ebay auction selling freeware aircrafts. Copyright viol

[Guest]

Hiwhile browsing ebay I stumbled over this auction:http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...&category=21937... it just rang some bells with me.Mario

[John_Cillis 2,406]

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

[Guest outtatimeiii]

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.

[Cpudan80 0]

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

[Guest]

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...

[Guest UweR]

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

[Guest]

>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.'

[Guest]

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."

[John_Tavendale 453]

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 :)

[Misha_K 0]

Yes. I could use that address too. That LH 722 is my repaint. Misha

[Guest]

>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

[Misha_K 0]

Thanks. I'll send them an email in German. Misha

[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.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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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