Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

Anyone hear of this?

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby simbabeat » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:14 pm

Your not mad that people are buying FlightGear?
User avatar
simbabeat
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby kylek14 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:33 pm

Tuxklok wrote:
simbabeat wrote:Guys I'm not trying to start a fight ok??? Aren't you mad about people selling it though? Even though they can?

Why would I be mad? As long as they follow the terms of the gpl they are more than welcome to do so. Distributing work under a license that gives people the right to do something, and then pissing and moaning, calling them thieves, getting angry, etc, etc when they exercise that right makes no sense at all.


i was going to say, I think it's more of the fact that someone would swindle unsuspecting people into buying a copy rather than just pointing them in the direction of flight and adding a tagline or something like "this paid version of the popular flight gear simulation is more refined and detailed because there is an investment into the project" or something like that. I can fully understand the GPL license and it's allowances, but it's more a morally unjust thing in the eyes of the Flight Simulation community.
--
Kyle
Callsign: kylek14, PBA-561, PBI-561
Aircraft: B1900D
Currently Working on: N/A
User avatar
kylek14
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:07 pm
Location: PA
Callsign: CMA-561, PBI-561
Version: 2
OS: Mac OSX Lion

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby Tuxklok » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:33 pm

simbabeat wrote:Your not mad that people are buying FlightGear?

No, I try my best to not to waste time and emotion worrying about such inconsequential things...

Do I agree with behavior seen from people like those dumb bunnies at flightprosim...no of course not. I'm not going to waste time worrying about it, acting in a childish manner, or overreacting in ways that could do real harm to flightgear though either. Things like that come and go...that's just a fact of life...in the end it means nothing and will not have done any real or lasting harm either...
The Austria Scenery Project - more info
fg-scenery-tools - gitorious | videos
fgcomgui - Open source, cross platform, gui front end for fgcom. more info

More random musings and doings can be found on my personal site. (work in progress)
User avatar
Tuxklok
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Callsign: Tuxklok / N1292P
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby simbabeat » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:20 pm

Do I agree with behavior seen from people like those dumb bunnies at flightprosim...no of course not.


Ok Ok I thought you were saying you didn't even care one bit.
User avatar
simbabeat
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby anewb » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:08 am

simbabeat wrote:
Do I agree with behavior seen from people like those dumb bunnies at flightprosim...no of course not.


Ok Ok I thought you were saying you didn't even care one bit.
Lets take something else here commenly released as GPL.. Linux.

Take a look around the web, you will find thousands of Linux CD's being sold without the money going to the developers. But this is "ok", as long as the item is contains it's original license. And doesn't get funny and say, you may not copy, modify etc.

There is also an advantage with these CD's being sold. It still technically spreads FlightGear's name, this could intern be some good advertisement. Advertisement = More users :-)

And after-all the more users the better right?
anewb
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:04 am
Location: England
Callsign: anewb, Crazy-J
OS: Linux Fedora 28

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby MD-Terp » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:23 pm

The part that I think people get steamed about is that the *spirit* of the GPL -- at least, the way I understand it -- is that we all collaborate to make a great product, and if that product should also have some commercial application, then we don't want anything to stand in the way of it being used as such. I *don't* think the spirit of the GPL is that one group of people should be permitted to profit off of the hard work of another group of people, when that second group isn't seeing squat in return for their contribution.

Believe me, every time another FlightProSim or eBay ad pops up, and I wonder how many of "MY" scenery models are being incorporated into a product that SOMEONE ELSE is pocketing some cash on without doing a lick of the work involved, it makes me reconsider whether I ought to contribute any more. The GPL is flawed for allowing scumbags like FPS to operate, and even if they're not complying with the GPL, it's still flawed for not providing us adequate means to enforce it or otherwise stop them. Or, perhaps FlightGear as a community is flawed for not having the resources or knowledge needed to effectively combat it.

I understand that the *spirit* of the GPL is that when I create something and contribute it, I shouldn't think of it as "MY" contribution anymore. Fine. Why does someone else get to claim it as "THEIR" product, then, and sell it? Makes no sense.
Cheers,
-Rob.

"Retired" from FlightGear involvement as of July 2010.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8809
User avatar
MD-Terp
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:37 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Callsign: N531MD, AVA0025

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby anewb » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:48 pm

MD-Terp wrote:The part that I think people get steamed about is that the *spirit* of the GPL -- at least, the way I understand it -- is that we all collaborate to make a great product, and if that product should also have some commercial application, then we don't want anything to stand in the way of it being used as such. I *don't* think the spirit of the GPL is that one group of people should be permitted to profit off of the hard work of another group of people, when that second group isn't seeing squat in return for their contribution.

Believe me, every time another FlightProSim or eBay ad pops up, and I wonder how many of "MY" scenery models are being incorporated into a product that SOMEONE ELSE is pocketing some cash on without doing a lick of the work involved, it makes me reconsider whether I ought to contribute any more. The GPL is flawed for allowing scumbags like FPS to operate, and even if they're not complying with the GPL, it's still flawed for not providing us adequate means to enforce it or otherwise stop them. Or, perhaps FlightGear as a community is flawed for not having the resources or knowledge needed to effectively combat it.

I understand that the *spirit* of the GPL is that when I create something and contribute it, I shouldn't think of it as "MY" contribution anymore. Fine. Why does someone else get to claim it as "THEIR" product, then, and sell it? Makes no sense.
From what I understand, someone who grabs work from a GPL'ed product has to retain GPL. You can/could take someone to court, if they did not retain GPL. (Such as saying you may not modifiy/remove/view source etc) problem is, GPL leaves people to go pursue this them selves, with their own lawyers instead of GPL providing lawyers.

GPL isn't to everyone's taste, fair enough, and you always get a "bad apple" among a bunch (FPS for example). This isn't GPL's fault, this is the people who are blatantly copying, and claiming ownership with a different license fault.

GPL is a full legal document and is a proper license that can be used in courts if violated. This is fact. The only problem is, often people are not truly aware of this and take the license in a sense of "Well anyone can just copy this, claim ownership", and violate it, and others quite frankly cannot be arsed to pursue legal action.

I'm not saying GPL doesn't have it's flaws, as it certainly does. A few developers have moved to v3, while others (Such as Linus) have decided to stick with v2. This is something that could be made clearer (There are differences between the too, if you actually take the time to read them both.. which quite frankly, most people these days with licences just click accept and don't actually read it.) when distributing your application. Doesn't have to be though, as if you do not state the version, it simply defaults to the latest avaliable GPL.

Another problem is, if for example, FG 2.1 came out with a Creative Conmen's license, while this could be done, you would be forgetting that 2.0 & all previous versions are legally bound to GPL (You can't just go switching licences as you please, least not for already-released ones). For example 2.0 remain GPL, 2.1.0 remain CC, 2.1.1 remain BSD etc.

If people are truly worried about releasing models of aircraft's as GPL, simply don't as technically speaking models do not have to also be GPL (At least, not that I'm aware of).

I know a few people would be quite cheesed off by people who simply copy. This can happen regardless of license honestly.. Look at Windoze, completely closed source etc.. yet millions of people get away with downloading it illegally and using it for free. Would that not chuff you off more, if you made an application from scratch, NOT for free, yet you found hundreds of download links for your application that you did not approve of? You would be in a worse situation, simply because it's very difficult to find each and every user who downloaded it without your permission ;) worst you could probably do is try to find who uploaded it, and pursue legal action against them.

However, in my opinion, GPL is a good license, it's good because it provides freedom, but at the same time, necessary protections. For example, fair enough FPS has been created.. but the source code HAS to be open. Which means, you can quite happily go grab source code from there product and use it to improve FlightGear. And they can't say a dickybird.

That's a good advantage in my opinion.

---
Personally, I think that if you guys don't want to release your addons/crafts etc as GPL. Then don't. There is nothing saying you have to. (Again, at least not that I'm aware of.)

Just my 10p.
anewb
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:04 am
Location: England
Callsign: anewb, Crazy-J
OS: Linux Fedora 28

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby Tuxklok » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:19 pm

While I understand your feelings Rob, I think you may be misunderstanding the intent of the GPL. It's not your typical license used by individuals and corporations to protect themselves and their ip. The GPL is intended to protect the freedom of the actual work itself, and to ensure peoples rights and freedoms to use, modify, fix, redistribute, reuse, redistribute, and even resell. It's there to ensure our freedom to use the software without restriction, and that the rights to do so can never be taken away. You say it's flawed because it doesn't provide means to enforce itself or provide means to stop people from violating it. No license provides such things, nor could a license ever really do so...it's an agreement, a contract, nothing more. If someone breaks a contract or agreement then it's up to people involved to decide if it's necessary and worthwhile to take legal action.

anewb wrote:Another problem is, if for example, FG 2.1 came out with a Creative Conmen's license, while this could be done, you would be forgetting that 2.0 & all previous versions are legally bound to GPL (You can't just go switching licences as you please, least not for already-released ones). For example 2.0 remain GPL, 2.1.0 remain CC, 2.1.1 remain BSD etc.

FlightGears license could not be changed without consent from everyone who has contributed code to the project under the gpl. If a person could not be found or they don't consent then you'd need to rewrite those portions of code completely. While I've seen projects do exactly that, it was always for valid reasons that were actually beneficial to the project...not just as a knee jerk overreaction to something. In flightgears case I can only see such a thing doing very serious harm...flightgear benefits greatly from the gpl and the rights granted to all of us by it.

For example, fair enough FPS has been created.. but the source code HAS to be open. Which means, you can quite happily go grab source code from there product and use it to improve FlightGear. And they can't say a dickybird.

Wouldn't it be fun to just buy a copy of FPS and then redistribute it freely for all...as the right to do so is explicitly granted to us by the gpl. :)
The Austria Scenery Project - more info
fg-scenery-tools - gitorious | videos
fgcomgui - Open source, cross platform, gui front end for fgcom. more info

More random musings and doings can be found on my personal site. (work in progress)
User avatar
Tuxklok
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Callsign: Tuxklok / N1292P
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby simbabeat » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:27 pm

There is also an advantage with these CD's being sold. It still technically spreads FlightGear's name, this could intern be some good advertisement. Advertisement = More users


Except for they are being sold under another name!
------
A license change would be hard for us definitely. I was NOT saying I was actively campaigning for one, I was just brainstorming. I really like all the ideas you guys bring up here.
User avatar
simbabeat
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 12:19 am

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby anewb » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:39 pm

Tuxklok wrote:
For example, fair enough FPS has been created.. but the source code HAS to be open. Which means, you can quite happily go grab source code from there product and use it to improve FlightGear. And they can't say a dickybird.

Wouldn't it be fun to just buy a copy of FPS and then redistribute it freely for all...as the right to do so is explicitly granted to us by the gpl. :)
True, or, like in Redhat's case, make a CentOS.

As in do the same thing, merely grab the sources, rebrand, and compile.

To those, left wondering what the heck I'm talking about:

Yes even RHEL which costs, have open sources due to GPL restrictions, which you will find right here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/ & ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/e ... /os/SRPMS/ though unlike most big corporations, they like being open source, and have learned to use it to there advantage and others advantage (But not in a bad way).

Although they mainly charge for "subscriptions", meaning you can technically LEGALLY run RHEL5, untouched, for free without any legal concerns, only you won't receive updates or support. And RHEL, give quite a lot back to the Open Source community :-).

And CentOS is RHEL, but basically, with trademarks removed & recompiled.
anewb
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:04 am
Location: England
Callsign: anewb, Crazy-J
OS: Linux Fedora 28

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby SkyWlf77 » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:52 pm

simbabeat wrote:
There is also an advantage with these CD's being sold. It still technically spreads FlightGear's name, this could intern be some good advertisement. Advertisement = More users


Except for they are being sold under another name!


Actually, the original poster linked to an ebay sale...While the seller's name was MT Software, the actual software being sold WAS under the FlightGear name (including the thumbnail on the preview). FPS is the only one which does not use the FlightGear name when selling it. ALL of the ebay sales that I found were using the FlightGear name in the ad.

-Jason
SkyWlf77
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:19 am
Location: Central Illinois
Callsign: SkyWlf77
Version: 2
OS: Windows 7 64-bit

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby kylek14 » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:03 am

sorry for the double post guys, but i was getting ready to report an eBay listing for using copyrighted images, but i figure'd i'd better check here first before i get myself into trouble.

The listing is using all, if not most, of the standard preview images in the program as well as on the site.

http://cgi.ebay.com/AVIATION-FLIGHTGEAR ... 414d40020b
--
Kyle
Callsign: kylek14, PBA-561, PBI-561
Aircraft: B1900D
Currently Working on: N/A
User avatar
kylek14
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:07 pm
Location: PA
Callsign: CMA-561, PBI-561
Version: 2
OS: Mac OSX Lion

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby Tuxklok » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:42 am

kylek14 wrote:sorry for the double post guys, but i was getting ready to report an eBay listing for using copyrighted images, but i figure'd i'd better check here first before i get myself into trouble.

The listing is using all, if not most, of the standard preview images in the program as well as on the site.

http://cgi.ebay.com/AVIATION-FLIGHTGEAR ... 414d40020b

Unless your quite certain there is a violation and that that violation is against your own personal work, then you have no real business claiming anything.
The Austria Scenery Project - more info
fg-scenery-tools - gitorious | videos
fgcomgui - Open source, cross platform, gui front end for fgcom. more info

More random musings and doings can be found on my personal site. (work in progress)
User avatar
Tuxklok
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Callsign: Tuxklok / N1292P
OS: GNU/Linux

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby JonM » Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:20 am

Sorry to respond to such a beat-to-death thread.

I saw an advertisement on Facebook for FPS the other day and, not thinking, reported it without taking a screenshot. I think that the thumbnail they use may come straight from a FG screenshot, but I'm not 100% sure.
JonM
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:27 am

Re: Anyone hear of this?

Postby frackk00 » Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:21 am

Has this been confirmed though ? If it is true then it is disturbing.
frackk00
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest