Sign in to follow this  
Guest SoarPics

ebay auction selling freeware aircrafts. Copyright viol

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I don't know the methods, but if you report it, the auction will be pulled. Helps if you are the copyright owner. Just catching the link should be enough. Very little to do to catch these thieves stealing others' work and calling it "service"BTW, the distributors contact appears to be:info@rowoldt.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that this auction will be pulled down. Theres a LOT of different aircraft made by a lot of people, whom I know who will not like this. I agree too, these are freeware aircraft, not payware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone: If someone wants to post a message to the bidders I have typed the German for you, I would do it but I can't figure out how... Let me know:Hallo Alle:Du kannst alle diese flugzeuge f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great catch!i translated the page and it seems the author does identify them as freeware/shareware in the page which makes no sense at all..it's almost admitting to piracy :-hmmm is it possible this guy got permission to do this because otherwise it would seem pretty stupid to admit you were selling FREEware! course nobody ever said crooks were smart...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, I doubt he has permission from the majority of the authors. Yannick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi >>while browsing ebay I stumbled over this auction: >>http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...&category=21937 He is in clear violation of eBay's published policy regarding the selling of CD-R compilations, since he is clearly not the copyright owner of these models:CDR's, OEM's, or Backup copies of software Software on CD-R ** eBay Policy on Software on CD-R: As a matter of eBay policy, software on CD-R (including CD-RW) may not be listed on eBay, unless the seller is the copyright owner and states this in the item description. This means that, among other things, compilations (e.g., multiple software programs on one disk), "freeware" and "shareware" on CD-R may not be listed on eBay. This policy also means that even lawful software on CD-R is not permitted on eBay. This following situation illustrates how this might arise. Example: An individual or small software company decides to release its software on CD-R. The software company sells the software on CD-R on eBay to Jack. This is permissible because the software company is the copyright owner of the software. Jack now wants to resell the software on CD-R on eBay. The software on CD-R is "lawful software," but Jack (or anyone other than the software company) is not permitted to list this item on eBay. Blank CD-R disks are permitted on eBay. If you have questions about this policy, view the following page: http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/software-cdr-faq.htmlI am contacting eBay since I am the copyright holder of the Socata TB20GT he's 'selling.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My message to eBay's Fraud Investigations department:"There have recently been several auctions held where Flight Simulator 2002 freeware/shareware collections have been sold, or are currently being held for auction.According to eBay's stated policy prohibiting the sale of CD-R collections of freeware/shareware, unless the seller is the stated copyright holder of each item in the collection, these auctions have been and continue to be in clear violation.I am the copyright holder of record for the Socata TB20GT model listed in the auction item cited in this message, and have NOT given permission for anyone to 'sell' this item.In point of fact, since it was released under a GNU License, it may NEVER be sold by anyone, at anytime, by any method."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,I notice some POSKY planes on there too. What email addy did you send the message to? I also want to contact them and make it clear that we granted no permission in allowing any file to be added to his CD.Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Bill, >>I notice some POSKY planes on there too. What email addy did >you send the message to? I also want to contact them and >make it clear that we granted no permission in allowing any >file to be added to his CD. >>Thanks :) I used the 'form fill in' provided on the english language eBay site, using the item # from the actual auction. Apparently it autorouted the complaint to the german language division, because the robot response came to me in german... :)eBay Germany Customer Support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bill,Not to disagree with your demand for removal in the least as I of course think this sale is wrong if it violates even one person/companies license terms.But something you may not be aware of that might need to be clarified here: if the GNU license you released under is the GPL as opposed to some other variant (of which many are available - some which expressly forbid for-profit sales), anyone and his dog can sell your works for however much they think they can get. The GPL isn't designed to limit or stop the distribution of Free works in any form: encouraged distribution is in fact, its main goal. What the GPL is designed to do is guarantee access to Free works and its components - thus encouraging full collaboration, transparency, open standards and dramatically improved quality of available software. "Free Software" is a matter of Liberty, not price. As those at gnu.org so aptly state: think about Free as in "Free Speech", not as in "free beer".Under the GPL, anyone is allowed to profit from anothers Free works if they desire and are able. This is exactly how Red Hat, Mandrake or any of the thousand other distributions out there that are setup as profit making corporations thrive... They package Free works in forms that are easy to use and add support and other services/tools that enhance the value of those works enough to charge for it. The main stipulation to this: any *published* improvements made to the Free works absolutely *must* be given back to the same community they based it upon. That doesn't mean they can't package it in a unique form and sell it, however.Just a clarification of the GPL if that is indeed the GNU license you released under. If not, forgive my interruption of this thread!Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read !!We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. ``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.'' Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission. You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity. The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them. In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software. In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free. However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them. Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies. ``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't effectively block your freedom to release modified versions. Rules that ``if you make the program available in this way, you must make it available in that way also'' can be acceptable too, on the same condition. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to publish the program or not.) It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send one. In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it. See Categories of Free Software (18k characters) for a description of how ``free software,'' ``copylefted software'' and other categories of software relate to each other. Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these governments. When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like ``give away'' or ``for free'', because those terms imply that the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as ``piracy'' embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See Confusing Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of translations of "free software" into various languages. Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify. If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free software license, see our list of licenses. If the license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Other Texts to ReadAnother group has started using the term "open source" to mean something close (but not identical) to "free software". We prefer the term "free software" because, once you have heard it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------[ Croatian | Czech | Danish | Dutch | English | French | Galician | German | Hungarian | Indonesian | Italian | Japanese | Korean | Norwegian | Polish | Portuguese | Romanian | Russian | Slovenian | Spanish | Turkish ] Return to GNU's home page. Please send FSF & GNU inquiries & questions to gnu@gnu.org. There are also other ways to contact the FSF. Please send comments on these web pages to webmasters@gnu.org, send other questions to gnu@gnu.org. Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A link would have probably gotten the point across a bit better than copy-n-paste... :-) Just nitpicking of course.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi Bill, >>Not to disagree with your demand for removal in the least as >I of course think this sale is wrong if it violates even one >person/companies license terms. The following is explictly stated in the docs for the Socata TB20GT:"Commercial use or making money from any included file is prohibited."That seems unambiguous... :)But, the main point that keeps getting overlooked, is that the sale of any CD-R 'compilation' is expressly forbidden by eBay... unless the seller can demonstrate that he/she hold to copyright on EVERY FILE in the 'compilation.'That also seems totally unambiguous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree, its black and white. I wasn't referencing your or anyone else's actions here. Indeed, the sale looks completely improper as I said above.I was simply clarifying one of the statements you made to eBay about your licensed work in particular:"In point of fact, since it was released under a GNU License, it may NEVER be sold by anyone, at anytime, by any method."Since this is the exact opposite of what the GNU GPL mandates, I thought it prudent to let you know so you were fully informed about any of your works you've released under that excellent license.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I fully agree, its black and white. I wasn't referencing >your or anyone else's actions here. Indeed, the sale looks >completely improper as I said above. >>I was simply clarifying one of the statements you made to >eBay about your licensed work in particular: >>"In point of fact, since it was released under a GNU >License, it may NEVER be sold by anyone, at anytime, by any >method." >>Since this is the exact opposite of what the GNU GPL >mandates, I thought it prudent to let you know so you were >fully informed about any of your works you've released under >that excellent license. In that case then, until I can find something that (a) preserves my right to insist that NO ONE can profit from my team's work in any fashion, yet (:( preserves the open source nature of the work, I will simply not release any of the projects that are currently under development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth would anyone pour a thousand hours into a project to share with the community for free, just see it end up on Ebay for sale. Seems like you only have rights when your charging money for a product. Just cuz I lend you my car, doesnt mean I want you to go do drive by shootings with it...This is wrong, and if you haven't done your part to try and stop it, dont cry when you cant find a decent freebie anymore. (it takes 5min to complain to Ebay)There's no excuse for this auction to still be up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is an extract from the original post: "A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission."I find that a bit confusing. Am I missing something? On the one hand, someone distributing can indeed ask for payment. On the other hand, it should be free with no demand for payment. It would seem that the two parties in the transaction are both within their rights; that is, it's fair to demand payment and at the same time, it's fair to expect the item gratis.I agree with a previous poster: if this were to become the "rule" around here and elsewhere, don't expect anything from me either. GNU license or otherwise notwithstanding, if it's my work I will set the rules with respect to it's use and if any user can't abide, or considers so-called laws will supercede my wish(es), then that will be the end of my contribution. And I have a feeling that will be the sentiment of other authors as well.In conclusion, if the "lawyers" feel that they have some mandate from on-high and want to enforce this, then it will be a hollow victory at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to turn this thread into a philosophy debate, so I'll respond to your post by simply pointing you to the answer to your question: "Why on earth would anyone pour a thousand hours into a project to share with the community for free, just see it end up on Ebay for sale"Why Software Should Not Have Ownershttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.htmlSelling Free Softwarehttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htmlPhilosophy of the GNU Projecthttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.htmlIt works for hundreds of thousands of individuals from all walks of life all over the world today, not to mention the countless corporations great and small that contribute (and receive) fully or in part. Its growth the past few years is staggering and continues to expand at a phenomenal rate. Free Software's track record is clear.That some still don't understand its reason and benefit (or haven't even heard of it) is also patently clear. Thats something I hope I've helped with. :-) Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, there are many, many licenses that you'll probably feel more comfortable releasing under as Free Software. Or, you could simply create one of your own that is specifically tailored to you own needs and desires.Here is a list and comments on many licenses out there that are copyleft or non-copyleft compatible:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.htmlI have no doubt you'll find one that suits what you desire more fully. And lest it gets lost in the discussion here, just because you licensed a work under the GNU GPL doesn't mean you must continue to license it the same way. Heck, you could release your work under more than one compatible license targeted for different circumstances if that better suits your needs.Regardless, I hope the person illegally selling this software on eBay is caught through yours and other owner actions here. No license should be ignored like this.Good luck,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Barney,"On the one hand, someone distributing can indeed ask for payment. On the other hand, it should be free with no demand for payment."The GNU GPL license (and above philosophy its based upon) says nothing about "it should be free with no demand for payment" - you're misunderstanding it there. Specifically, GPL'd software must be Free as in the Freedom to use, modify or copy as you see fit: that has nothing to do with money or payment, but everything to do with user and author rights. Anyone is free to demand payment for the distribution of any Free Software work - their own or someone elses (except in defined limited circumstances). The question really is: where is the incentive to pay that fee if the software's author encourages everyone to copy and give it away to friends and strangers in any way they desire?Hence the beauty of Free Software. If one person buys that Free Software they've never seen from a seller on eBay and finds it worthwhile, they can make as many copies of that purchased CD as they want and give it to all their friends (or upload it to AVSIM for the their community to share, etc). Or, if it doesn't quite fit their needs, they can modify the heck out of it for their own personal use, then decide down the line to release that upgraded and improved package on their own - as long as these new upgrades are Free as well for everyone else to *use* as they desire. Its not about free or fee, its about freedom to use.Thats the whole point of Free Software: providing the authors *and* users the Freedom to use *all* software not as physical property (which it isn't - even in they eyes of the law), but as an ever evolving and improving community service. The author benefits because he too uses the vast quantity of Free Software others have made available to him - for free or a fee! Even in his business if he has the need.Which brings us back to the question: where is the incentive to pay a fee when you can most likely get a copy from your friend? Additional benefits, thats where. Maybe its a question of ease of use (provided on CDROM for example instead of long 56k downloads), maybe its a new version with an easy to use interface that you haven't seen before, maybe it comes packaged with support from the seller that gives you peace of mind in case you have problems running it or it breaks, maybe it has a printed manual that you can't do without, maybe it has a much improved feature set that you haven't seen before and would really like to try, etc, etc. There are a million ways to add value to software that provide incentive for others to buy: even if that potential buyer has a friend that has a copy he's willing to give away that is similar, but doesn't fit the the needs perfectly.Exactly like IBM does with its multi billion dollar Linux projects. Or Red Hat does with its multi million dollar Linux distributions and services. Or smaller companies like Ximian does with its extremely high quality Free Software products and services. Or any of the hundreds of thousands of developers do as they work away at a staggering amount of Free Software projects available today. Or the millions of users using, hacking, sharing, buying and selling Free Software in the world.Free Software works because its good for both authors and users.Take care,Elrond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again Elrond,Once more we cross swords it seems!I have no problems with your GNU license as it applies to specific conditions; and thanks for clearing up that little point I was questioning, by the way.Your reference to compiling freeware on CD's for those especially without the means of otherwise accessing said material is OK with me as well, as long as the various authors involved have also consented.However, back to square one and my main complaint. If I stipulate within my work that inclusion on any type of media, CD Rom or other whereby payment is extracted is disallowed, then that should supercede any existing rules such as the GNU.And if the user can not or will not respect my stipulation, and instead insists upon invoking the GNU license, or any other legal statute they care to, then they can take said regulation and place it in a body cavity of their choosing for there will no longer be anything from my desk again. It's a pretty simple concept. If I'm not employing or claiming the governence of that license, then the end user shouldn't take "license" either!Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet once more,I just can not resist including this link. Let this be one more glowing example of why some authors are extremely adament about having end users abide by their instructions, despite whatever some damnable GNU license may attempt to articulate. I hope you take the time to read the initial message. http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DC...ID10/35784.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this