Are you a freeware author? If so, please speak your position as your own. If not, I'd prefer you not read into the discussion your idea of what I must be feeling. I'm guessing your comments are based on fear that you'll lose your freeware that you like.Actually, Will is right on. We freeware authors are many and varied, my feelings don't speak for everyone, but I design cuz I enjoy it. Since I don't make money at it, I do it when I want, I stop when I want. To worry about who gets to use it, what process they had to go through to use it, whether anyone else made money in the process....I mean really folks...isn't this a different "need" being expressed, aren't we really dealing with the set of folks who both want to design AND want to control the actions of others? All designers want to control folks from corrupting their work...but controlling HOW users come by my work....sheesh....who's got that much need for control?Bob Bernstein

As a long time author, thats exactly how I feel as well, Bob.And for others reading this thread (that is becoming more slanted towards those who covet distribution methods unto themselves): believe me, we're not alone - there's world of people who feel exactly as we do. As a matter of fact, we're the biggest growing market of software developers in the world today.Good to see ya Bob,Elrond

"Sounds like those author's are feeling pretty needy for validation. You don't think they design because they enjoy it? "Indeed I do, Bob. I simply am not comfortable second guessing an author's motivation for creating a piece of freeware. I choose to accept his terms of use without trying to see into the mind (and motivations) of anyone I do not know in person.If you are happy seeing your creations sold on a compilied CD without your permission, then I say "So be it". But if other authors are not so compelled, then I say the same "So be it". Each of us has the right to dictate our own terms of use. The bottom line is that when I D/L a piece of freeware, I'm prepared to accept that author's terms of use... whatever they may be. I'll respect their choices and decisions.

Jaap...taking anothers property is stealing, but aren't we assuming the property has "value"....and aren't you assumine the act of taking leaves an absense of that value behind?In the case in question, the "value" has been assigned by the author as zero dollars. Once this value is taken, its absense cannot be detected.isn't comparing this discussion to theft a bit over the top?Best,Bob Bernstein

"In the case in question, the "value" has been assigned by the author as zero dollars."Bob, I fail to see the corallary here. Just because an author chooses to offer his work for free doesn't mean he places "zero" value on his creation. And any court in the world would agree with that. The fact that another party would or could make a profit off that "free" work clearly disproves that the work has "zero" value. Everything in this world has value... the only difference is that different people place different values on everything. That's human nature.

Greg, what does a freeware author gain by controlling the income of another person?As a freeware author, I KNOW folks can get my work for free. That's because of the fine folks here at AVSIM, where I upload to.So...given that, if another person chooses to spend money to get my work....makes no difference to me.All this posturing is about power. Power is intoxicating. When freeware authors develop a following, it feels like power to control others now exists. It gets sloppy...and its a good think to watch for and be clear with. It has nothing to do with the freeware itself...its about a new ability to control the actions of others.Bob Bernstein

Greg, I can't argue with your message here, but as an author, I must repeat that the desire for freeware authors to control distribution methods is all about thirst for power, its illogical from the standpoint of the role their work plays in the world...that is...hey everyone, here's my stuff...go have fun with it!What I'm NOT saying is that we should ignore the requests of the authors.What I AM saying is that the desire for these authors to control other peoples actions and income should not be vigorously defended. Its about the dark side of human personality, we should see it as such. Bob Bernstein

Mr Bernstein .. Thats YOUR opinon.. If you dont care how your product is distributed more power to you. But DONT DARE speak for all the other authors or betlittle their Opinion on the matter. You might not care but others do Maxis

ooooooo....sounds like you feel threatened, eh? Don't DARE speak for others.....well, sir....your own desire to control me has failed...sorry.If you wish to use logic to describe your disagreement with me, I'd enjoy hearing it...but power plays...nope...sorry...doesn't work.Bob B

Bob, I see and agree with your point about the "dark side" of the human personna. It exists to certain extent in all of us. But I'm not prepared to make that judgement of somone I don't know personally. I simply choose to download a piece of freeware, use it, and respect the author's wishes with regard to its use and distribution. That's all I can do. Morally. I don't feel the right to judge them based upon their wishes.It would be nice if all freeware authors used the same rules of use and distribution. And it would be nice if we all spoke with one voice. But that will never happen. Each human being has the right to value anything they create as they wish. And each of us has the right to value everything around us as we wish. Therein lies the problem... we're all different. To say that all freeware authors should follow the same dictums of use and distribution denies that person their inherent right to stipulate what can and cannot be done with their creation. That is the real danger... denying a person their right to set the rules of use of their free creation. Every person should (and must) have that right, and we should all respect that right by respecting the author's wishes. To do anything differnt would be speling the death blow of all creative activity within each of us.As I've stated earlier... it's all about respect. We must respect each other's wishes, otherwise human beings will cease to create.

I can't agree more, Greg. My sense of mission here was simply to point out to the over-protective "fans" of freeware, that being zealous in the prosecution of "criminals" in the case in question here is simply re-enforcing these author's dark side. Has anyone considered what might happen if everyone responded with, well perhaps its illegal, but the rules set down were dumb, so who cares? Now, if the real "injured" party cares, they'll prosecute, but will the momentum be set to "care" or "not care"? All we can do is create buzz...right? If our "buzz" supports anal rules, wouldn't you assume more rules will result? I suggest our "buzz" should point out how attempts to control others behavior is futile. (resistance is futile.. lol).If the author wants to prosecute, and his dark side need for controlling others has a legal basis, he will win his prosecution.The only thing we gain from being zealous in our arguments in support of this dark side is to validate it....Cheers,Bob Bernstein

>...was done by the many freeware>developers, who do not get one cent out of the revenue, which>Flight One makes with UT.>>WolfgangEvery repaint and model in UT was produced and licensed WITH permission from ProjectAI, the modeler and painters.....Get your facts straight before shooting from the hip!http://fsgateway.com/frank/fs9paibeta.jpg

Hi there Elrond,I've been enjoying reading you in this and other threads....cheers!B

Greetings mate!"(...) clipping services. Are they all committing felonies (...)"I have no idea. If they violate copyright laws: yes. If they don't violate copyright laws: no. But... eh... why don't y'all run down to your local library, and borrow the tomes pertaining to copyright legislation in order to read them? I'm the first one to admit that it will undoubtedly bore the heck out of you (that's what this kind of books do to me anyway!), but it's all written down for all of you to read. Not to mention the internet!Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

Greetings Bob!"(...) isn't comparing this discussion to theft a bit over the top? (...)"I'm not comparing, I'm simply stating what the law says. Most readers of this forum live in the United States, where the legislators (I guess that would be Congress?) have declared copyright to be the "property" of the "copyright owner". And such property can be (and often is) stolen.I truly don't grasp what the misunderstandings are about. United States Congress (in accordance with international legislation like the Berne Convention) gives the copyright owners a right (that's why it is called copyRIGHT), and makes violation of that right a felony. Whether an author (of whatever "work") chooses to waive that right, is up to HIM. If he does, by all means copy, publish and distribute to your heart's desire. If, on the other hand, he does NOT... you're not allowed to copy, publish and distribute. It really is THAT simple.Look guys, it's not Jaap Verduijn who's saying that, it's the legislative body of your country. So if you have any complaints, by all means vote them out of office next time around, and vote in a new bunch of Congressmen who will scratch that law (grin)!Be well!Jaap Verduijn.