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
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. :-)
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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/
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/
--- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
...
38 matches
Mail list logo
