since the last version, and included a new version (v1.2) at the bottom of this email. Assuming people are happy with the update, I think we're pretty close to a statement that could be posted onto the main website and referenced from elsewhere. Curt - do you have any comment to make on this? -Stuart Durk wrote: In addition to the points brought up by others, I have one suggestion for a FAQ item: From the discussion on the flight simulator network, it struck me that people (especially those with a freeware background) don't necessarily understand why we are allowing third parties to make money off of FlightGear. I guess this is already covered by the is it legal to resell FAQ item, but maybe it's worth to specifically address this question from a different perspective (i.e. that of somebody coming from a freeware background)? I've added a Why do the FlightGear developers allow this ? FAQ to address this. Robert M. Shearman, Jr. wrote: I think if we are deigning to say Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name.; then I also think that after Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available), it's fair to mention something along the lines of Our developers and users have not conclusively determined whether or not the offer from FlightSimPro is indeed in compliance with these terms. I believe that statement sticks to the facts while expressing our stance of skepticism. Done. Torsten, myself and others have done some investigation, and this is unclear. Arnt wrote: Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 ..have you guys decide _against_ GPLv3 and GPLv2-and-later and instead decided to go GPLv2-_only_??? ..if not, FG is GPL and GPLv2-and-maybe-later. ;o) I don't think there has been any decision either way, so the 1.9.1 release is GPL v2. Arnt wrote: Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is open-source ..say is GPL software, BSD, MIT etc are also open-source. Good point, done. John Denker wrote: Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes. Technically, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the Since we are not lawyers here, I would shy away from answering bluntly yes to a legal question. How about something like: Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Under some conditions, yes. There are legal ways of distributing the program, and also illegal ways. This FAQ expresses no opinions about the legality of any particular distribution scheme. Generally speaking, the license allows a distributor to charge any price or no price but requires the distributor to comply with a number of restrictions, including making the source code available and giving you a license to make further copies. For details, refer to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html That's a good point, but I think the subtlety might be lost. I've reworded this below, let me know what you think. Scott Hamilton wrote: Being really really picky with English, the opening statement uses the word heavily too often; it's not good style. As a suggestion of replacement, perhaps; As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. almost entirely leaves an impression that there is little difference, while not making a binding statement that we may not be able to substantiate.. And in the next paragraph; It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals for the last 12 years. though I feel over the Internet could almost be left out, it really isn't important how we collaborate, the number and length of time are the important bits here. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, the word extreme feels like it is trying to pull emotional strings here, it could be removed without changing to meaning of the sentence. Viewing this statement in to the future, how does it feel if a legitimate commercial contributor crops up, is there anything here that would deter or prevent an engaged contributor from working with the project? I think by restating the GPL principles it has left open a contributor we would be happy to work with.
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
Stuart wrote: -Original Message- snip ... ... snip FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.2): As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and develop with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at not cost from http://www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). Our developers and users have not conclusively determined whether or not the offer from FlightSimPro is indeed in compliance with these terms Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller respects a number of restrictions detailed in the GPL. Generally, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the software, and it reasonable to charge a fee for this. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is GPL software. Q: Why do the FlightGear developers allow this ? A: The freedom to modify and enhance FlightGear is a core part of the project, and of open-source in general. Restricting the modifications that are allowed and what people can do with the software goes against that ethos. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear? A: Not that we are aware of. As far as we are aware, the makers of Flight Pro Sim are not FlightGear developers. Q: Has Flight Pro Sim contributed to the FlightGear project at all ? A: There is no evidence that the makers of Flight Pro Sim have contributed to the FlightGear project, either through code or money. They did offer to provide money ($250) for a monthly competition, but this offer has not been taken up. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the makers of Flight Pro Sim. We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee. Typo? ... at not cost from ... Awkward tautology? ... we are aware of. As far as we are aware ... Vivian -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
Can I make a couple of suggestions? Paragraph 1. Replace word 'heavily' for 'widely and actively'. As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being widely and actively marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim... Paragraph 2. Replace 'develop' with 'distribute' - modification is the same as development. Correct typo of 'not' to 'no' FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and distribute with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at no cost from http://www.flightgear.org.; Paragraph 3. Remove unnecessary emphasis 'very heavily' Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product based on FlightGear... FAQ 2. Remove reference to 'our' developers determining anything conclusively' entirely. What is the point of saying that we don't know something? Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). FAQ 3. Remove reference to 'restrictions' detailed in the GPL and replace with 'conditions'. Remove elaboration on what the GPL (v2) does or doesn't mean. The link to the licence in FAQ 2. is sufficient. The only lack of clarity in the GPL licence comes from not reading it carefully enough; it was developed to be understandable to software developers and doesn't need legal advice to be understood (unless you're trying to find a way around it). Correct typo of second 'is' to 'it'. Q: Is it legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes, provided the seller respects the conditions detailed in the GPL. FAQ 6. Remove any uncertainty. Explicitly refer to the FlightGear project and just answer No. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and the FlightGear project? A: No. FAQ 7. Remove this FAQ entirely - it is irrelevant and just smacks of emotional bitterness. New FAQ 7 (was FAQ 8). Don't suggest any details about whatever contract exists between FPS and the buyer, especially when we can't say anything with certainty; we're just saying that we don't know again. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund? A: That is something you will have to take up with the makers of Flight Pro Sim. If the FG project is going to make a statement of any kind then it must be clear and unambiguous, and should not attempt to just imply things. If the FG project doesn't know a thing to be clearly true or false, don't suggest anything at all as it'll leave the FG project open to criticism and argument if someone interprets an ambiguity incorrectly. Also, if we continued to say that We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee. and it turns out to be wrong (possibly in the future) then it risks invalidating everything else in the statement (see the recent brou-hahah about the university of Anglia's CRU cover-up e-mails) In addition, the FG project should not comment about activities or contracts between other parties; it can only talk about what the FG project does. LeeE -- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (was Re: FlightGear URL verification patch)
Durk wrote: On Sunday 13 December 2009 10:16:24 pm Stuart Buchanan wrote: A clear statement would a) provide a good reference point for any further discussion outside of the community, rather than various people making different comments. b) be visible enough to Google so that anyone doing cursory research would have more chance of coming across FG if investigating FPS. As someone who has in the past done professional work with FG, I'd be happy to draft a factual statement. Agreed. If you're willing to draft such a statement, I'm happy to help in proofreading, etc. etc. Also, I've been thinking of trying to publish a statement of similar content on some of the major websites: avsim.com or flightsim.com. I think one statement can easily be used for both purposes if written appropriately. I've included my draft below. I've purposefully sought not to address any moral or value arguments but stick to the facts for a number of reasons: a) There are a variety of opinions on this list and any statement should be something that all FG developers are happy with b) I want to aviod anything that could be considered slanderous or libelous. c) I think a mature approach will gain a lot more support from external readers as opposed to an emotional response. I'd appreciate feedback, even if it is only to agree with the wording of the statement, to ensure that we have buy-in for this. -Stuart FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement: As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is very heavily based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 2006. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and develop with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a huge number of individuals over the internet over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded for free from http:// www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the extreme similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes. Technically, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the software, and it reasonable to charge a fee for this. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is open-source software. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear? A: Not that we are aware of. As far as we are aware, the makers of Flight Pro Sim are not FlightGear developers. Q: Has Flight Pro Sim contributed to the FlightGear project at all ? A: There is no evidence that the makers of Flight Pro Sim have contributed to the FlightGear project, either through code or money. They did offer to provide money ($250) for a monthly competition, but this offer has not been taken up. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the makers of Flight Pro Sim. We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee. -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (was Re: FlightGear URL verification patch)
On 14 Dec 2009, at 11:11, Stuart Buchanan wrote: I'd appreciate feedback, even if it is only to agree with the wording of the statement, to ensure that we have buy-in for this. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 2006. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and develop with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a huge number of individuals over the internet over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded for free from http:// www.flightgear.org. Err, 2006 1996? ... 2006 + 12 != 2009 :) Aside from that, looks good to me, especially in terms of not being libellous towards FPS, and clarifying the GPL right-to-charge-for-distribution issue. Several people from outside FG have referred to 'freeware' in the MSFS sense, and obviously have no clue about this whole 'open-source' thing. Mind you, you could make yourself very tired explaining that point in the flight-simming world :D James -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (was Re: FlightGear URL
Hi Stuart, just one minor nit (aside the one wrt. the date of birth), there's a useless blank here: be downloaded for free from http:// www.flightgear.org. ^^^ Well done ! Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (was Re: FlightGear URL verification patch)
FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 2006. 1996. :) g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_! -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
I hate to be the one to shout about bad English, but FlightGear is either 'Free', or you can download it 'for nothing'. Please don't say 'for free'. Cheers, Vic -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (was Re: FlightGear URL verification patch)
On Monday 14 December 2009 12:11:15 pm Stuart Buchanan wrote: I think one statement can easily be used for both purposes if written appropriately. Agreed. That's actually what I was thinking of. I'd appreciate feedback, even if it is only to agree with the wording of the statement, to ensure that we have buy-in for this. In addition to the points brought up by others, I have one suggestion for a FAQ item: From the discussion on the flight simulator network, it struck me that people (especially those with a freeware background) don't necessarily understand why we are allowing third parties to make money off of FlightGear. I guess this is already covered by the is it legal to resell FAQ item, but maybe it's worth to specifically address this question from a different perspective (i.e. that of somebody coming from a freeware background)? Cheers, Durk -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
Thanks to everyone who's commented so far: Vic Marriott wrote: I hate to be the one to shout about bad English, but FlightGear is either 'Free', or you can download it 'for nothing'. Please don't say 'for free'. I think for nothing could have negative connotations. How about at no cost? Gene Buckle wrote: FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 2006. 1996. :) Whoops. Martin Spott wrote: just one minor nit (aside the one wrt. the date of birth), there's a useless blank here: be downloaded for free from http:// www.flightgear.org. ^^^ Vivian wrote: ... huge number of individuals ...? We are _relatively_ few. Large number - possibly, huge number - probably not, even taking into account those that have come and gone over the years. Rather depends on your definition of huge, I suppose. Yes, huge is a bit much. I'll change it to large So, taking it all together, I've included an updated statement below. Any further comments? -Stuart FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.1): As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is very heavily based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and develop with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the internet over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at not cost from http://www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the extreme similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes. Technically, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the software, and it reasonable to charge a fee for this. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is open-source software. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear? A: Not that we are aware of. As far as we are aware, the makers of Flight Pro Sim are not FlightGear developers. Q: Has Flight Pro Sim contributed to the FlightGear project at all ? A: There is no evidence that the makers of Flight Pro Sim have contributed to the FlightGear project, either through code or money. They did offer to provide money ($250) for a monthly competition, but this offer has not been taken up. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the makers of Flight Pro Sim. We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee. -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (was Re: FlightGear URL verification patch)
I think if we are deigning to say Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name.; then I also think that after Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available), it's fair to mention something along the lines of Our developers and users have not conclusively determined whether or not the offer from FlightSimPro is indeed in compliance with these terms. I believe that statement sticks to the facts while expressing our stance of skepticism. Cheers, -R. (MD-Terp) Robert M. Shearman, Jr. Transit Operations Supervisor, University of Maryland Department of Transportation also known as rm...@umd.edu FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement: As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is very heavily based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 2006. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and develop with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a huge number of individuals over the internet over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded for free from http:// www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the extreme similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes. Technically, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the software, and it reasonable to charge a fee for this. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is open-source software. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear? A: Not that we are aware of. As far as we are aware, the makers of Flight Pro Sim are not FlightGear developers. Q: Has Flight Pro Sim contributed to the FlightGear project at all ? A: There is no evidence that the makers of Flight Pro Sim have contributed to the FlightGear project, either through code or money. They did offer to provide money ($250) for a monthly competition, but this offer has not been taken up. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the makers of Flight Pro Sim. We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee. -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement (was Re: FlightGear URL verification patch)
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:24:23 +0100, Durk wrote in message 200912142224.24136.d.tal...@xs4all.nl: On Monday 14 December 2009 12:11:15 pm Stuart Buchanan wrote: I think one statement can easily be used for both purposes if written appropriately. Agreed. That's actually what I was thinking of. I'd appreciate feedback, even if it is only to agree with the wording of the statement, to ensure that we have buy-in for this. In addition to the points brought up by others, I have one suggestion for a FAQ item: From the discussion on the flight simulator network, it struck me that people (especially those with a freeware background) don't necessarily understand why we are allowing third parties to make money off of FlightGear. I guess this is already covered by the is it legal to resell FAQ item, but maybe it's worth to specifically address this question from a different perspective (i.e. that of somebody coming from a freeware background)? Cheers, Durk ..the freebee crowd often get their warez the same way they get their music, and may even have seen sheet music, allowing our banal sheet music is for music binaries, like what source code is for flight simulator binaries. -- ..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. -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:30:50 + (GMT), Stuart wrote in message 724039.15837...@web26006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com: Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 ..have you guys decide _against_ GPLv3 and GPLv2-and-later and instead decided to go GPLv2-_only_??? ..if not, FG is GPL and GPLv2-and-maybe-later. ;o) (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is open-source ..say is GPL software, BSD, MIT etc are also open-source. -- ..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. -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
On 12/14/2009 02:30 PM, Stuart Buchanan wrote in part: Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes. Technically, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the Since we are not lawyers here, I would shy away from answering bluntly yes to a legal question. How about something like: Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Under some conditions, yes. There are legal ways of distributing the program, and also illegal ways. This FAQ expresses no opinions about the legality of any particular distribution scheme. Generally speaking, the license allows a distributor to charge any price or no price but requires the distributor to comply with a number of restrictions, including making the source code available and giving you a license to make further copies. For details, refer to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:30 +, Stuart Buchanan wrote: Being really really picky with English, the opening statement uses the word heavily too often; it's not good style. As a suggestion of replacement, perhaps; As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. almost entirely leaves an impression that there is little difference, while not making a binding statement that we may not be able to substantiate.. And in the next paragraph; It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals for the last 12 years. though I feel over the Internet could almost be left out, it really isn't important how we collaborate, the number and length of time are the important bits here. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, the word extreme feels like it is trying to pull emotional strings here, it could be removed without changing to meaning of the sentence. Viewing this statement in to the future, how does it feel if a legitimate commercial contributor crops up, is there anything here that would deter or prevent an engaged contributor from working with the project? I think by restating the GPL principles it has left open a contributor we would be happy to work with. S. FlightGear Flight Pro Sim Statement (v1.1): As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is very heavily based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. FlightGear is a open-source flight simulator that was started in 1996. It is released under the GNU General Public License v2, and as such, it is free to use, modify and develop with few restrictions. It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals over the internet over the last 12 years. FlightGear can be downloaded at not cost from http://www.flightgear.org. Flight Pro Sim is a commercial product very heavily based on FlightGear. Investigation by a number of the FlightGear developers has found no difference between this and the FlightGear v1.9.1 release other than a change of name. Flight Pro Sim is in no way endorsed or supported by the core FlightGear development team. Given the extreme similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, we would recommend that prospective buyers download FlightGear for free and satisfy themselves that Flight Pro Sim provides worthwhile value for money before purchasing it. FAQ: Q: What is the difference between FlightGear and Flight Pro Sim? A: As far as we have been able to make out, the only difference between FlightGear v1.9.1 and Flight Pro Sim is a change in name throughout the software, and the fact that you have to pay for it. Q: Is it legal for the makers of Flight Pro Sim to simply re-brand FlightGear ? A: Yes. Under the GNU GPL v2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html), this is legal, provided that they distribute the source code (or make it available). Q: Is is legal to sell a copy of FlightGear, whether re-branded or not ? A: Yes. Technically, the purchaser is paying for the distribution of the software, and it reasonable to charge a fee for this. In fact, those interested in receiving a DVD containing FlightGear may do so through the main FlightGear website, and directly contribute to the project (though they may want to wait for the upcoming release in the new year). Q: Has Flight Pro Sim paid any money to FlightGear for the rights to the program ? A: No. No such payment is required, as FlightGear is open-source software. Q: Is there any relationship between the makers of Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear? A: Not that we are aware of. As far as we are aware, the makers of Flight Pro Sim are not FlightGear developers. Q: Has Flight Pro Sim contributed to the FlightGear project at all ? A: There is no evidence that the makers of Flight Pro Sim have contributed to the FlightGear project, either through code or money. They did offer to provide money ($250) for a monthly competition, but this offer has not been taken up. Q: I have purchased Flight Pro Sim. Can I get a refund ? A: That is something you will have to take up with the makers of Flight Pro Sim. We understand they offer a 60 day money-back guarantee. -- Return on Information:
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flight Pro Sim Statement
2009/12/15 Scott Hamilton scott.hamil...@popplanet.biz: On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 21:30 +, Stuart Buchanan wrote: Being really really picky with English, the opening statement uses the word heavily too often; it's not good style. As a suggestion of replacement, perhaps; As many people will be aware, there is a new flight simulator product that is being heavily marketed at the moment - Flight Pro Sim. As it is almost entirely based on FlightGear, there is some confusion between the two. To help provide some clarity, and answer some common questions, we (the core FlightGear development team) felt it was appropriate to make a statement, and provide a FAQ. almost entirely leaves an impression that there is little difference, while not making a binding statement that we may not be able to substantiate.. And in the next paragraph; It has been developed with the collaboration of a large number of individuals for the last 12 years. though I feel over the Internet could almost be left out, it really isn't important how we collaborate, the number and length of time are the important bits here. Given the similarities between Flight Pro Sim and FlightGear, the word extreme feels like it is trying to pull emotional strings here, it could be removed without changing to meaning of the sentence. Viewing this statement in to the future, how does it feel if a legitimate commercial contributor crops up, is there anything here that would deter or prevent an engaged contributor from working with the project? I think by restating the GPL principles it has left open a contributor we would be happy to work with. (Gawd, I dislike html email.) Scott, Say you want to embed into a certified hardware for flight training,. If I was an entity that wanted to use FlightGear, I'd probably be emailing Curt for suggestions to find a developer that is willing to consult as necessary and also to consider commiting patches from the commercial entity. There are other ways to contribute to the FlightGear project. I don't think anyone would say no to improved scenery, especially around the airports/airfields. There is nothing wrong with keeping the proposal quiet (ie off list) but an apparent fork in name only is not in the spirit of the GPL. The above approach is much more transparent than what has been done in the past. Regards George -- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
