Bill, you seem to have strong (angry?) views on this but your real point or motivation isn't clear. You seem to feel the need to strongly defend the position of someone taking the work that other people have done for free, and commercially selling it (whether legal or not) ?Just one question ........ why ?I think the rest of us have a natural response to this along the lines of "heck, that's just not on, selling a free flight sim developed by someone else, for money" ...... but all we are seeing from you is "IT'S FINE, IT'S FINE ! ! ! ! ".Instead or bleating out Linux versions or whatever they were you were ranting about, why not elaborate on the basis of your point ?Davido.

Nick clearly understood my intent as he's elucidated it quite well in his response above.Flightgear.org provides both download versions of their Open Source software and files as well as selling CD versions. In both cases a lot of assembly is required for installation and configuration.FlightProSim is selling a pre-assembled, self-installing, pre-configured version of Flightgear.org's software and files. The consumer is paying for the ease of installation, not the Open Source files themselves.Therefore the direct comparison with the numerous Linux distribution packages is quite appropriate, except that trying to "hand assemble" the hundreds of variations of the Linux Open Source files into a coherent "operating system" is several magnitudes more difficult... (a whole LOT of assembly is required!)I have no clue why you seem to think my responses are "angry." Do try not to isogete into my statements emotional content, as there is none whatsoever.Furthermore, nowhere in any of my replies have I stated whether I think it ethical or moral......I've simply posed a question, encouraging people to ask the same questions themselves before jumping on the latest band wagon to pass through the valley... :(There are very critical differences between "freeware" and "open source." Unless one understands those differences throughly, they are nearly certain to form erroneous conclusions and make false judgments.

Yeah well, I just don't get it.My Post is not directed at anyone ... I'm just pitching in my two cents.Sell a open source program on disk that can be downloaded for free, for more money than MS is selling the Gold Version of FSX / (with)? And the reason they justify this cost, is the time a person saves manually installing said free open source program?well now, that is a new twist :( The next gen MS FS will be free , MS will only be charging you for the auto install whodo voodo they doso you don't have to install it manually.. I love how they have they 97.00 maked down to.... and then cut again for the low low price...... :( :( If you'll excuse me I have to take a very important call from a guy who says he's invented a way to make snowballs out of thin air ...... In the Middle OF Death Valley in late August.... It's sure Thing!wow weee B)

Kind of a learning experience for me reading this thread, because I did not know it would be considered permissible to package an open source program and sell it without some recognition for the authors. There was a thread recently regarding this sim, and I took a look at the Flight Pro site at that time. I think what bugs me (and would still bug me unless it's changed) is that the web page made no mention of Flight Gear, only that the sim was a collaborative effort. Having installed and tried Flight Gear, I cannot imagine paying for it. It's a good effort by those who've contributed to it, but I just don't feel it is on a commercial level. I also did not think it was so terribly difficult to install that I'd feel compelled to pay someone for that "service". -John

Kind of a learning experience for me reading this thread, because I did not know it would be considered permissible to package an open source program and sell it without some recognition for the authors. There was a thread recently regarding this sim, and I took a look at the Flight Pro site at that time. I think what bugs me (and would still bug me unless it's changed) is that the web page made no mention of Flight Gear, only that the sim was a collaborative effort. Having installed and tried Flight Gear, I cannot imagine paying for it. It's a good effort by those who've contributed to it, but I just don't feel it is on a commercial level. I also did not think it was so terribly difficult to install that I'd feel compelled to pay someone for that "service". -John

The site actually does mention this somewhere about half-way down the page as I recall. Here is a copy and paste of the only mention I could find:"This is a commercial adaption of the world renown flight Gear project. Further information available in our Developers Area"In response to an earlier post, the folks at Flightgear did not intend to, nor realize Pro Flight Sim was being advertised on there site in the Google ad. A fellow AVSIM staff member made them aware of that with a screenshot I took.Seems like a lot of money to spend for the convenience of installing otherwise free software, though in fairness I don't know what "extras" are included.

The site actually does mention this somewhere about half-way down the page as I recall. Here is a copy and paste of the only mention I could find:"This is a commercial adaption of the world renown flight Gear project. Further information available in our Developers Area"In response to an earlier post, the folks at Flightgear did not intend to, nor realize Pro Flight Sim was being advertised on there site in the Google ad. A fellow AVSIM staff member made them aware of that with a screenshot I took.Seems like a lot of money to spend for the convenience of installing otherwise free software, though in fairness I don't know what "extras" are included.

Thanks, I don't remember seeing that reference when I first saw their website a couple weeks ago. So it might have been there and I missed it, or might have been added later. -John

Actually, the FG devs have a problem with it, as shown here: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic...;p=46479#p46479Also, it's licensed under the GPL, however repackaging something and selling it for 50 bucks is far from right IMHO if it's free and open source, as it's better for someone to learn to DIY, especially when there is a pre-built EXE installer for Windows on the FG site which barely requires any work at all to install and use, and it's been there for quite some time now.GPL References: http://sourceforge.net/projects/flightgear/http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.htmlWhile most likely not illegal, it is still wrong and the FG devs have a problem with it advertised on their site, so it's NOT sanctioned by FG.And don't even try to compare it to red hat linux, RHL is sold as an enterprise server with a support contract, and is designed as a actual commercial version. This bullcrap is just a compiled version of FGFS, and has no other real changes that have been confirmed by the "devs" of this ripoff.

Just because this is an open source software does not mean its OK to rip it off in this way. I agree with Peter above, comparisons between this situation and Red Hat Linux are completely inaccurate. Anyway you look at it, ethically this situation is simply wrong.If this was any form of payware getting ripped off, everybody (starting with commercial FS developers) would be up in arms. But because its open source, some people think all this legally acceptable and therefore OK, this just ticks me off. With this kind of attitude we're not going to have any open source software eventually.

Just because this is an open source software does not mean its OK to rip it off in this way. I agree with Peter above, comparisons between this situation and Red Hat Linux are completely inaccurate. Anyway you look at it, ethically this situation is simply wrong.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is based on free and open source software and the complete source code is available. Other companies have taken this source code and compiled their own versions including CentOS StartCom Enterprise Linux, Pie Box Enterprise Linux, Scientific Linux, X/OS, White Box Enterprise Linux, Cisco Unified Communications Manager], Lineox, and Oracle. Are they ripping off Red Hat?

If this was any form of payware getting ripped off, everybody (starting with commercial FS developers) would be up in arms. But because its open source, some people think all this legally acceptable and therefore OK, this just ticks me off. With this kind of attitude we're not going to have any open source software eventually.

It is legally acceptable and, anyway, who's being ripped off?FlightGear is released under the GNU GPL.http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/GNU_G..._Public_LicenseThe preamble to this states:"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things."http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.htmlIf you want to blame anyone, blame FlightGear for choosing to release it under this licence instead of their own, which could have prohibited charging for it.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is based on free and open source software and the complete source code is available. Other companies have taken this source code and compiled their own versions including CentOS StartCom Enterprise Linux, Pie Box Enterprise Linux, Scientific Linux, X/OS, White Box Enterprise Linux, Cisco Unified Communications Manager], Lineox, and Oracle. Are they ripping off Red Hat?

In the case of Red Hat Enterprise Linux the original material has been extensively modified and added to before being released as a commercial product or re-developed into different versions. You said it yourself 'companies have taken this source code and compiled their own versions'. ......COMPILED THEIR OWN VERSIONS based on existing open source code. On the other hand in here all we seem to have is an installer and a repackage of a free open source product (FlightGear) by someone who has attempted this in the past as well. Therefore any comparison between these two situations is completely out of context. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

It is legally acceptable.................FlightGear is released under the GNU GPL........................If you want to blame anyone, blame FlightGear for choosing to release it under this licence instead of their own, which could have prohibited charging for it.

I know FlightGear is released under the GNU GPL, there's no need to point out information I already know. So you're saying its ok to simply re-package an open source software and sell if for $47+. Its all Ethically correct is it? And all this is only FlightGear's fault is it? Well that's just wrong, period. FlightGear are releasing their software this way in order to ensure that developers have the ability to continue to develop it without any legal impediments. They certainly did not do it so that a 3-rd party can simply only repackage it and sell it for $47.

It is legally acceptable and, anyway, who's being ripped off?

Who's being ripped off you say? How about the people that buy this for $47, while they can have it for free at the same time. How about the global team of volunteers who developed this in the first place for free.

In the case of Red Hat Enterprise Linux the original material has been extensively modified and added to before being released as a commercial product or re-developed into different versions. You said it yourself 'companies have taken this source code and compiled their own versions'. ......COMPILED THEIR OWN VERSIONS based on existing open source code. On the other hand in here all we seem to have is an installer and a repackage of a free open source product (FlightGear)

But I understand that they have added-value:

Flightgear.org provides both download versions of their Open Source software and files as well as selling CD versions. In both cases a lot of assembly is required for installation and configuration.FlightProSim is selling a pre-assembled, self-installing, pre-configured version of Flightgear.org's software and files.

FlightGear are releasing their software this way in order to ensure that developers have the ability to continue to develop it without any legal impediments. They certainly did not do it so that a 3-rd party can repackage it and sell it for $47.

But that's just what FlightGear did by releasing it under the GNU GPL licence which specifically allows it to be sold.

Who's being ripped off you say? How about the people that buy this for $47, while they can have it for free at the same time. How about the global team of volunteers who developed this in the first place for free.

On that basis anyone who pays $49.99 for the FlightGear program for Windows and MacOSX and the 3-DVD World Scenery set on DVD is being ripped-off when they can have it for free? And what has the team of developers actually lost?

You can't discuss this with 'mgh'... just stop. Seriously.What they're doing (the $47 sale) is morally reprehensible... but you can't discuss this with 'mgh'.

You can't discuss this with 'mgh'... just stop. Seriously.What they're doing (the $47 sale) is morally reprehensible... but you can't discuss this with 'mgh'.

Good point there. Discussing this further with 'mgh' does seem to be utterly pointless.

Well, I just want to point out that it seems as "utterly pointless" to discuss this with you guys since you seem as stuck on your version as he does on his, so not sure you can lay the whole blame on mgh :->Of course, I also agree with him and Fr. Bill :->I don't know anything about the product being discussed, since I haven't looked at it, but possible costs they may have that justify charging:Advertising Expenses - this exposes a much larger group of possible users to the product, who may otherwise have never heard about the Open Source versionCost for any additionally developed content (aircraft, scenery, etc) - don't know if they have any of this or notCost for any additional code work (tweaks/bug fixes, custom installers, etc)Cost for any physical media they ship - if they are providing the product on physical DVDs, then they have to be produced (which in small companies usually means yelling across the office, "Hey Bob, burn me 3 copies would you")Cost of maintaining their web site and any support forums, etc they might hostCost of providing any "official" support (this is a big hunk of the cost for something like RedHat)Again, not sure how many, if any, of the above the company/product in question provides, so can't comment on if its worth the $47 they are charging. And as long as the company hasn't broken any of the terms of the license the open source software is developed/distributed under (like making any tweaks/bug fixes available back to the open source community, etc), then I'm not sure where any legal, moral, or ethical questions come into the discussion - if they don't provide enough value add to the end users to justify the cost they are charging, then they won't make any money and will go out of business.Tim

Just because this is an open source software does not mean its OK to rip it off in this way. I agree with Peter above, comparisons between this situation and Red Hat Linux are completely inaccurate. Anyway you look at it, ethically this situation is simply wrong.If this was any form of payware getting ripped off, everybody (starting with commercial FS developers) would be up in arms. But because its open source, some people think all this legally acceptable and therefore OK, this just ticks me off. With this kind of attitude we're not going to have any open source software eventually.

I can only repeat what I stated earlier, although this time with greater emphasis:

...nowhere in any of my replies have I stated whether I think it ethical or moral......I've simply posed a question, encouraging people to ask the same questions themselves before jumping on the latest band wagon to pass through the valley... There are very critical differences between "freeware" and "open source." Unless one understands those differences throughly, they are nearly certain to form erroneous conclusions and make false judgments.

Thank you for your reply, Tim. It's gratifying that you've understood the points raised. :( Now, for the record, here are my thoughts on the issue at hand:Providing that all of the requirements of the GNU are met...1. it is not illegal per se2. it is not immoral per se3. it is not unethical per se, but possibly unethical per quod-however-4. it is opportunistic and its ultimate success depends on the gullibility of potential customersIn summary, I don't like what's being done, but my reasons are based on emotions, personal feelings and dislike of opportunism, not on any false legal or moral premises.

You can't discuss this with 'mgh'... just stop. Seriously.What they're doing (the $47 sale) is morally reprehensible... but you can't discuss this with 'mgh'.

And you can't dicuss it with WarpD whose idea of a discussion is to make personal attacks on those with whom he disagrees, while not responding to their points.