ebay auction selling freeware aircrafts. Copyright viol

[Guest]

>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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

>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.

[Guest odog]

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.

[Guest Barney1]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest Barney1]

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,

[Guest Barney1]

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

[Guest odog]

Barney, You are right on the money. After seeing the last round of Ebay scams I put some of the same type of wording in the Nomad package.I even added an "Ebay" clause. I know the source of the problem in the above mentioned link...How?I got an email from the moderator of this forum, telling me this guy was passing my model off as his own. Not a big deal to me in the screenshot forum on an all french speaking site, but the moderator indicated that he had or had tried to upload as payware. Thankfully the person in charge of the Library was on the ball and gave the docs a read. Some of the docs were deleted and changed around. Noticing the poor english, compared to my not so poorer english a red light went off, causing him to contact me.So, Its really not up to a few words in the docs. It seems we need to police ourselves. If someone can show me a way to protect my work and still give it away, Im all for it. This whole GNU GPL buisness reminds me of the guys knock on my door at 7am on a saturday trying to get me to change Gods. It just dont feel right. The license isnt the problem... these people are. It should not be allowed to go on. http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DC...ID10/35760.htmlstill waiting for his answer...joe

[Guest Brent Hebert]

Herein lies the problem.1. Users of Abacus FSDS or FSDS2 must obtain a commercial users license in oder to produce an aircraft for sale or barter. Most freeware developers obtain a general use license. If said aircraft is uploaded along with its source files under the GNU terms, then anyone who choses to modify said aircraft and package for resale, must have a commercial license from Abacus.2. Aircraft depicting or displaying a representation of a real world airline logo must have permission from the airline in order to release this as a commercial product or else they would be in violation of lawful use of a copyrighted trademark. (ie. American Airlines situation) If author distributes his aircraft with said logo as freeware under the GNU terms, then if the second user decides to repackage it and distribute it as commercial, then can the airlines hold original author in violation of their use of trademark? Brent Hebert

[ErnieAlston 33]

>If author distributes his aircraft with said logo as freeware under >the GNU terms, then if the >second user decides to repackage it and >distribute it as commercial, then can the airlines hold >original >author in violation of their use of trademark? They both as separate distributers would be equally in violation. Don't believe that just because you are not making money you are exempt from being held liable in trademark and copyright cases.Regards.

[Guest eko]

Folks, the GNU GPL license is not automatic. You MUST place it on anything you distribute, otherwise, it just simply doesn't apply.When you place the GNU license on something, others can (and are encouraged) to modify, redistribute, etc. etc. but the resulting products also have to be released under the same license, and they must credit the original authorship (correct me Elrond, if I am mistaken). If you simply redistribute, you are forbidden to claim authorship.There are a number of other clauses to it as well, but Elrond has already provided most of the relevant links.The GNU GPL license is only one of MANY different licenses under which freeware can be distributed. There are others which are more restrictive, and others which are less.Just about 99% of all flight-sim freeware releases are not distributed under any type of license which even begins to approximate the GNU GPL. As a matter of fact, most freeware flightsim offerings are released under much more stringent rules than the GNU GPL license. Personally, I do not agree with the majority of the licenses under which freeware is released. They are too prohibitive, do not foster cooperation and improvement, and generally place far too many restrictions.That being said, the person on eBay is clearly breaking the rules and not respecting authors licenses regarding their creations. No argument there. RedHat sells free software that hundreds (thousands) of folks have developed and worked on. These developers, etc. do not get once cent from Redhat. Fair? Sure, everything that RedHat sells they also have to make available for free. Always. That's the way it works. You can sell freeware, but you MUST at the same time provide a way of distributing it for free to everybody as well.

[Guest]

>RedHat sells free software >that hundreds (thousands) of folks have developed and worked >on. These developers, etc. do not get once cent from >Redhat. Fair? Sure, everything that RedHat sells they also >have to make available for free. Always. That's the way it >works. You can sell freeware, but you MUST at the same time >provide a way of distributing it for free to everybody as >well. I was under the impression that what RedHat was 'selling' was their unique installation program that ties together and configures all the disparate 'pieces of code' that're necessary to get Linux up and running, as well as their continued support services.All of the 'pieces of code' are freely available to anyone, but they would have to read and understand many, many separate installation readme.txt files, and invest a huge amount of time and experimentation to achieve the same end result.Now, with regards to any releases from the Factory Aircraft RTS Team, we want everyone to have free access to every part of the project, including the original .gmax file. Anyone who wishes is free to take any part of the a/c package and use it in any other project they might wish to create, while adhering to the following restrictions.What we don't want is for anyone, at any time, for any reason whatsoever, to take the work and attempt to make a profit from it in any fashion, whether it be as a 'value added installation routine,' a compilation CD, or as an integral part of a 'payware' project.