Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:48:22 +, Dave wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please continue to do so. :-) Curt. I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume their offspring. ..maybe Curt has naughty kids? ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...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. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 22:28, David Megginson wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to do... I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a strawman to argue against. The only suggestion I've seen is using the flightgear.org web site to promote only models that are GPL or freer. I think that makes sense -- think of the extra, free publicity as a carrot for the people who are willing to go open source or better. Yes, this is exactly, what i meant. People can use unfree licenses, but when doing this, it should not be advertised on the main flightgear.org website, at least not for free and not in a way that the visiter gets confused. They should look after their own way to do the advertisement. The flightgear.org website should not be misused for such none free addons. And when those people who want to distribute their none free addons really want some advertisement on the flightgear.org website, then they should pay for this. But the point is, the flightgear.org website shouldn't do this advertisement for free or near the other GPL'd addons. It should be clear for a visiter that such thing is an advertisement and not a part of the page. So a simple link would not be okay. Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people also like to include non-violence conditions. I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very newbie and shareware-ish. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 19:41, David Megginson wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:57 +, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got to disagree with you regarding linking to non-GPL'd aircraft. The best a/c I've seen for M$FS have been done by people who want to ensure that their work remains free (as in free beer) but also want to make sure that their work isn't exploited by commercial organisations. Some people also like to include non-violence conditions. I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very newbie and shareware-ish. All the best, David Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get stomped out and/or are newbie and shareware-ish. Personally, I find it difficult to criticise non-violence clauses but they also smack a little of denial - the idea that ignoring something makes it go away. The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of time making, so that they could give it away to people for free, is then used by someone else for their own profit, with no need to recompense the person who actually did the work. The GPL specifically allows this. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote: The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of time making, so that they could give it away to people for free, is then used by someone else for their own profit, with no need to recompense the person who actually did the work. The GPL specifically allows this. LeeE This is a big issue with MSFS addons. For instance there are people who spend MONTHS filtering and editing sound recordings of aircraft to produce a sound package for a single aircraft. They do it for free and for the community. Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit. This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for what they freely gave to the community. Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their underhanded business. If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then? Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very newbie and shareware-ish. Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get stomped out and/or are newbie and shareware-ish. Vanity licensing clauses. Outside of little shareware communities, the world pretty much wants some kind of standard open source license or public domain, or it shrugs and moves on -- it gets way too hard to keep track when n packages end up with n different kinds of licenses (OK, lets see: package #1023 is for non-violent use only, package #56 is for use only by Wiccans and those who agree not to persecute them, package #337 is banned for use in Israel, package #5529 is banned for use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by Ralph Nader supporters). All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
Paul Surgeon wrote: On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 22:05, Lee Elliott wrote: The control issue is more straightforward and it's easy to see how someone might get miffed if something they spent a lot of time making, so that they could give it away to people for free, is then used by someone else for their own profit, with no need to recompense the person who actually did the work. The GPL specifically allows this. LeeE This is a big issue with MSFS addons. For instance there are people who spend MONTHS filtering and editing sound recordings of aircraft to produce a sound package for a single aircraft. They do it for free and for the community. Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit. This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for what they freely gave to the community. Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their underhanded business. If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then? Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d Maybe it's time to create a FlightGear Aircraft License ? Steven ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:36:42 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then some scumbag comes along and collects a whole lot of these free contributions, removes the credits, labels them as his own work, puts them onto a CDs and sells them for $30 - 50 profit. This has happened several times (2 that I know of) in the MSFS community and the authors get irrate that someone is charging money and taking credit for what they freely gave to the community. Fortunately most of these works are copyrighted and not GPL and they managed to get lawyers involved and stop these pricks from carrying on their underhanded business. If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then? I think you might be a bit confused: GPL works *are* copyrighted, and the copyright holder can still sue someone for removing credit or for violating the license in any other way. In the cases you mentioned, the people could just as easily have gone to court if the sounds had been GPL'd or LGPL'd. Personally, I'm a lawyer's son, so I know how unprofitable suing usually is (except for the lawyers); as a result, I sometimes prefer to abandon copyright claims altogether and simply make my work Public Domain, as I did with SAX. The GPL does not allow you to stop someone else for charging to redistribute your work, but it does require that person to let everyone else know where the work originally came from (i.e. where they can get the same thing for free). Many companies actually make a business out of the GPL by dual-licensing their own work -- release for free under GPL (which imposes certain restrictions on commercial use), then sell a commercially-licensed version of the same stuff without the GPL requirements. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:36, Paul Surgeon wrote: If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then? Paul The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed and the source of the work and any modifications to it is also made freely available. It is the Authors choice to use this licence. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 +, Dave Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the authors released their work as GPL those low lifes wouldn't even have to change the credits and what sort of recourse would the authors have then? The authors would have no recourse then. Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of the sounds: that violates the GPL.The redistributors either have to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it -- that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff for free, so unless they're adding some other kind of value, they're not going to make any money. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 20:42, David Megginson wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:05:18 +, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the user community will stomp out that kind of thing pretty fast, whatever we do about linking. It looks very newbie and shareware-ish. Heh! - Sorry, but I'm not sure exactly which bits will get stomped out and/or are newbie and shareware-ish. Vanity licensing clauses. Outside of little shareware communities, the world pretty much wants some kind of standard open source license or public domain, or it shrugs and moves on -- it gets way too hard to keep track when n packages end up with n different kinds of licenses (OK, lets see: package #1023 is for non-violent use only, package #56 is for use only by Wiccans and those who agree not to persecute them, package #337 is banned for use in Israel, package #5529 is banned for use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by Ralph Nader supporters). All the best, David Wiccans chuckle :) While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to do... ...even when they're being daft. LeeE ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 20:59, David Megginson wrote: The redistributors either have to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it -- that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff for free, so unless they're adding some other kind of value, they're not going to make any money. All the best, David Thats a good example. If someone were to stick *all* of FG onto CD / DVDs and sell it, there is added value in terms of the bandwidth saved (What is FG now? 12GB or more inc scenery?) Of course, anyone doing so would need to make clear that FG is GPL software and freely available on-line. This is rather like the Open-Office.org resellers guidline policy. Whether it would even be profitable or wothwhile to do such a thing is another matter; it must surely be a shrinking market with the uptake of broadband. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 + Dave Martin wrote: The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed Just for clarification, you have to be careful about that last bit. The GPL allows this because you copyright your creation and you write a copyright notice in your name. The GPL requires that all the copies come with a copyright notice. However, things like CREDITS files and so forth are not protected under the GPL; the GPL does not require that credit not be removed, apart from protecting the copyright notice. In fact, the GPL prevents such a restriction from being placed on a work released under it. That fact was at the heart of the conflict over the new XFree86 license; most Linux distributions have dumped XFree86 over its subsequent incompatibility with the GPL. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpHLfFFDbENV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:59:07 -0500 David Megginson wrote: Note that he said that the changed the credit to hide the origin of the sounds: that violates the GPL. Yes, if the credit they're changing is in the accompanying copyright notice. No, if it's some statement of credit in an accompanying CREDITS or THANKS or README file. The redistributors either have to include the full original distribution, unmodified (including any README files, etc.) or else they have to provide a way to get it -- that tells their customers that there's a way to get the same stuff for free, Yes, and this is the protection against monkey business like I mention above. However, lots of recipients won't realize or discover they can do this, even if a copy of the GPL and directions to the original content come with the redistribution. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgp4LV2isSt9Z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 21:21, Chris Metzler wrote: On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:10 + Dave Martin wrote: The authors would have no recourse then. If they had willingly licenced their work under the GPL, they are permitting anyone to make commercial use of their models / work providing that credit is not removed Just for clarification, you have to be careful about that last bit. The GPL allows this because you copyright your creation and you write a copyright notice in your name. The GPL requires that all the copies come with a copyright notice. However, things like CREDITS files and so forth are not protected under the GPL; the GPL does not require that credit not be removed, apart from protecting the copyright notice. In fact, the GPL prevents such a restriction from being placed on a work released under it. That fact was at the heart of the conflict over the new XFree86 license; most Linux distributions have dumped XFree86 over its subsequent incompatibility with the GPL. -c I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating Author's name. one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does. Copyright (C) name of author I was always under the impression that was the notice to remain intact? Cheers Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:08:38 +, Lee Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While it can make things difficult, or even impossible, one can't force people to use a licence. One can't tell people what to do... I don't think anyone has suggested that, except to set it up as a strawman to argue against. The only suggestion I've seen is using the flightgear.org web site to promote only models that are GPL or freer. I think that makes sense -- think of the extra, free publicity as a carrot for the people who are willing to go open source or better. As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:38:18 + Dave Martin wrote: I think I misworded that a bit. I was meaning the 'one liner' that is often added to the GPL copyright notice which includes the originating Author's name. one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does. Copyright (C) name of author I was always under the impression that was the notice to remain intact? Yes, that's exactly right. But a lot of packages these days go out with a file with a name like CREDITS that lists who did what. For example, the FlightGear source distribution comes with a file called Thanks that lists various people and what they've contributed. That file is fair game under the GPL; if someone redistributing FG wanted to edit it to say different things about who did what, the GPL does not restrict that. Of course, their new claims would be flatly contradicted by the original; and if they're continuing to obey the GPL, then their redistribution should contain or point to the original where people can see the truth about the credits. But most people won't go and look. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpcXHWRz5L72.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
David Megginson said: use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by Ralph Nader supporters). That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will come up when someone googles wiccans for ralph nader. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
David Megginson said: use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by Ralph Nader supporters). Thats it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if Ralph uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will come up when someone googles wiccans for ralph nader. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
Jim Wilson said: David Megginson said: use in the Occupied Territories, and package #18 is for use only by Ralph Nader supporters). That's it! From now on I'm licensing all my work under #18. I wonder if he uses debian on his laptop. Probably not. Well at least now flightgear will come up when someone googles wiccans for ralph nader. Hmmm...I think I hear an echo... (mailer trouble). Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote: As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy. There is still place for non-GPL addons. There are guys who code addons for flightsimulators for a living and will not release their products under GPL otherwise someone can just copy it as much as they like and they don't get a cent in return. Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat. It takes months of work with a team of 5 or 6 people to create one top notch aircraft like what Phoenix Software Simulations put out. GPL is not the be all and end all when it comes to software licensing although it is a nice license. Paul ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
Paul Surgeon wrote: On Wednesday, 19 January 2005 23:28, David Megginson wrote: As I mentioned before, I also think that the user community will vote for the open source models with its feet (or, I guess, mice) and tend to stomp out others with social pressure or at least apathy. There is still place for non-GPL addons. There are guys who code addons for flightsimulators for a living and will not release their products under GPL otherwise someone can just copy it as much as they like and they don't get a cent in return. Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat. It takes months of work with a team of 5 or 6 people to create one top notch aircraft like what Phoenix Software Simulations put out. GPL is not the be all and end all when it comes to software licensing although it is a nice license. Interestingly, this thread started out as a debate over linking or not linking to external aircraft sites which might distribute non-free aircraft. I take a view that is similar to Debian. For the core FG distribution, everything needs to be GPL compatible. But recognizing that some people might prefer to release/distribute their work under other licensing terms (which they have every freedom to do) I have no problem linking to those sites. Are we to remove all links to all sites that aren't fully 100% gpl compatible? Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please continue to do so. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Wednesday 19 Jan 2005 22:29, Curtis L. Olson wrote: Oh, and please, those who need to eat or feed their kids, please continue to do so. :-) Curt. I find it vaguely disturbing that you feel it is okay for people to consume their offspring. Dave Martin ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: Licensing (was Re: [Flightgear-devel] Aircraft downloads)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:20:57 +0200, Paul Surgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure GPL can work in some scenarios but if your market is 1000 copies and you charge $50 for your product you can't possibly afford to license your work as GPL and expect to keep food on the table for your kids to eat. Sure -- that's no problem. We're just talking about not giving them free advertising on flightgear.org, not about trying to ban them. All the best, David -- http://www.megginson.com/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
