Curtis Olson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Martin Spott wrote some stuff about the web
page:
Pete and I agreed (I think) that we probably don't want to ultimately do the
official flightgear web site as a google apps engine page. That locks us
into a closed source, proprietary
Martin Spott wrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Martin Spott wrote some stuff about the web
page:
Pete and I agreed (I think) that we probably don't want to ultimately do the
official flightgear web site as a google apps engine page. That locks us
into a closed
I've /probably/ done the most extensive amount of research into this at the
moment, some key points:
1) If we want or need legal representation, please visit
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
I have already contacted them, so please don't send them a bunch of emails
about FlightProSim.
2)
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Rob Oates carrotr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm ... the planes in Flightgear are just models, they don't require
simgear and terragear to function. Furthermore I would find it extremely
bizarre for an airplane model to be a dependency in order for Flightgear to
Tim Moore wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Rob Oates carrotr...@gmail.com
Our models and our code should be seen as two separate entities,
that is all that I'm suggesting.
I'm having trouble seeing the difference between highly detailed models
and artwork and significant
I think this is exactly true. And what happens to this guy when more and
more people start finding out that they have paid money for something they
could have gotten for free?
Jon
From: Curtis Olson [mailto:curtol...@gmail.com]
The guy is building his business on a charade ... and
As much as I'd hope what you say would be true, realistically there is not much
of a downside for this guy. Everyday people make purchases without knowing all
the facts, and for more money buying online than locally. (Ebay can be a good
example) From his side of it, unless someone or group
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Peter Brown wrote:
While I truly hope this group, or multiple groups can get together and
bring him to task for his wrongs, publication of FlightGear.org as a
BETTER simulator, which also happens to be FREE, and by the way, that other
simulator is just a copy
I have been reading the mail archive and forums about this story, then
went on the FPS website and read their disclaimer.
From what I saw, and given that my understanding of GPL and copyrights
might be wrong, here are my thoughts :
I think what this person(s) do here is *almost* legal.
They are
First, a parable:
The local supermarket sells shiitake mushrooms for
$5.00 per ounce. About a mile down the road there
is an ethnic market that sells the same kind of
mushrooms for $5.00 per *pound*.
You might have been told in high school that this
kind of thing can never
Curtis Olson wrote:
I wish to second this! FlightGear has never really gone on a marketing
offensive. Marketing takes a lot of time and effort, so it's hard for
people who are developing code or aircraft or working on other aspects of
the project to find a lot of additional time to do
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Martin Spott wrote some stuff about the web
page:
A couple brief comments on the web site.
Pete and I agreed (I think) that we probably don't want to ultimately do the
official flightgear web site as a google apps engine page. That locks us
into a closed source,
Curt,
I can help out organization wise and can provide some really good feedback on
the site.
Let me know.
--
Kyle
On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:56 PM, Curtis Olson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Martin Spott wrote some stuff about the web
page:
A couple brief comments on the web site.
Patrice Poly
I have been reading the mail archive and forums about this story, then
went on the FPS website and read their disclaimer.
From what I saw, and given that my understanding of GPL and copyrights
might be wrong, here are my thoughts :
I think what this person(s) do here is
I spent some time using Pete's menu css and trying to build a column
of menus down the left side of the screen. I have an initial version.
Some of that I like, but I'm just not happy with how it's coming
together yet.
Curt.
Your going to be running around in circles until its got
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:01 PM, syd adams adams@gmail.com wrote:
I have to agree that much can't be done . I hate to see it removed from the
forum , flame war or not , since keeping as much information out there as
possible might keep a few some being conned .
I was thinking the other
- Curtis Olson a écrit :
If this guy points his users at our forum, that also might be a benefit to us.
If flightsimpro users start showing up and asking questions, we could again
be patient and welcoming, but explain the situation to them. That way at
least for the future, they can
On 16 Mar 2010, at 15:01, Curtis Olson wrote:
There are a lot of different angles here, but I think whatever we do, we
can't take out our frustrations on the end users that flightsimpro manages to
sucker into buying a copy of FlightGear without telling them what it actually
is.
The guy
From: Frederic Bouvier
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 3:21 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
Users of FlightProSim have been scammed and they should not endure our
anger. But I am not happy to do the FPS support
Hmm, why not change the license on some of the newer planes to a more
restrictive creative commons license? This would give you more control over
how these are used. For instance, you could apply the license so the planes
could only be use for non-commercial/free projects, and if a commercial
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Rob Oates carrotr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, why not change the license on some of the newer planes to a more
restrictive creative commons license? This would give you more control over
how these are used. For instance, you could apply the license so the planes
Last I heard, The GPL license was applied to all the planes hosted on the FG
website. I do believe however, that if we do take our own planes and put them
in a restrictive CC license and then give permission for FG and only FG to use
them, then we may be able to do some good.
On Mar 16, 2010,
Hmm ... the planes in Flightgear are just models, they don't require simgear
and terragear to function. Furthermore I would find it extremely bizarre for
an airplane model to be a dependency in order for Flightgear to work.
I think it's reasonable to say there should be a clear separation between
That only helps make it clear if someone is violating a copyright. It doesn't
help enforce it. If the license is changed, and then someone were to go and
sell FG with those aircraft who would hire the lawyer bring the copyright
violation law suit?
--Adam
On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:26 PM, kyle
Good point, didn't account for that.
On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Adam Dershowitz wrote:
That only helps make it clear if someone is violating a copyright. It
doesn't help enforce it. If the license is changed, and then someone were to
go and sell FG with those aircraft who would hire the
Well you should know how to pick your fights ... you don't have to chase
every single violator, just pressure the one or two who are giving you the
hardest time (like this Pro-sim guy). At least by changing the license on
some of the planes and art work (which are not dependent on anything already
Hey folks,
you won't belive that- but Flight Pro Sim releases a new version! Isn't it
surprising?
Did you know that many of the technologies used in FlightGear are the same
within FlightProSim?
And that this has many improved graphics as well as 3D clouds and cool water?
And did you know
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hey folks,
you won't belive that- but Flight Pro Sim releases a new version! Isn't it
surprising?
Did you know that many of the technologies used in FlightGear are the same
within FlightProSim?
And that this has many improved graphics as well as 3D clouds and cool
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hey folks,
you won't belive that- but Flight Pro Sim releases a
new version! Isn't it surprising?
Did you know that many of the technologies used in
FlightGear are the same within FlightProSim?
And that this has many improved graphics as well as 3D
clouds
- Heiko Schulz a écrit :
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hey folks,
you won't belive that- but Flight Pro Sim releases a
new version! Isn't it surprising?
Did you know that many of the technologies used in
FlightGear are the same within FlightProSim?
And that this has many
One idea which I've used before, would be to create the
flightprosim.flightgear.org subdomain. then link sites (eg wiki, 3rd
party) to the subdomain. This gets it well up in the rankings and is
easy to implement.
When end up on that domain is a nice notice explaining what flightprosim.
Also
I did a bit of poking around FPS.com web site and found a
download
link on the disclaimer page (link:
http://www.flightprosim.com/disclaimer/).
The link to the download
file sourcess.zip contains a snapshot of the wiki from
October last
year along with some interesting stuff.
encourage this kind of thing.
--
From: Pete Morgan ac...@daffodil.uk.com
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:11 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
One
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hey folks,
you won't belive that- but Flight Pro Sim releases a
new version! Isn't it surprising?
Did you know that many of the technologies used in
FlightGear are the same within FlightProSim?
And that this has many improved graphics as well as 3D
Heiko Schulz wrote:
That won't stop the fact that he already makes money with our work.
And yes, I seriously believe that he is able to bring our project in danger.
Making money is one thing; it's allowed by the GPL.
Problem here seems that, while our project tries to do everything to
keep it
Hi,
Fred wrote:
I think the whole thread should be removed by the moderator. I see no point
making
him advertisement and letting the flames grow up.
Has been done. Reason: we do not tolerate spam at our forums. No matter if that
is
some weird non-related software or a paid version of
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:50:34 +0100, Erik wrote in message
4b9e655a.9050...@ehofman.com:
Heiko Schulz wrote:
That won't stop the fact that he already makes money with our work.
And yes, I seriously believe that he is able to bring our project
in danger.
Making money is one thing; it's
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I think the whole thread should be removed by the moderator. I see no
point making him advertisement and letting the flames grow up.
Oh yes, I'm supportive of this procedure, also of installing a
'flightprosim.flightgear.org' page - which could get re-directed to the
- Martin Spott a écrit :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I think the whole thread should be removed by the moderator. I see
no
point making him advertisement and letting the flames grow up.
Oh yes, I'm supportive of this procedure, also of installing a
'flightprosim.flightgear.org' page
@lists.sourceforge.net
Datum: 15.03.2010 15:51
Předmět: [Flightgear-devel] News from FlightProSim!
Hey folks,
you won't belive that- but Flight Pro Sim releases a new version! Isn't it
surprising?
Did you know that many of the technologies used in FlightGear are the same
within FlightProSim?
And that this has
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Frederic Bouvier fredfgf...@free.frwrote:
What will happen if this guy creates a flightgear.flightprosim.com page ?
We could only hope ... !!!
Can we get in trouble ourselves for using his name?
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:04:35 +0100 (CET), Frederic wrote in message
29285847.3999171268669075452.javamail.r...@spooler4-g27.priv.proxad.net:
- Heiko Schulz a écrit :
Heiko Schulz wrote:
Hey folks,
you won't belive that- but Flight Pro Sim releases a
new version! Isn't
wrote:
What will happen if this guy creates a flightgear.flightprosim.com
page ?
We could only hope ... !!!
Can we get in trouble ourselves for using his
name?
Curt. --
Yes!
And I don't like this idea. It won't help but starts a war, which we maybe
can't win.
Curtis Olson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Frederic Bouvier fredfgf...@free.fr
mailto:fredfgf...@free.fr wrote:
What will happen if this guy creates a flightgear.flightprosim.com
http://flightgear.flightprosim.com page ?
We could only hope ... !!!
Can we get in
This kind of thing happens sometimes -- not much we can do unless we
want to spend tens of thousands of $$ going to court, so there's no
point getting stressed. I did go to Google Sidewiki and leave a
comment on the page, so that anyone using the Google toolbar or a
sidewiki add-on in their
Btw: Blender has more or less the same problem- and it seems from the design of
the webpage, that is the same company.
Blender were able to fight against successfully last year. But this year they
are back.
That's un-believable, but he's done his research, the license allows you to
sell it =/ He obviously did his research and found a loophole. It's a shame
that someone would go the great lengths to actually do something as immoral as
this.
On Mar 15, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Heiko Schulz wrote:
Btw:
This guy sure does waste a lot of time for FG developers to discuss this
every few months :-(
One thing that has struck me that could be done, is to have a welcome
message broadcast to the user on the MP chat when players connect, for
example something like...
Welcome to FlightGear
Just sent an email to New Zealand open Source and got this reply,
pete
Hello Peter,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Please recognise that the GPL
does not in any way preclude people from packaging up and selling a
software application *so long as they comply with the terms of the
I have to agree that much can't be done . I hate to see it removed from the
forum , flame war or not , since keeping as much information out there as
possible might keep a few some being conned .
Cheers
--
Download
50 matches
Mail list logo
