Hi all,
I'm not sure if these kind of auctions we've been noticing are real GPL
violations.
This one doesn't make any note of the fact that their simulator is
Free Software.
And it doesn't mention the GPL nor that the source is available - which
is a violation in my opinion.
Nevertheless,
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:08:00 +0100
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:05:23 -0500, Chris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What are the *specific* subsections of the GPL that you feel are
being violated here? What *specifically* are they doing that's
forbidden by the GPL?
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:34:15 -0500, Chris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:02:10 +0100
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..in courts, this is known as fraud, and copyright infringement:
You do harm to the cause of free software by throwing accusations like
this around
--- Detlef Faber wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 16.11.2006, 21:41 +0100 schrieb Heiko Schulz:
Hi,
So, now I got the OSG-version from yesterday for
microsoft compiled with WINCVS.
What should I say which isn't said before - framerates
about 10 % under the plib-version. But they are
Hi,
IANAL.
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:56:02 +0100, Arnt wrote in message
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:34:15 -0500, Chris wrote in message
[SNIP]
What subsection of the GPL requires that advertisements for
re-distributions of the product include the fact that the
software is
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:01:56 -0500, Chris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:08:00 +0100
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:05:23 -0500, Chris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What are the *specific* subsections of the GPL that you feel are
being
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:56:02 +0100
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:34:15 -0500, Chris wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What subsection of the GPL requires that advertisements for
re-distributions of the product include the fact that the software is
covered by the GPL in the
this page is very interesting
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
i understand that if we think there is a gpl violation, we must write to them
at [EMAIL PROTECTED] they know if it's a violation or not !
regards
--
Didier Fabert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
KFreeFlight project : A FlightGear
Hi,
Holger Wirtz wrote:
Hi,
I have some trouble using fgfs-builder-20061110. The trouble is not
fgfs-builder but OpenProducer. Everything works fine until the following
error occurs:
g++ -I../../..//include -Wall -O2 -I.././/../include -c ../ConfigLexer.cpp
ConfigLexer.cpp: In
Hi,
I have some trouble using fgfs-builder-20061110. The trouble is not
fgfs-builder but OpenProducer. Everything works fine until the following
error occurs:
g++ -I../../..//include -Wall -O2 -I.././/../include -c ../ConfigLexer.cpp
ConfigLexer.cpp: In member function 'virtual int
I wanted to try the osg updates. Plib is from cvs several months ago.
Successfully compiled and installed osg from
OSG_OP_OT-1.2-Flightgear.tar per the README.txt.
Checked out the current cvs for SimGear. Did
sh autogen.sh
./configure --build=i686 --with-jpeg-factory
make
and get the following
Quoting Dave Perry :
I wanted to try the osg updates. Plib is from cvs several months ago.
Successfully compiled and installed osg from
OSG_OP_OT-1.2-Flightgear.tar per the README.txt.
Checked out the current cvs for SimGear. Did
sh autogen.sh
./configure --build=i686 --with-jpeg-factory
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..moot, he disregards the GPL _completely_ and is hit by copyright
law, plus possibly for fraud, in representing himself as a fully
licensed reseller. Abiding by the GPL, he would have been.
I should jump in here: your logic is flawed. You might just as
well argue taht
On Friday 17 November 2006 09:56, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..the first line of section 0, states:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a
notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
the terms of this General Public License., in the
TERMS
Didier Fabert wrote:
this page is very interesting
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
i understand that if we think there is a gpl violation, we must write to them
at [EMAIL PROTECTED] they know if it's a violation or not !
regards
True, but ultimately it becomes the obligation
On Friday 17 November 2006 08:02, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..this case is well past GPL Violation, and fraud.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Realistic-Professional-Aviation-Flight-Simulator_W0Q
QitemZ260053619883QQihZ016QQcategoryZ80336QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem states New
Unregistered 100% Legal, Not OEM, Not
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:25:50 +0100, Durk wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Friday 17 November 2006 08:02, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..this case is well past GPL Violation, and fraud.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Realistic-Professional-Aviation-Flight-Simulator_W0Q
Ok, I hope that everyone will stay calm and not take the law into their own
hands so to speak.
I have contacted the FSF to get their opinion as to whether or not there is
even a violoation here.
If there is a violation, I would hope to have an opportunity to contact this
ebay vendor and explain
Andy Ross wrote:
And relax, everyone: he's certainly not getting rich, and he's
distributing FlightGear to people who might otherwise not have
noticed us. That's a *good* thing for us, ecologically. Just
send him a nice note asking that he put a link to flightgear.org
in the auction, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Curtis Olson schrieb:
Someone just directed me to the following ebay vendor selling FlightGear.
[...]
Although it seams that we've found a reasonable way to deal with the
problem, I think one point is still missing:
This guy uses our screenshots
Le vendredi 17 novembre 2006 18:23, Curtis Olson a écrit :
If there is a violation, I would hope to have an opportunity to contact
this ebay vendor and explain the details of the violation and offer him/her
an opportunity to restructure their ebay ad in a way that fully satisfies
the terms of
Andy Ross wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
I'd say this is by far the smartest comment on the topic. Don't get
your/our hands dirty and in case of doubt let others take action ;-)
Are you a professional troll?
No, unfortunately I don't get paid for such a job but I guess it would
be a big
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:29:00 +0100 (MET)
Christian Mayer wrote:
Although it seams that we've found a reasonable way to deal with the
problem, I think one point is still missing:
This guy uses our screenshots without our permission. This is definitely
an copyright violation!
Yeah, this is
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..since redlinedit's eBay site in no way contains a notice placed
by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms
of this General Public License.
Here is your confusion: redlinedit's eBay site is not FlightGear.
It is copyrighted by redlineedit* not
Hi,
Here' a nice effect:
ftp://ftp.abbeytheatre.dyndns.org/fgfs/Screen-shots/floodlight.jpg
But I don't think it's intentional. Something wrong with LMT and GMT
perhaps? It looks as if the illumination of the ac is at noon, while the
scenery is midnight.
Now if we could do that for all the ac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy Ross schrieb:
* Except, arguably, for the screenshots. But even there, I think you
could make a very valid fair use argument that as long as your
distribution is licensed, making screenshots for the purpose of
advertising is fine.
That's all well and good, except I think we want our screenshots to be
redistributable and used and shared as much as possible. This is an open
and free project. I really want to avoid going down the path of having to
decide who can and can't use our screenshots and then trying to gin up
Curtis Olson wrote:
That's all well and good, except I think we want our screenshots to be
redistributable and used and shared as much as possible. This is an
open and free project. I really want to avoid going down the path of
having to decide who can and can't use our screenshots and
Le samedi 18 novembre 2006 00:01, Curtis Olson a écrit :
That's all well and good, except I think we want our screenshots to be
redistributable and used and shared as much as possible. This is an open
and free project. I really want to avoid going down the path of having to
decide who can
On 11/17/06, Didier Fabert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and what the fsf says about it? it's a violation or not?
I will report as soon as I hear something back.
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson - University of Minnesota - FlightGear Project
http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:23:13 -0600, Curtis wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, I hope that everyone will stay calm and not take the law into
their own hands so to speak.
...
I'll probably vote for putting him in a cage for 10 minutes with Arnt.
..the 4 Geneva Conventions of August
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:56:33 + (UTC), Martin wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Andy Ross wrote:
Martin Spott wrote:
I'd say this is by far the smartest comment on the topic. Don't
get your/our hands dirty and in case of doubt let others take
action ;-)
Are you a
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:57:54 -0800, Andy wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..since redlinedit's eBay site in no way contains a notice
placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under
the terms of this General Public License.
Here is your
Chris is right.
It can only be good if images of flightgear sold any which way cause
people to want the product itself.
Personally, since gpl allows even the sale of the software itself, I
find it hard to believe a case can be made that images of the software
in action can't be sold.
Also
34 matches
Mail list logo
