Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 20:36 +0100, Oliver Fels wrote: I am not sure if you really noticed what I was going to say. If we do not respect the rights of trademarks owners (unless somebody slaps us) what would be the motivation for FPS to respect ours? My point, exactly. It's not about what one can get away with, whether one will be sued or not. It's about having respect for the rights of others. Btw, for the record, I wasn't intentionally making fun of a certain person's name. I changed the first letter so that the name would be more generic. I suppose I could have (and maybe should have) wrote Joe Blow but didn't If I offended anyone, I apologize. Anyway, this is my last post on this subject. Frankly, as an end-user my opinion is just that... a personal opinion. Take it or leave it. With that in mind, I don't have much else to add to the discussion. Regards, Chris -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:21 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: 1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright? A. There is a very great difference, at least in the UK. I'm glad you recognize that because, in your first quiz you focused strictly on copyright and didn't mention trademarks. I just wanted to make sure folks recognize that they're two totally different things. 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* do. A and B. Precedent is important. If Company A does not pursue Company B for unlicenced use of their trademark or copyright then it is reasonable to assume: a. Company A doesn't care about such unlicenced use, or indeed might see it as free advertising Or maybe Company A hasn't yet noticed that Company B is using the trademark without permission? Orb. Company B is not, in fact, infringing that trademark (see Cessna above) Or maybe Company B did, indeed, get permission to use the trademark? Actually, my correct answer, at least from a moral point of view, was C... what matters most is what *we* do and not what others do. I'm trying to point out that just because someone else is doing something wrong doesn't mean I should be able to say, Well *they* are doing it and use that to justify doing the same (wrong) thing. 3. Scenario: It's against the law to drive 60 mph (100 kph) in a 30 mph (50 kph) zone. I drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone but I always: (a) make sure there are no police around, and (b) don't ask the police if I can do this. Which of the following statements is true? D. It is however tacitly accepted that it is OK to drive at an _indicted_ 79 mph on UK motorways (the unwritten 10% + 2 rule). Same as the answer above. LOL! No fair adding answers! ;) Btw, while 99.9% of the time the cops will look the other way for speeding just slightly above the posted limit, it's *still* against the law and you *could* get pulled over and at least get a warning. So, no, unwritten rules don't change the law, they just change how the law is enforced... two totally different concepts. 3. Scenario: The FlightGear Project decides they will only distribute aircraft with liveries containing trademark icons if the trademark owner grants permission. This means there are very few liveries containing trademarks in the distribution package. However, anyone wanting to have liveries with trademarks can easily obtain them by Googling flightgear liveries and then going to a multitude of independent sites that have livery repositories. Which of the following statements is true? A. That will spell the end of the FlightGear Project B. That would work So we would have to ask our users to add dodgy liveries to our AI aircraft? I don't accept that having an aircraft that doesn't include a trademark on the livery makes that aircraft (or livery) dodgy. Personally, I don't fly an aircraft because of the livery it has but, rather, because I like the way the aircraft flies. I know there are those who say that the FG Project will be ruined if we don't include trademarks in the liveries, but personally I doubt that would be the case. Secondly, you're assuming that if we ask trademark owners if we can use their trademark in FG that the answer will 100% always be, No! While it's true that some (maybe even a lot) of trademark owners would deny the request (in which case I maintain we *shouldn't* be using the trademark), it's possible there will be some trademark owners who will, as you said, see it as free advertising or won't object because, as has already been pointed out, the FG Project isn't a for profit endeavour. And, finally, if it's really the case that FG simply *must* have symbols on our aircraft liveries, what's wrong with *make believe* icons? Is it *really* such a disaster if we don't have Red Bull, Macdonalds, Guinness, United Airlines, TWA, or any other trademarked symbol on our aircraft? Frankly, i think not! If they are classed as FlightGear Liveries, and we take no steps to object to other websites use of our name/logo, could we not also be guilty of a infringement of the law by association? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but if someone else makes a livery that includes a trademark symbol and offers that via their own web site repository, I don't see how the FG Project can be held accountable if they're using the FG name/logo merely to inform people that the livery is for the FG flight simulator. However, if they use the name/logo to imply (or explicitly state) that their site (and therefore the livery) are associated with or endorsed by the FG Project, then their breaching the FG Project's copyright rights, and we should get darned snotty about
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 19:31 +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: ..in some jurisdictions, trade marks need merely be established, to become enforceable. In others, established trade marks needs to be registered before they become enforceable. Can of worms indeed. All the more reason for the FG Project to take the high road and only allow trademarks in liveries where it can be explicitly shown that the trademark owner has agreed to the use. Regards, Chris -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 09:43 +, Vivian Meazza wrote: I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention because I'm only going to say this once: Okay, now it's my turn. Please answer the following: 1. Is there a difference between a trademark and a copyright? A. Yes B. No C. It doesn't matter because we should be able to ignore either of them and include well-known logos on aircraft liveries if we want. 2. Another flight simulator (X-Plane, MSFS, whatever) includes trademarks in their liveries. Therefore... A. It must be okay to do this because *they* do it. B. Even if it's not okay, we can do it because *they* do it. C. It really doesn't matter what they do. What matters is what *we* do. 3. Scenario: It's against the law to drive 60 mph (100 kph) in a 30 mph (50 kph) zone. I drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone but I always: (a) make sure there are no police around, and (b) don't ask the police if I can do this. Which of the following statements is true? A. It's only wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone if you hit something or run over somebody. B. Because I didn't ask permission (and so I couldn't be told I couldn't do it) and because no police are around, it is now okay to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. C. No matter what, it's wrong to drive 60 mph in a 30 mph zone. 3. Scenario: The FlightGear Project decides they will only distribute aircraft with liveries containing trademark icons if the trademark owner grants permission. This means there are very few liveries containing trademarks in the distribution package. However, anyone wanting to have liveries with trademarks can easily obtain them by Googling flightgear liveries and then going to a multitude of independent sites that have livery repositories. Which of the following statements is true? A. That will spell the end of the FlightGear Project B. That would work Regards, Chris -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 16:09 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote: In the spirit of shifting the discussion. I would also like to point out there are two separate issues to consider here: 1. use of copyright/trademark/logos when building realistic 3d models. 2. ensuring that all content creation is one's own work (or borrowed with suitable permission from the original author, or borrowed from a work that explicitly allows copying and modification.) With all due respect, I fail to see a distinction between the two. On the surface, they do look like separate issues, but your next paragraph sure muddies the waters, at least for me. I'm not sure we'll ever fully agree on #1. However, on item #2, I believe we have a long history of making it very clear what we allow or don't allow within the FlightGear project. Work submitted for inclusion in the FlightGear project, must be licensed in a GPL compatible way. It must be either an original work created by the author and licensed for inclusion with FlightGear, or it must be an adaption of another author's work either with appropriate permission, or of work previously licensed in a gpl compatible way. Okay, that sounds simple enough. But, how is a trademarked icon *not* a work nor content in the context of it being used on a livery for an aircraft included in the FlightGear package? If I take Red Bull's logo (or MacDonald's, or Trojan's, or any other trademarked icon) and slap it on a aircraft livery, am I not using a work that: (a) is not licensed in a GPL compatible way, (b) is not my original creation, and (c) is being used without the appropriate permission of the original author? What you seem to be saying Curtis, is that it's okay to use someone else's original work without appropriate permission if it's a part of an aircraft livery, but it's *not* okay to use someone else's work if it's computer code, an FDM, etc. We depend on an honor system--that all content authors vouch for the originality of their own work. It's impossible to independently verify every author's claim, so within the FlightGear community contributors build up a reputation of trust. And unfortunately some authors have developed a track record in the other direction. Works that include borrowed portions with dubious origin simply cannot be included within the core FlightGear project. Pardon me for being dense but, again, I'm confused. How is it impossible vouch for the originality of an aircraft livery? If the livery includes an obvious reproduction of a well-known trademarked icon, then isn't it pretty obvious this is *not* an original work of the author of the livery, and isn't also pretty easy to then ask that person to document that they have the appropriate permission of the original author of the work to use the trademarked icon for that purpose? Our policy with respect to point #2 is well defined and not open for debate. It is not my intention to reach through the computer screen and tell anyone what they can or can't do on their own time, but we are very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project ... what we commit to our central repository and what we distribute as core portions of FlightGear. Again, with all due respect it seems to me that we're very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project *except* when it comes to using trademarked icons. Pardon my being blunt, but IMHO what we're really saying when we act this way is, It's okay for me to steal *your* work, but please don't steal mine! By the way, everyone seems to be focused on whether (or not) there's a risk of legal exposure (i.e. someone getting sued), and if that were to happen whether (or not) there would be financial consequences (incurring legal costs, losing a suit, etc.). However, I respectfully submit that the *real* issue is much simpler... is borrowing (i.e. using without permission) the artistic work (i.e. a trademarked icon) of another person (e.g. Red Bull, MacDonalds, whomever) *morally* right? If we allow this to occur, can we *really* say that we're serious about maintaining the integrity of the Project? In my personal opinion, knowingly allowing the use of trademarks in aircraft liveries without the permission of the trademark holder *damages* this Project's integrity. However, if the consensus of the core development team is that this kind of hair splitting is acceptable I'll shut up because, after all, I'm just a lowly end-user who happens to read this mailing list. Therefore, my personal legal and/or financial risk is fairly minimal. Regards, Chris -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 16:09 -0600, Curtis Olson wrote: In the spirit of shifting the discussion. I would also like to point out there are two separate issues to consider here: 1. use of copyright/trademark/logos when building realistic 3d models. 2. ensuring that all content creation is one's own work (or borrowed with suitable permission from the original author, or borrowed from a work that explicitly allows copying and modification.) With all due respect, I fail to see a distinction between the two. On the surface, they do look like separate issues, but your next paragraph sure muddies the waters, at least for me. I'm not sure we'll ever fully agree on #1. However, on item #2, I believe we have a long history of making it very clear what we allow or don't allow within the FlightGear project. Work submitted for inclusion in the FlightGear project, must be licensed in a GPL compatible way. It must be either an original work created by the author and licensed for inclusion with FlightGear, or it must be an adaption of another author's work either with appropriate permission, or of work previously licensed in a gpl compatible way. Okay, that sounds simple enough. But, how is a trademarked icon *not* a work nor content in the context of it being used on a livery for an aircraft included in the FlightGear package? If I take Red Bull's logo (or MacDonald's, or Trojan's, or any other trademarked icon) and slap it on a aircraft livery, am I not using a work that: (a) is not licensed in a GPL compatible way, (b) is not my original creation, and (c) is being used without the appropriate permission of the original author? What you seem to be saying Curtis, is that it's okay to use someone else's original work without appropriate permission if it's a part of an aircraft livery, but it's *not* okay to use someone else's work if it's computer code, an FDM, etc. We depend on an honor system--that all content authors vouch for the originality of their own work. It's impossible to independently verify every author's claim, so within the FlightGear community contributors build up a reputation of trust. And unfortunately some authors have developed a track record in the other direction. Works that include borrowed portions with dubious origin simply cannot be included within the core FlightGear project. Pardon me for being dense but, again, I'm confused. How is it impossible vouch for the originality of an aircraft livery? If the livery includes an obvious reproduction of a well-known trademarked icon, then isn't it pretty obvious this is *not* an original work of the author of the livery, and isn't also pretty easy to then ask that person to document that they have the appropriate permission of the original author of the work to use the trademarked icon for that purpose? Our policy with respect to point #2 is well defined and not open for debate. It is not my intention to reach through the computer screen and tell anyone what they can or can't do on their own time, but we are very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project ... what we commit to our central repository and what we distribute as core portions of FlightGear. Again, with all due respect it seems to me that we're very serious about maintaining the integrity of the core FlightGear project *except* when it comes to using trademarked icons. Pardon my being blunt, but IMHO what we're really saying when we act this way is, It's okay for me to steal *your* work, but please don't steal mine! By the way, everyone seems to be focused on whether (or not) there's a risk of legal exposure (i.e. someone getting sued), and if that were to happen whether (or not) there would be financial consequences (incurring legal costs, losing a suit, etc.). However, I respectfully submit that the *real* issue is much simpler... is borrowing (i.e. using without permission) the artistic work (i.e. a trademarked icon) of another person (e.g. Red Bull, MacDonalds, whomever) *morally* right? If we allow this to occur, can we *really* say that we're serious about maintaining the integrity of the Project? In my personal opinion, knowingly allowing the use of trademarks in aircraft liveries without the permission of the trademark holder *damages* this Project's integrity. However, if the consensus of the core development team is that this kind of hair splitting is acceptable I'll shut up because, after all, I'm just a lowly end-user who happens to read this mailing list. Therefore, my personal legal and/or financial risk is fairly minimal. Regards, Chris -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
My apologies for the duplicate posting last night. Apparently, I had a system glitch so the message got sent twice. Sorry! Regards, Chris -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
I'm no lawyer, and I'm certainly not up on the law around the world, but there's a concept in North American common law that one must take reasonable and prudent steps to avoid liability. With this concept in mind, I respectfully ask whether it is reasonable and prudent to explicitly take the position that we'll look the other way when a possible copyright infringements are occurring? Likewise, is the if we don't ask permission they can't say no position reasonable and prudent? If this *really* is the position the developers want to take on this issue, then my recommendation is that ALL discussion on this subject cease IMMEDIATELY, and someone go through the archives ASAP and delete all traces of this conversation having taken place! Otherwise, someday some ticked-off company is going to hang us by our own words! And, finally, if the it's okay as long as we can get away with it argument is a valid defence, then maybe we should also shut up about the folks over at FlightProSim. Respectfully submitted... Regards, Chris -- Free Software Download: Index, Search Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 23:41 -0700, jac...@lfstech.com wrote: How about a show of hands? Is there enough interest and volunteers to organize a team to tackle the problem? As I said in my original post, I'm not a programmer so, unfortunately, I couldn't help in that regard. However, I'd be willing to help as an end-user/tester. Regards, Chris -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] VATSIM support?
[PREFACE: I'm a FG end-user who's not a programmer, nor am I an intellectual property rights attorney. My sole desire is to use FG as a realistic flight similator, as opposed to using it as a fun game. Please consider the remarks below in that context. Thanks!] On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 19:15 -0300, Victhor wrote: VATSIM requires any developer to sign a NDA before having access to their network, so it's not possible to make a open source client. SB747 was made before the NDA requirement, but I suppose sources can't be released due to obvious licensing issues. I'll get to this in a moment, but first... It seems it has been fixed so that it reports you as the aircraft you're currently using, but I'm not sure. Just to be clear, sb747 hasn't been fixed to report the proper aircraft but, rather, a workaround has been found whereby you file your flight plan via simroutes.com and then once that's done you file a blank flight plan with sb747. Since your simroutes.com flight plan contains the aircraft type, that's what is reported on VATSIM, Now, back to the whole licensing/NDA issue... IMHO, and with all due respect to those who might disagree, while the ideal would be that an FG--VATSIM broker (to use VATSIM's term) would be open source, I do not understand why this has to be mandatory? If VATSIM were saying that FG itself had to become closed-source for it to connect to their network, then I'd be in total agreement. However, that's NOT the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what VATSIM seems to be saying is that they don't want just anybody trying to connect to their network, hence the only approved clients policy, and in order to enforce that policy they want to be the only source for releasing the source code. I'm not aware of them wanting to extract licensing fees (i.e. earn income) for access to the source code (right?), and it seems to me they're merely trying to protect the integrity of their network. Is that so wrong? What we have here is an opportunity to take FG to a whole new level, and I'd *really* hate to see that opportunity rejected out-of-hand over this issue. We say on one hand that FG is a serious flight simulation environment (as opposed to merely being a game) and, yet, when presented with the possibility of linking FG to a serious air traffic controlled online flying environment we immediately reject the idea because a client to connect to that environment would not be open source? IMHO, the FG multiplayer environment will *never* match the realism and professionalism of air traffic controlled online flying that VATSIM has achieved. Yes, we have a handful of MP ATC's (jomo, redneck, wookierabbit, and a few others), and those folks do a *fabulous* job. But they're just a handful, and those of us who are seriously flying under their direction are often overwhelmed by gamers who spawn into MP on the runways, ignore ATC directions, and otherwise disrupt (either accidentally or purposely) our efforts to mimick real-life flying under ATC control. By comparison VATSIM has *hundreds* of ATC's who must pass rigid certification requirements before they go to work on the network. VATSIM requires those who access the network to follow ATC directions, and failing to do so will get you booted from that network pretty quickly. It's possible on VATSIM to fly across North America, or even transatlantic, and do the whole flight (including clearance and ground control) under air traffic control the entire time, while being passed to multiple controllers in the process. I have listened to real-life ATC comms on liveatc.net and I have flown FG on VATSIM and, frankly, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between the two. So, while some of us may not like the idea of having to sign an NDA in order to develop an FG--VATSIM broker/client, the simple fact of the matter is this... those of us who want to use FlightGear to fly online in a realistic and professional air traffic controlled environment *can't* currently do that in MP (and, IMHO, likely never will be able to do it), but we *can* do it in VATSIM. In closing, the squawkgear/sb747 solution is an exceptional hack that does work, but if we *really* want to get serious about providing FG users with the capability of using FG as a serious flight simulation environment, then IMHO we should give this a serious look. Regards, Chris -- Special Offer-- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE (a $49 USD value)! Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better price-free! Download using promo code Free_Logger_4_Dev2Dev. Offer expires February 28th, so secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY! http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsight-sfd2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
