Yup, 'mgh' is trying to re-start the old argument regarding this.

I didn't start this thread nor did I respond until others had raised the question of ethics and morality. I didn't re-start anything.

I didn't start this thread nor did I respond until others had raised the question of ethics and morality. I didn't re-start anything.

You're doing the exact same thing you did here: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...hl=flightsimproI'm not interested in arguing about this again or seeing a similar argument unfold. Ethics and morals can differ from one individual or group to another. Obviously what FlightProSim has done is all acceptable for you, for me and others it isn't - that's all, nothing more to argue about.

You're doing the exact same thing you did here: http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...hl=flightsimproI'm not interested in arguing about this again or seeing a similar argument unfold. Ethics and morals can differ from one individual or group to another. Obviously what FlightProSim has done is all acceptable for you, for me and others it isn't - that's all, nothing more to argue about.

Then why didn't you refer to the previous thread when others first raised the matter of ethics and morality here.I agree we all have different views on morality and we are entitled to express them in these forums - even though you apprear to believe only your views should be posted.

Then why didn't you refer to the previous thread when others first raised the matter of ethics and morality here.I agree we all have different views on morality and we are entitled to express them in these forums - even though you apprear to believe only your views should be posted.

The previous thread was pointed out in the first reply to the OP by 'NoNewMessages', so I didn't feel the need to do that. I only did it when you came in and said that we are wrong and its all perfectly moral - which was basically the same argument as before and I didn't want to see that start again. I didn't say anything about moral or ethical issues before you came into this thread. In actual fact it appears that you believe only your views should be considered valid.If I believed that only my views should be posted then I wouldn't be here. I have learned a lot from others in the AVSIM forums and in some cases even find myself adjusting some of my views accordingly - NOT in this case though.I have been curious why you so eagerly come to the defense of FlightSimPro, twice now? Wait a minute.......

If a product is released with a licence that allows it to be sold on then there's nothing immoral or unethical about selling it.I have a number of friends how make their living by buying cheap (as cheap as they can) and selling dear (for as much as they can get). That's called business and is how the real world works.

Are your friends involved with selling FlightSimPro?!........ :( :(I'm sorry I couldn't resist a little humor..... But seriously they're not, right?

If a product is released with a licence that allows it to be sold on then there's nothing immoral or unethical about selling it.I have a number of friends how make their living by buying cheap (as cheap as they can) and selling dear (for as much as they can get). That's called business and is how the real world works.

I could not agree more with mgh point of view.Marco

There's nothing illegal, or even immoral, in relying on the terms of freely-granted licence. Flight Gear can't really complain, it chose that licence itself.

Gerry, I have to agree with you, but only up to a point. As much as it galls me, what this fellow is doing is no more unethical or immoral than those who sell Linux repackaged into a self-installing, self-configuring assembly, and who also provide limited support.Where the line gets crossed however IMHO, is when (1) the package being sold is less than what could be downloaded for free and (2) absolutely depends on the naivete and gullibility of the innocent to succeed. At the very least this practice is dispicable and distasteful, and wholly worthy of any and all scorn one could heap upon it... :(

Gerry, I have to agree with you, but only up to a point. As much as it galls me, what this fellow is doing is no more unethical or immoral than those who sell Linux repackaged into a self-installing, self-configuring assembly, and who also provide limited support.Where the line gets crossed however IMHO, is when (1) the package being sold is less than what could be downloaded for free and (2) absolutely depends on the naivete and gullibility of the innocent to succeed. At the very least this practice is dispicable and distateful, and wholly worthy of any and all scorn one could heap upon it... :(

If I search the internet for a particular prodict I can often find exactly the same item with a wide range of prices. Are those selling for the highest prices depending on the naivete and gullibility of the innocent to aucceed and are they to be condemned?

If I search the internet for a particular prodict I can often find exactly the same item with a wide range of prices. Are those selling for the highest prices depending on the naivete and gullibility of the innocent to aucceed and are they to be condemned?

Apples and oranges... In the case you cite above none of the options available are FREE of cost.In this specific case, what is being charged for is intrinsic "Value Added." If there is no real "Value Added" then it becomes a case of sheer avarice, greed, and exploitation.

You could say that the value added here is "simplicity". What did this guy do? For as far as I can see, he took all free stuff and bundled it, thereby making it easy for users to simply get the entire pack and load it on their computers without having the complexity of manually adding in all the extras (never mind the enormous downloads needed to get all the world scenery). Believe me, whenever I tried to add scenery and stuff I always succeeded, but it was never a very straight forward affair. Luckily, much has been improved on this front, but I can understand non-technical people not wanting all the fuss and pay for an all-in-one package.

Apples and oranges... In the case you cite above none of the options available are FREE of cost.In this specific case, what is being charged for is intrinsic "Value Added." If there is no real "Value Added" then it becomes a case of sheer avarice, greed, and exploitation.

Surely the point is the difference in prices for identical products regardless of whether the lower price is zero. Anyway as Thralni has already pointed out the "Added Value" was ease of intallation. Whether that was value for money is a separate debate.My local one-man camera shop offered to sell me a particular camera for

Surely the point is the difference in prices for identical products regardless of whether the lower price is zero. Anyway as Thralni has already pointed out the "Added Value" was ease of intallation. Whether that was value for money is a separate debate.My local one-man camera shop offered to sell me a particular camera for

Normally I would not link to this here, but I have to in order to prove a point:http://flightgear.org/dvd/That's the official FlightGear purchase DVD page. Read up on why they charge that much at the FlightGear site, along with comparing the prices, and the versions between the official page and FPS, and make up your own mind. Also, in regards to installers:http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/binary.shtml

The question seems to be is it unethical or immoral to sell a product for

The question seems to be is it unethical or immoral to sell a product for

The question seems to be is it unethical or immoral to sell a product for