>guys points....he's talking about distributing copyrighted>material intact...no theft, no profiteering on the product>whatsoever. Hardly a felony to distribute freeware. NoOne of the biggest misconceptions about "freeware" is that it is the same as "public domain". He can redistribute the software if he has a licence to do it. Now, if you go and check the readme files of various freeware, you will find that some allows for unlimited redistribution, and that is fine. But a lot of freeware specifically prohibits the charging of any fee for redistribution, and some freeware goes as far as to actually name websites that they do not want their software to appear on.The bottom line is that when I design scenery/aircraft I own the exclusive rights to the software, and I can choose how I want it distributed. Whether I charge money or not is irrevelevant.- Martin

I believe there is no argument on your specific points. My contention is that a freeware author who finds it compelling to attempt to control distribution views the presence of his contribution as a ticket to control others. A bit of a warp in the cosmos.No one is contending that the freeware author's wishes should be ignored, but I'm never surprised when they are. People just natually assume that all rules make sense, so they often don't pay attention to the possibility of breaking a rule, as long as their actions make sense.Since choosing an alternate distribution channel for freeware makes sense, I suspect many folks just don't know if there is a rule or not. Doesn't make it right, but it makes sense that it happens. The point, if you wish to establish a rule that ACTUALLY gets followed, you best make one that makes sense. Make one that helps people, that people can relate to. If you choose to make a rule that is dumb, then you WILL have people break it. Once that happens, to sit around and discuss how bad that is, is just as dumb. It was pre-ordeigned.Cheers,Bob Bernstein

>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. Your motivation is the same as mine - I do it because I like it. I never thought too much about it either, until I did a search on Yahoo one day and got all these hits for my scenery from FSCorner.com (pop-up site) and FSPlanet.com (pop-up,pay site). At first I was confused, because I had never even heard of these sites, so I was curious how my software had been uploaded there. At first I was annoyed with them, since I felt they could have at least sent me a courtesy email telling me that they wanted to host my files. Besides, it looked more like they were trying to run some sort of business, with pop-up adds, etc. Why should they make a few dollars off of my software? But then I realized they hadn't done anything wrong, since they had followed my licence that I had included. Then, I was just annoyed with myself.Well, that won't happen again. After that, I decided that I would be in control, and would decide where the files would end up. I frequently get emails from small niche websites asking if they can host my files, and I always say yes, since these people are pure hobbyists like me. Sometimes they even want to make small changes (textures usually) and I still say yes. Now, the easy argument is that sites like AVSIM and Flightsim.com make money too. The key difference is that they NEVER leech files to boost their site's image. I consider it a privelege that they host my files, and I'm very grateful to them.- Martin

>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!Even if they want to charge for the CD's it might be ok.... as long as they ask me first. A few months ago, PC Pilot magazine wrote me to ask for permission to put my FREEWARE Pilatus PC-9 on their cover disk. Of course I said yes, and I felt honoured. It didn't bother me that they were charging for the magazine and disk, since they asked me first. It's not distribution we're fighting, it's rights.- Martin

I guess the difference between us is just that you still see your files as a tool you use to change the world (yes, just a little bit). You hope to see others reduce their commercialization by following your lead? When they won't, you withhold your files (inducing motivation, perhaps?).I don't see my files as anything grander than files.We may share the same hope, but I more view people as only changing when they are ready. They do need models of appropriate behavior, yes very true. But...if they have my model and continue to behave differently then I would have...overt efforts of mine to conform them always will produce the opposite result. After all, they certainly can make a valid argument that I should be the one conforming...who's to know for sure?I also found files showing up in wacky places all around the world. One site had reviews of my work, all in French. I felt honored by the attention and pleased that my work is available to folks who are perhaps only comfortable downloading from a French site. Best,Bob B

I agree completely with Bob and Will. If you can't stand the possibility of your add-on getting put on a CD and sold, then either go payware or stop distributing your add-ons.[table][tr][td]http://timbo87.home.comcast.net/sig/vulc.jpg[/td][/tr][tr][td]

| [link:www.alphasim.co.uk]Alpha Sims]

[/td][/tr][/table

>I agree completely with Bob and Will. If you can't stand the>possibility of your add-on getting put on a CD and sold, then>either go payware or stop distributing your add-ons.So, maybe it would be ok for Microsoft to distribute all our freeware with Flight Simulator? They can claim they are only charging us for the game - not the scenery and aircraft.I know we seem like control freaks, but the situation isn't that different from the payware guys. They want to protect their intellectual property, and we want to protect ours. Whether I am charging people money for it or not is irrelevant. I do not gain more rights if I start charging money.- Martin

How are you protecting your intellectual property by choosing which web sites do distribution for you? Seems to me your intellectual property is intended to get to users witout corruption. I agree we deserve the right to be concerned if the data is being corrupted, but this entire discussion is about distribution.so...in what way is your concerns about distribution fairly described as protecting your intellectual property?Best, Bob BernsteinPS..I think it would be ok for Msoft to distribute, in fact I considered offering my work to them to include as the default for my preferred airports, but I suspected it would open a can of worms that was better left alone. Perhaps I'm a special case, in that I have reason to beleive my work would be handled with care, the airports I've modelled are some that the Msoft guys themselves fly from..so they intimately know the difference between the default and my version.

"There is NO damage of any kind except to the author's ego."vgb--I don't think one can argue "damage", but should the person making the compilation derive a profit from it, then those who hold the copyright should be allowed cause to sue the compilation's author for the profit. I explicitly state in my own license that no compilation of my work is allowed, even if "non-profit". Simply put, I don't expect my users to have to pay for my freeware, and I don't have time to audit the compilation pirates.The problem with most "non-profit" compilations is that they are hardly that. I can create and burn a half dozen CD's in an hour unattended, for example, with little cost other than the media (at 70 cents per) and approx one minute's labor per session. Even after shipping costs, most of these pirates (for that's what they are) are making a tidy little sum.My ego isn't a concern, but my pocketbook is. If someone's making money off of what is mostly my work and my peers' work, then we're entitled to compensation--something like that goes beyond fair use. I've been fairly liberal...I've seen my work appear on other sites like FSPlanet and Flightsim.com and I haven't forced them to remove it.... Although they offer memberships, a patient downloader can still access my work for free--and periodically I test both sites (and others) to make sure that is still true. Also, If I were convinced an author of a compilation wasn't making a dime from my work, I'd probably not care, except for one final issue:The last thing I need is for someone emailing me, and saying "I just paid $20 for a CD with your work, and something doesn't work right. I want a refund" You know and I know I could laugh it off, but my point is those people are out there, and I've already been emailed by subscription sim site users saying they expect my "support" considering they paid for the privilege of downloading my software. Legally, I can tell them where to go--but I simply don't want that hassle...-John

"So, maybe it would be ok for Microsoft to distribute all our freeware with Flight Simulator? They can claim they are only charging us for the game - not the scenery and aircraft."I would endorse that. After all, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't even have the freeware in the first place.[table][tr][td]http://timbo87.home.comcast.net/sig/vulc.jpg[/td][/tr][tr][td]

| [link:www.alphasim.co.uk]Alpha Sims]

[/td][/tr][/table

Hi Bob,there seem to be two separate issues here:1. Copyright Law. An author of an original work enjoys full copyright protection of his work from the point of creation. As the protection can not get any fuller than full, any additional copyright statement in a read-me file effectively constitutes a voluntary waiver by the author of some of the rights afforded to him by applicable copyright laws. For example, he/she may allow alterations to his work by way of repaints, or encourage further development without restriction (GNU licences are an example) etc. Any comment under a 'legal' heading that merely recites the protection the author already enjoys under copyright law, is superfluous at best, or counterproductive at worst - I have seem read-me files that were worded so ambiguously as to achieve the exact opposite of what the author presumably intended, i.e. the work became a free-for-all.2. Contract Law. This is what the 'licence' falls under. Here, you can add terms of use that fall outside the scope of copyright law. Enforceability normally depends on the local law where the user resides (there are lots of international traties regarding governance of contracts, so your mileage may vary :)). Here you can put in anything you like, if it's not enforceable - tough. But you never know, there may some jurisdiction where jig-dancing is a standard contract term...Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

>How are you protecting your intellectual property by choosing>which web sites do distribution for you? ...the same way payware authors do - with a licence. I control how and where the software is distributed, which I admit is fairly open since anyone may download it from AVSIM. But just because anyone can download it from AVSIM, doesn't mean that they should be able to download it from anywhere.>Seems to me your intellectual property is intended to get to>users witout corruption. I agree we deserve the right to be>concerned if the data is being corrupted, but this entire>discussion is about distribution.It's not the users I'm concerned with, it's the distributers. But you bring up a good point, when you consider the pirating of shareware/payware software. Those users are in the wrong, since what they are doing is not permitted by the software licence. Well, the distirbuters are just as wrong if they illegally distribute my software, whether it is free or not.And as for Microsoft... I wonder why they never came up with the idea of approaching freeware authors. Well, I'm sure not many of us would object to that...... but they have to ask first ;)... and they better not try charging $10.00 :(- Martin

Hi John, nice to see you join the discussion...and very interesting points. The first I'll debate, the second I agree with you.First: you write:<>This thinking reminds me of the glass half empty, or (as one one prominent buisness teacher calls it, "scarcity" mentality). Kind of thinking that there isn't much "goodness" to go around, so I'm gonna keep my focus on assuring that the other guy doesn't get my share. Lets compare the two situations...first, everyone follows your rules: Total dollars earned by John = zero. Total dollars earned by others = zero.Second Situation, your rules are violatedTotal dollars earned by John = zero.Total dollars earned by others = something.Your situation is unchanged. Concern about diminishing interest in freeware can't be a reason to be worried about the income made by others, natural market forces will drive the vast majority of users to find the best deal....free, of course. So, why the thought that if others make money, you should? Could this come from a hidden desire to make money from your work? This interest is only speakable when others go ahead and do it? I think its ok to feel this way, but I also think its not about a distributor making money, its more about your own angst of NOT making money, right? After all, in the two examples above, you are NOT harmed. Your income is identical.Your second point of being roped into support due to others behavior...very understandible...and sad if it comes to having to inform them of the situation. Hasn't happened yet to me, so I'm not standing guard against that possibility, but I won't enjoy it if it happens.Best,Bob Bernstein

Bob is correct, it is all about power.Copyright is not primarily a means to protect distribution or limit it. But to maintain artistic integrity.This is especially true in a "freeware" environment. Copyright can be used to also control distribution when the product has a stated value and that is being offered for a fee.When a customer is giving away his product, the only thing copyright is there to protect is the integrity of the product.Only in this community have freeware authors so vigorously tried to enforce their "copyright" to limit distribution.It's legally correct, but makes no common sense. The truth is, it's always about power. And because we are talking about pilots and aviators, and folks who hang around them, ego is a big ticket here.How much did EGO come into play for the timing of FSUIPC. Did Mr. Dobson have a right to do what he did? Sure, but the timing of it and the method of it was clearly set to stroke his ego and trap those of us who found his product "invaluable".I know folks here hate to admit it, but the truth is, it's all about power. A person who writes the freeware simply for the pleasure it brings him does not worry about how it is distributed.The folks who write firmware to get BZ's from his fellow simmers, and wishes to control distribution and carry around big taglines on their sigs, get their reward too.But lets at least be honest about what's being fed here.

I've stayed out of it, but now i just cant take it anymore.This comes up every 3 months or so, and there's always one who finds the need to take a run at developers or defend a slime bag like that ebay character.The soloution is simple folks, and its already happening. You will now pay for any quality addons. I cant help but think the attitudes of some in this thread have caused it.I spent the last 2 years on my Cessna 195, and if you think i would release it to be butchered and passed around willy nilly, your diluted.I make specific reference in the docs that i DO NOT want this model sold on Ebay. Why? I HAVE TO ANSWER ALL THE EMAILS!If i cant be sure im fighting a problem with the original package from the original location, I end up banging my head against the wall.I came here 2 years ago because this was one of the few places an author could be sure the files were freely available. Plus everyone here strongly defended that right.Is it required to charge a nominal fee of 1-5$ just to protect my work? looks that wayyour whole ego argument is retarded BTW.im out :-rolljoe