While our basic messages have strong agreement, I don't see any point made by bringing Pete "Dowson" into the discussion. I think Pete had a right to start charging for his work. Its his work..its none of my business what his motives were. Bob Bernstein

"Could this come from a hidden desire to make money from your work?"Good point Bob, and my honest answer is yes... If I were willing to put up with the hassle--let's include taxes, copyright protection, support, I might have released Landclass Assistant as payware (my aircraft--no, my a/c design skills aren't as evolved as my programming :) ).But to me the hassle wasn't worth it--my compensation in my day job is alright, etc.... I could have been selfish and just used it myself, but I like to think that in my life I could be known for one or two unselfish acts--so I released it as freeware.But watching someone else take my work and use it for their own profit (that hasn't been done with my work to my knowledge, so my point is more rhetorical than anything else)--well it makes me mildly PO'd that they are doing so at little or no risk to themselves. It's basically the same as someone selling photocopies of my art on a street corner and pocketing the cash. I think of that person as a leech...riding on the coattails of others vs. using any of their own talent. He/She spends a dime on a photocopy machine while I spend five hours creating a work of art :) My point is, people will profit off of almost anything these days, but people who profit in that manner are blatant thieves. Just because I chose not to get paid for my work doesn't mean they have the right to pick up where I left off, burn a few CD's, and make a dime on my sweat.-John

Joe, I appreciate the vigor of your argument...thou I don't really understand your point. Perhaps your point is, if you spent a lot of time making your model, you'll be "darned" if you'll release it free if you folks at AVSIM INSIST on exploring the issues openly. And, further, you assert that this free discourse in which folks feel ok to discuss all aspects of the situation will cause OTHERS to withhold their work also!I guess you should release your work as payware...its clearly what you wish to do. What I wouldn't suggest is that you defend your decision based on what is said on the forums. Free consideration of the issues is a good thing, lets be clear.Bob Bernstein

bob, <

John...interesting...I too have wanted some side income...and folks tell you to find something you like to do and find a way to earn from it.Still, aren't we better off if we can keep our boundaries clean? the guy who makes a buck selling photos of your art is just simply willing to earn that way. You think its wrong, because you are connecting your art to the income, but the actual idea of selling the images in the way he is has always been seen as just commerce by the world. Look at "jimi hendrix" souvenier golf balls. There's no expectation for the makers of those golf balls to play the guitar, and yet without Jimi's music it would be impossible to profit from such sales. I hope I never have to make money that way, but is it worth my energy to declare it "wrong"? Likewise, if selling the photos of your art makes money, and you see somebody else making that money that you want...hey take some photos yourself....or put your freeware on a cd and sell it. Or sell your product outright.But attacking the person that thought of it first is an unfortunate use of your energy, don't you think? B

I am also a developer, so I have at least some right to discuss issues of developers. B

"But attacking the person that thought of it first is an unfortunate use of your energy, don't you think?"I think what it comes to is more an issue of respect... Once people don't even acknowledge the existence of the person who did the work by not even asking their approval, I think it becomes an issue of disrespecting that person. And it's not a matter of not "thinking about it first" --I and others think about whether to sell our work or not, weigh the consequences, and we decide accordingly. The people pirating (notice they are almost always offshore?) realize that most of us have little time to seek compensation for their use of our work. The only thing they are thinking of is theft, plain and simple, and how to get away with it. Someone stealing my work, or Project Opensky's, or IFDG--they haven't thought of the concept of selling it first. Rather, they've simply weighed the consequences and risks and feel that their laws or creed makes it permissible.The example of Jimi Hendrix golf balls is quite a bit different than someone taking his music and selling it for profit. Heck--I'd have no issue if someone made Landclass Assistant golf balls. But disrespect me by profiting from it after I made the decision it wasn't going to be distributed that way, then don't ask me for water when you're stranded on a desert highway with none. Get a day job.... Work the fields--do something for others rather than on the deeds of others... Preachy nonsense, but you get the point....There seems to be the (false) idea that stealing copyrighted work is free enterprise, vs. someone stealing a piece of furniture you've created by hand and selling it for profit.

I get you...perhaps a slight disconnect over the golf balls. thanks for participating in this discussion...sure been interesting. What logo should I put on the LC balls?B

Point well taken. I retract the statment. I am editing now.

"thanks for participating in this discussion...sure been interesting. What logo should I put on the LC balls?"How about "LandClass Assistant--land on the green with class":-beerchug

Unfortunately, I can't edit my previous comments about Pete Dawson and FSUIPC. Although I have personal feelings about that business decision, it was not right to bring them in on this discussion, and I apologize to Pete and anyone else who may have been offended.Now, on to the crux of the matter.The only reasons, it seems, to enforce "copyright" on freeware is to one of two reasons.A. To stroke the ego of the developer or to engage into some power play, ORB. Maintain "integrity" of the work.Now the Latter is a most valid reason. Yet in the context of this discussion, the person in question did not invalidate the integrity of the work. He maintains the files as he downloaded them, and he credits the authors with their work. He has not modified or altered the work in any way. So in this case "B" is fullfilled.Now there are folks here that are upset because he might be making a "profit" on it. So what? What should it matter to the developer what happens after the work is downloaded, if the integrity of the work is maintained?Remember, we are talking freeware. The developer does not request any compensation for the work. Now if "joe blow" sells the work, and claims it's his own, he violates "B" in that he does not maintain the integrity of the work.Let's just take a hypothetical situation.If I took Bears choices in AVSIM, and compiled them on a best of 2002 CD for my own use, then asked all the available authors if I could redistribute the disk and charge $5.00 to cover shipping, handling, and the cost of the CD and burning it, what would be the odds that I would receive such permission?Remember, I am not claiming any of this work as my own. I am simply giving an outlet for bandwidth challenged individuals to taste some of the available quality addons out there.Do anyone here think I would get permission? Remember, these our zip files 'straight from the library'Nope. There lies the rub.So answer me one question.If the artistic integrity of a file is maintained, and you are given adequate credit for your work. Why should you care if I or anyone else profits from your work? I have not stolen anything from you, because I have not denied you use of the item,I do not have exclusive distribution rights, so I am not preventing the person from getting it elsewhere for free.If I opened a website that had very high bandwidth and allowed the fastest downloads, and as a way to maintain that high bandwidth I charged for people to download from my server. Is it wrong to post those works on my server? What's the difference in that from selling a compilation CD?Again....It comes back to power, and in the world today, power is a very strong drug.

Also, at the current price (1 Euro ~ $1.18) he is likely making little to NO profit.If you want monetary compensation, each developer is entitled to about .43 cents. Not even one penny. It would be more hassle than it's worth to get your one penny (and that's if he's being generous and rounding up) compensation. I know to most of you that it's "the principle" of him selling, but unless he's selling hundreds of copies for $30 or $40 each, it's nothing to get caught up about and you're not losing hundreds of dollars of profit.[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

Hey:Seems some of you guys are forgetting one factor: If someone tries to bundle up something I did, it is MY WORK. He NEEDS to ask permission. Whether I am making profit off of it is not the point, the whole point is, I made a choice. If I am not making profit off of my work, why should anyone else get any from it, even more so without my permission? Distribution is a weird thing to talk about, but let's put it this way. I let you use a custom-built car without charge, I just put the condition that you please do use the car as you wish WITHOUT renting it and if you want anyone else to drive it, you have to let me know. Now, I let Mr. Bob borrow one of my cars, and Mr. Bob decides to buy a few metal pulleys, a lot of rope, and sets up an exhibition of custom-built cars he's borrowed from other people. He charges $5 per person so they test the cars out, claiming that covers the cost of the pulleys and the rope. I find out about this and ask Bob to remove my car from his exhibition, as do several others who let him borrow their custom-made cars. Then Mr. Will comes along, and says we're a bunch of kiddies for not letting Mr. Bob round up his salary by using our cars. What is wrong with what Mr. Bob did? The fact that he sold the cars (even if as he claims he made no profit), or the fact that we explicitely asked him not to make ANY profit off of the cars? And let us face one thing, I might want my custom-built cars to be known, but that DOES NOT justify the fact that Mr. Bob did something against my wishes. I have a LEGAL AND MORAL right to put conditions on the cars, they are my work, and as such I choose what is done with them. Now, is Mr. Bob really not making profit? He IS making profit, if he didn't, he wouldn't recuperate his production costs. Keep in mind the capital in these examples are not the pulleys and the rope, it's the cars. People go to try the cars and pay to do so. Therefore, the item producing money is the car.Back to reality, The Ebay dude is making money off of the planes, even if the money he's making balances out the costs to bundle the work. CD's don't make money, the things in them do. Therefore, the person IS PROFITEERING from the developer's work. Bob: You may not care what happens to your work, but many of us have a very specific reason not to go payware, and therefore appreciate to have the choice of whether our work should be used to make profit or not. And because my work is freeware it DOES NOT mean that I have no right to set conditions and that those conditions should not be honored. And to refute Will's argument that he "has the right to question their reasons", you do, but I have the right to tell you it's none of your business. Ah, the wonders of democracy. :)Bottom line is, what this man did was wrong. He ASSUMED the developers would not mind or have any sort of objection against it. He simply bundled up the stuff and sold it. He IS making money for it, even if there is no money left after covering production costs. The reason I'd have beef against it is not because the guy is rounding up his salary with it, but because he is using my work to recuperate the cost of the CD's. I apologize for the long reply, but this is an issue I feel strongly about, since it seems non-developers (comment not aimed at you, Bob) forget that offering stuff for free is a favor, not a right. I could go pay anytime I wish, and chances are that if I haven't done so, there is good reason for it. Please respect the developers' wishes... Will, don't call us childish for defending our rights, because if you do you should call childish anyone who alludes to the constitution to defend his freedoms. It's the same thing, and the fact that FS is a hobby doesn't change the fact that the work put into it cost me time, money for electricity, food, water, etc. I consumed while producing it, and body energy. Ergo, by giving you things for free I'm "selling at a loss". Don't question my requests, respect them, and be thankful that your opinion is not the general opinion, or you'd be paying for everything inside the AVSIM library you seem to take for granted.DP

>"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...."Judging from some of the posts in this thread it would seem the "Kids" as you put it are the FS guys and the "Adults" are the FPS people. By the way FPS Shooter is like saying First Person Shooter Shooter Lol. Had to break'um. :)>Possibly because "adult" flightsimmers have a stronger grasp>and perception of reality than the FPS shooter "kids".On behalf of the "Adult" people who play FPS games could we stop reffering to us all as "Kids". Why is it that there seems to be this mentality that if you play FPS games your this pimple faced geek with no life? Talk about stereotyping. My user name stands for Frames Per Second Freak not FPS Freak but I can tell you that from the looks of this discussion some people here could learn a thing or two from some of those "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.Couldn't agree more. This is a real touchy subject with both sides having clear and relevant points. I agree that if I put as much hard work into something as some of the authors here do it may be frustrating to see someone making money off of it when it is stated that it should remain freeware. Having started to try my hand at repaints I see the work involved but I am also not so naive to think that if I release it for nothing someone out there won't try to make a buck off of it. It could be looked at 2 ways. Is he making money off the product contained on the CD or for the service as someone put it to provide individuals with the ability to gather them all in one convenient place.Like I said there are 2 sides to every discussion and lord knows this one sure has. I was mainly sticking up for those of us who are "Adults" and still play FPS games to keep our skills sharp, concentration up and to maybe let some frustration out in a constructive instead of destructive manner.Have a great day gentlemen,Bobby>

Daniel you couldnt have said it any better !!!