I guess some people mistake Ethics as a county in southern England rather than a position worth sticking up for. Oh well, there goes the neighbourhood.Al

I guess some people mistake Ethics as a county in southern England rather than a position worth sticking up for. Oh well, there goes the neighbourhood.Al

While I do think it is unethical for anyone to take advantage of someone else' work and goodwill, I have to say the FGFS people did this to themselves. It was them who chose to use a standard licensing scheme, instead of writing their own or using a more restrictive license scheme, that prohibits commercial use. You know the saying, Give them an inch, they'll take a yard - or in this case a mile.

While I do think it is unethical for anyone to take advantage of someone else' work and goodwill, I have to say the FGFS people did this to themselves. It was them who chose to use a standard licensing scheme, instead of writing their own or using a more restrictive license scheme, that prohibits commercial use. You know the saying, Give them an inch, they'll take a yard - or in this case a mile.

It actually was discussed over the newsgroup to use LGPL after this was "released" IIRC.Also, mgh, by your reasoning you appear to be showing, it should be perfectly reasonable to take something like air and sell it under a different name. Slap a new name on it and sell it in a can while only barely mentioning it's the air that everyone already breathes.

[...]My local one-man camera shop offered to sell me a particular camera for

No, It is not. You forget the man has an actual shop to run, not just a website. Whoever is in charge of the website, he only has a website to keep open, not an entire shop. A website does not need water, electricity or whatever, a shop does. And of course don't forget the actual rent, which is of course much more than the amount necessary to keep the website open. The guy at the shop probably also has even less clientele due to the fact that it's a specialized shop anyway, so besides the fact he has more costs to keep the shop open he gets even less cash due to other reasons. He needs to try and make a living, and having a shop is more expensive than just a website. Therefore, he asks more for the products he sells, because otherwise he can't cover all the costs without making a proper income.I could have bought my camera at a website too, but I didn't. Why? Because at the shop I know I can have a physical person in front of me to interact with if I have a problem with my camera (not just a telephone number and a complaints form) and it's very close by. Because of those two reasons I'll always prefer an actual shop above a website for the more expensive products that I buy. I'll happily pay the extra 60 euros or so necessary to get this more direct way of service.

My point was rhetorical. I have no ethical or moral objection to anyone setting their own asking price any more than I have to others deciding whether or not to buy at that price. That's the way of the world.

My point was rhetorical. I have no ethical or moral objection to anyone setting their own asking price any more than I have to others deciding whether or not to buy at that price. That's the way of the world.

The problem isn't the price though. It's the deceptive practices being used.

http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/FlightProSimIMHO, it's the ethos of the "huckster" or "con artist" that ruffles my feathers, rather than the act itself...

http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/FlightProSimIMHO, it's the ethos of the "huckster" or "con artist" that ruffles my feathers, rather than the act itself...

I think mgh is the only one who's feathers it doesn't ruffle.

I no less than zero about how licensing works, don't really care either. But I'm wondering if it is possible for the authors to change the license now so that something like this didn't happen again.

I no less than zero about how licensing works, don't really care either. But I'm wondering if it is possible for the authors to change the license now so that something like this didn't happen again.

IIRC it has been discussed on the mailing list.

I think mgh is the only one who's feathers it doesn't ruffle.

No, he's not the only one. While it is not something that I would do, I'm not condemning someone who did do it.I had someone who had to go buy more time from their ISP to download an add on for FSX. Another that wanted to know about getting disks mailed (for a fee) because they were bumping up against their monthly bandwidth quota. Another who had the bandwidth allotment, but at speeds that would have made the download several weeks long.I'll always adhere to the "buyer beware" approach, but how much responsibility must the buyer assume for their own actions? If someone buys this add on and finds out "later" that they could have downloaded it for free, were they taken advantage of or did they maybe not do their homework and want to find others to blame?And if Flight Gear is upset about all this? Too bad, they chose the licensing type, so they must accept the consequences. Let them change the license or quit complaining.

I think mgh is the only one who's feathers it doesn't ruffle.

My feathers are completely unruffled.

.....I'll always adhere to the "buyer beware" approach, but how much responsibility must the buyer assume for their own actions? If someone buys this add on and finds out "later" that they could have downloaded it for free, were they taken advantage of or did they maybe not do their homework and want to find others to blame?And if Flight Gear is upset about all this? Too bad, they chose the licensing type, so they must accept the consequences. Let them change the license or quit complaining.

In a perfect consumer economy, there should be no reason for "buyer beware"--as there would be no dishonest or deceptive vendors. However there is no such thing (which everyone knows) and there is also no such thing as the perfect buyer that cannot be deceived no matter how much diligence they apply. That's why we need consumer protection. I can't stand bureaucracy; I believe in consumer protection through consumer education, and that's the whole point of discussion groups like this. How can a buyer do their homework unless they see threads such as this and know how the majority of hobbyists feel? I think it does a disservice to our members here when a loud and vocal minority comes in and says they see nothing immoral about deceptive advertising--that if someone is gullible enough to get conned, that is their fault for not being as smart as everyone else. We have hobbyists of all ages and all levels of life experience here.Regarding Flight Gear being upset, I am with you 100 pct. They chose the license for their product, can't put it simpler than that. Yes, it is a bummer, but again I think the issue can be minimized by educating the hobby periodically and if that is not sufficient, then they need to try another approach.Regards,John

In a perfect consumer economy, there should be no reason for "buyer beware"--as there would be no dishonest or deceptive vendors. However there is no such thing (which everyone knows) and there is also no such thing as the perfect buyer that cannot be deceived no matter how much diligence they apply. That's why we need consumer protection. I can't stand bureaucracy; I believe in consumer protection through consumer education, and that's the whole point of discussion groups like this. How can a buyer do their homework unless they see threads such as this and know how the majority of hobbyists feel? I think it does a disservice to our members here when a loud and vocal minority comes in and says they see nothing immoral about deceptive advertising--that if someone is gullible enough to get conned, that is their fault for not being as smart as everyone else. We have hobbyists of all ages and all levels of life experience here.Regarding Flight Gear being upset, I am with you 100 pct. They chose the license for their product, can't put it simpler than that. Yes, it is a bummer, but again I think the issue can be minimized by educating the hobby periodically and if that is not sufficient, then they need to try another approach.Regards,John

I have absolutely no problem with information being provided about the relative prices and merits of any product - that's also part of the free market. I do have a problem when pricing is denounced as unethical or immoral. As far as I can see, FlightProSim delivers what it advertises with a 30-day moneyback guarantee. Remember the recent (now locked) thread where it was argued that PMDG's prices were unethical. I opposed that view too.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=286130

I have absolutely no problem with information being provided about the relative prices and merits of any product - that's also part of the free market. I do have a problem when pricing is denounced as unethical or immoral. As far as I can see, FlightProSim delivers what it advertises with a 30-day moneyback guarantee. Remember the recent (now locked) thread where it was argued that PMDG's prices were unethical. I opposed that view too.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=286130

Again you keep shifting the subject to one of prices. My posts aren't about price, they are about a website set up to sell a "product" by making it sound unique when the product is not--even if that product costs more, for that matter, I would be bothered by it. The fact that it is freely available simply is a greater insult to the community.That's what I consider unethical. I don't care if you have still a problem with that, but I do care what you lead others to believe. The PMDG thread has absolutely nothing to do with what bothers me. The way forum members respond to posts here does--please make your point without making my thoughts into someone's you have an argument against. If you don't want to reply to me directly for some past grudge, please don't quote my posts unless you plan on responding to what I have written and ONLY what I have written.-John