Wil,You're right, your not only being unappreciative, but completely callous to the fact that these 'petty children' as you so delicatly put it, have spent hours and hours of their personal time and effort to create something that's theirs. I'm sorry but not wanting someone else to profit off of your hard work does not make one a child.Think of it this way, spend countless hours of your own personal time creating a freeware product - we're talking hundreds of collective hours over years of dedication to this hobby - and then come here and tell us you'd be happy with someone packaging up your products to sell without even doing you the courtesy of informing you first or even asking if there was a particular product or paint you wanted included. Not to mention the fact that you've already explicitly denoted in your distribution file that such an act was prohibited in the first place.Until then, you have no right to call someone else petty for protecting their property. And I certainly don't recall ever reading the the definition of 'freeware' meant giving up one's personal ownership in said product. This conversation is the second coming of the same issues that make popular freeware developers close up shop. The greedy public demanding more and more and more from freeware. It's not enough that they simply provide it - it has to be up to certain specs or now even available in whatever medium is demanded or the insults begin.If you want to create freeware products for distribution on a demo cd - by all means do so. But don't expect others to do it just because you say it should be so... and certainly don't insult others because they don't share your views on the matter.

"It sure would be nice to walk into my computer store and see not only Flight Simulator 2004, but also a dearth of low cost ADDON cd's filled with quality shareware and freeware. What a great way to distribute some good shareware "demos" as well. I may like to buy a piece of software, but before I blow 60 megs or more on downloads, I want to see if it works."I'm sure the freeware authors would be more than willing for you to create those compilation CD's. Just as long as you don't charge any money for them. Are you prepared to accept the financial burden to offer such CD's? No one is!For anyone who wants to have freeware addon's without having to download them, then another option is to head down to your local bookstore and pick up a copy of "PC Pilot". Of course, they'll have to but that. But the freeware authors have readily allowed their work to be compiled by PC Pilot... as in they granted permission.

Well IANAL but I just had a long conversation with several at lunch re this issue. The prevailing opinion is that there is nothing wrong in what he's doing. There is NO damage of any kind except to the author's ego.I write a book listing all the good places to eat in Miami. Am I in violation of copyright law by listing the names of these restaurants and charging for it?I go back to my earlier example of a clipping service.Newsprint is copyrighted material, yet a clipping SERVICE can copy this material and charge for it. Do you see a similarity here? They charge for collecting the information that is copyrighted and freely available.I stand by my statment - if I had a dialup - I would buy the product. Am I harming ANY of the freeware authors ( other than their feelings )? I think not. Just mho,vgb

Greetings yourself Jaap!IANAL but I disagree with your opinion. See my other references to clipping services. Are they all committing felonies?I think not - vgb

I agree with you. But what I don't understand is how this thing got "started" in the first place.I have been flight simming since the beginning. And as soon as BAO's Flight Shop (I'm dating myself here) hit the streets, it seems that we have been fighting this battle.I agree with everything you say. What I don't understand, is how come it is so positively impossible to get said "permission" from these authors.If I am developing Active Camera, FSUIPC, or whatever other product I'm hawking, wouldn't it make sense to allow this file to be distributed any way possible? I mean, I want my work to go out to others. And If I make a region specific demo or a "crippled" edition, then I protect myself.As a freeware developer, why not allow my stuff to be seen by as many eyes as possible. Is the Flight Simulation community still naive enough to believe that EVERYONE is online?I agree with respecting peoples wishes, but I don't agree with not questioning thier motives.Freeware developers are more than happy to use other peoples disk space, bandwidth, and forums space to self promote their creations. If I submit a video to "America's funniest videos" I agree that the video tape becomes the property of ABC once I deliver it. And as such, they have free will to do with what they want.I doubt that AVSIM will ever take that policy, but I would like AVSIM to add a clause that allows as an exchange for the use of the AVSIM network, all freeware and "shareware" developers agree that AVSIM has the right of compile and make a CD with their software on it for possible sale.I would love a CD with all of BEARS picks on it.Should we respect the rights of the freeware developer. Absolutely, that is the "price" we pay for enjoying their creation. However, it ironic that users and makers of "mods" for FPS shooter games don't undergo this type of garbage.Why is it that the FPS shooter "kids" have a more mature and tolerant attitude about distributing and creating "levels" and "mods", whereas the "adult" flight simmers bicker and bite each other like kids....

"I stand by my statment - if I had a dialup - I would buy the product. Am I harming ANY of the freeware authors ( other than their feelings )? I think not. "So what you're saying here is that your desire to have the add-on is more important than the feelings of the people who created it? How long do you think folks would contribute freeware creations if you and I were allowed to disregard their "feelings"

Wil Exuse me !!! ?? Freeware people are childish and making a mountain out of a molehill?? HOW DARE YOU !!!. Do you have any idea HOW LONG IT TAKES AND HOW MUCH DEDICATION IT TAKES TO MODEL OR DESIGN SOMETHING???All freeware authors are asking is for you to GET permissions for certain distribution/uses of THEIR WORK and thats a BIG PROBLEM???IT IS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO TURN FREEWARE SHAREWARE BECAUSE FREEWARE AUTHORS GET SICK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE NOT APPRECIATING OR RESPECTING THEIR WORK AND THE FACT THAT IT'S STILL THEIR WORK AND NOT YOURS TO DO WHATEVER WITH.Sorry for typing in full caps but the comments posted by Wil is CALLOUS and does not appreciate the immmense investment in time and in some cases money of what it takes to develop the little freewware we have left in this community!!! and im slightly more than annoyed at his comments.I dont know about you but just the anticipation of the release of quality freeware especially from reputable houses like posky or idfg after waiting for months should give some appreciation of what we the flighsimming community are DARNED LUCKY we recieverant overmaxis

"Why is it that the FPS shooter "kids" have a more mature and tolerant attitude about distributing and creating "levels" and "mods", whereas the "adult" flight simmers bicker and bite each other like kids...."Possibly because "adult" flightsimmers have a stronger grasp and perception of reality than the FPS shooter "kids".If you own a prime piece of real estate that happens to afford me a great sunset from my front porch, I'll readily enjoy all the sunsets I can. But then one day I see a "FOR SALE" sign on your property! And I'm not happy about seeing a commercial developer coming in to build a mall that would block my sunsets. I can go next door and ask you why you're selling, but you are under no obligation to tell me. That's your business. My choices are to accept the forthcoming mall, or move elsewhere.It really comes down to respecting the wishes of authors... without question to their reasons and motivations. You and I have no right to question their reasons... whether we disagree or not.

>Wil,>>You're right, your not only being unappreciative, but>completely callous to the fact that these 'petty children' as>you so delicatly put it, have spent hours and hours of their>personal time and effort to create something that's theirs.>I'm sorry but not wanting someone else to profit off of your>hard work does not make one a child.>>Think of it this way, spend countless hours of your own>personal time creating a freeware product - we're talking>hundreds of collective hours over years of dedication to this>hobby - and then come here and tell us you'd be happy with>someone packaging up your products to sell without even doing>you the courtesy of informing you first or even asking if>there was a particular product or paint you wanted included.>Not to mention the fact that you've already explicitly denoted>in your distribution file that such an act was prohibited in>the first place.Mr. Howard, If I were particularly concerned about the distribution of my "hard work" and "labor" I would not place my software in a freeware status, nor would I be particularly "offended". If I were particularly concerned about "compensation" then I would offer my product as a commercial product and expect compensation. Then if some punk pirated my stuff, I would prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. However, If I offer something as "freeware" then I usually don't think twice about where it's going, or how it's getting there.The fact that you distribute your software "freeware" puts you in a legal "grey area" to begin with. The "compiler" can argue that he is not "reselling" your product, but simply covering his costs of downloading and burning the CD. That is what I mean by poop or get off the pot. If freeware authors are so concerned about copyright, then go commercial and then you have a better "leg" to stand on. Courts don't likely waste their time over a lawsuit in which the person's "loss" is his "getting his feelings hurt". That's the difference between "book" law and practical law.>Until then, you have no right to call someone else petty for>protecting their property. And I certainly don't recall ever>reading the the definition of 'freeware' meant giving up one's>personal ownership in said product. This conversation is the>second coming of the same issues that make popular freeware>developers close up shop. The greedy public demanding more and>more and more from freeware. It's not enough that they simply>provide it - it has to be up to certain specs or now even>available in whatever medium is demanded or the insults>begin.You call the public "greedy" yet no mention of freeware developers who for years allow their products to be tied to commercial ventures so that it becomes "invaluable" only to announce to the world at the last second that the version will be payware after the latest Flight Sim has gone Gold. Leaving said commericial developers to either pay up a license fee or pass it to the end user. If that's not greed, I don't know what is.>If you want to create freeware products for distribution on a>demo cd - by all means do so. But don't expect others to do it>just because you say it should be so... and certainly don't>insult others because they don't share your views on the>matter.How much money is being wasted on anti-piracy, spy-ware, and the myriad of other inconveiences that are foisted on the buying public because "former" freeware developers are so "uptight" about their "copyright" that they spend thousands of dollars on complex and intrusive anti-piracy devices, and then expect me to foot the bill.

>Freeware authors are more that happy to use other peoples bandwith for their products.Hmm have you ever considered what Avsim would be like without a freeware library?Have you ever wondered why so many people come to avsim.? I personally initially came for the freeware files for the past 2 maybe 3 years. I only started exploring the other aspects of avsim recently.So please re evaluate weather this freeware library and the traffic it gets for avsim is just as important to Avsim as the fact that freeware developers dont have to share anything with us either.Maxis

You wrote:<>In this case the explicit words do spell out the authors intentions clearly. However your post's conclusion is logically flawed.Let me paraphrase your logic:"Since all the freeware messages are equally obvious, I can't understand why any confusion exists"The error, or perhaps the "technique" you employ is to state a premise as an unquestionable "known", elevating the validity of that premise beyond discussion. Check your facts. A faulty premise renders the logic flawed. Whether or not a protection statement exists is not in question, however one that explicitly speaks to re-distribution within a bundled (freeware or payware) with any other package does not exist in many downloads I see. All of this says nothing of the legal issues that folks are discussing here. while some of the lawyers that read this board have been contributing legal opinion, your notion assumes that I have the legal right to enforce whatever I say. Perhaps in the case in question here, the legal opinion and yours will converge, but not based on your logic. I can say that anyone who uses my software must dance a jig, yet it will likely be not legally enforceable, just because I said it.

Hi Greg,"You and I have no right to question their reasons... whether we disagree or not."While I agree whole heartedly with the requirement to contact an author before distributing their works if they didn't explicitly give it in their license (its the law), the above statement goes way too far out to left field.We, and anyone else, has the absolute "right" to question anyone about their motives and reasons - regardless if they are freeware authors, commercial authors or any other type of author. What we DON'T have the right to do is DEFY their license anyway (beyond challenging them in a court of law).Questioning is the heart of democracy. Motives, indeed, are fair game for discussion.Take care,Elrond

that the motivation to design and freely distribute is based on the users respecting the author's feelings?Sounds like those author's are feeling pretty needy for validation. You don't think they design because they enjoy it? As a freeware author, I assure you I'll stop producing freeware as soon as it's not fun for me to make. I've never understood the desire to control distribution, as it only limits how many folks get to enjoy my work. As long as no one corrupts the files' contents, I want it to be available to as many folks as possible. If somebody figures out a way to make a buck in the process, why should I care?Bob Bernstein

I'm a freeware author....my hours invested are done so cuz I enjoy designing. It has nothing to do with my desire to control others activities of distribution.Big difference...just because I do something I enjoy for many hours, doesn't mean being anal about controlling others distribution activities is justified.Bob Bernstein

You're right, Elrond, we each have the right (and I believe the obligation) to question the moivations of others. We do not have the right to compell them to fall in line with what we perceive is a "proper solution". We only have the right to accept the author's reasoning and wishes. It's not for us to dictate that if someone wishes to create a piece of freeware, that it has to be done under any stringent legal or moral reasoning. Each author has the right to make that definition for him/herself.Regards,