causing controversy's not my sort of thing, but if they (the people who's burning stuff on the CDs and selling them on ebay) know that this will cause some controversy and jeopardise the author's work, then if i were them i wouldn't continue with this sort of action... calm down and cool our heads please :) i think when someone creates something, such as paint, or sceneries, or models, they really should deserve the right to determine where their 'creations' go - even so, if they think that it is fine for their fines to be packaged in the CDs and sold that's perfectly fine for them also...just to give you another angle or approach to this issue, if the respective authors actually wanted to package their 'freewares' onto a CD and sell it on ebay, then they wouldve done that already, by themselves .. but the fact is, that's simply not the case... however, most freeware authors upload to sites like AVSIM for a specific reason - because they want their work to be 'part' of the online community - to be available for all people equally (and not having to pay)and Bob, >'The sellers charge is for the distribution service only' ... yes :)they might do that for real for the first time, second time, or third time, but who knows when they will increase the price to earn money with it? and then they might include the charges of his own internet fees with it etc...also, regarding people as 'kids' are not appropriate and have no relevance to this topic... it also shows a lack of respect. It's all about maturity.. how we deal with this problem and discussing the points and arguments of it, and ultimately, not name-calling and flaming others.Best regards :),

I enjoyed how cool and intellectual this discussion remained....<>who wrote that?>'The sellers charge is for the distribution service only' ... yes :)they might do that for real for the first time, second time, or third time, but who knows when they will increase the price to earn money with it? and then they might include the charges of his own internet fees with it etc...>>Once you start into the hypothetical concerns about what may happen, you lose me. Anything is possible, I live assuming positive, unless there is an indication of these negative changes. I see none here.Anyway, you've recapped the points of the discussion well. I will say that through honest introspection we've uncovered one real point that has caused at least one freeware author to strike out at the (otherwise harmless) distribution....and that is an inner conflict over producing their work as freeware in the first place.This is the type of insight where we really begin understand ourselves. Its one of the only really understandable reasons for being uncomfortable with folks involved in creative distribution. The rest continues to look like a power play.Everybody needs to feel powerful, perhaps this is the only outlet for some. Otherwise its pretty illogical to argue that you want folks to enjoy your work for free (but not if they got it the wrong way). Cheers,Bob B

Daniel, I'm tired and short on attention at this point...so I just got thru Mr Bob when I lost track, but....I get your basic position, and I noted maxis providing encouragement....May I ask you if you'd ever considered selling your uploads as a way to gain a second income? I have wondered about this myself, especially since 9-11 and the economy has gotten bad. Another designer has described similar feelings. I'm just wondering how widespread the discomfort spreads at working so hard and giving it away. I'm suspecting this concern lurks behind much of the discussion, at least from the authors who have contributed to the discussion.Bob B

Maxis...don't know your real name so I can't look for your work in the library...are you an author? If so, could you please consider the question I just asked Daniel? If you've ever been somewhat envious of folks that do make money with their creations, I can understand your feeling of angst at the notion someone could be actually making something as a result of your work.Bob B

Will, you seem to be confusing "freeware" with "public domain".Jaap Verduijn.

Bob, if it doesn't make any difference to you by whom your work is distributed and whether it's for money or not, it might be better and certainly less confusing if you release it into the "public domain" instead of "freeware". If I interpret your messages right, your work *IS* without doubt "public domain" and not "freeware"; why confuse things even more than they already are by sticking the wrong label onto your stuff? Jaap Verduijn.

Bob,I can see your point there, I guess that is my take on it. But the next guy,(Who might be reading a "readme" with a translator because it is not written in his language.) might read it another way. This is going to be a lifelong problem as long as there is an internet.I do know myself, I sure wouldn't waste my time to download a bunch of flight sim add-ons, then burn them to a disc, then only sell them for cost, and no profit. I have a lot better things I can doing. And don't know why anyone else would want to either.Here's the test, never looked at the above link so don't know what he is charging, but if he is asking more than a couple of dollars per he's in it for the money. I was making up a training package that consisted of 2 discs, CD label, double CD case, and tray liners. I figured out the cost per for me do so and it was like $1.75 per and this also included ink.

:-outta

http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/User_files/3e72a43942b48d2b.jpg

There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".- unknown

"My daddy gives me up, to fight for you"- a US Military Members Child

never knew of this distinction...and I'm not sure I agree with you...I would be bothered if someone opened my files and changed them for me. I think freeware is indeed the right designation for my work.

O Bob i wasn't refering to you about the calling 'kids' thing,that's Will's post a while ago (Tue Oct-07-03 03:57 PM)regarding the selling charge for distribution service, yes it's purely hypothetical - but one should consider the result of such actions.. I'm sure that there are a lot of 'what if(s)'... i guess it's all up to their honesty etc. But if a precedent is set, there's no guarantees that the people following this person's actions will also be honest.. which goes back to the heart of the problem :(I agree putting files into CDs aren't a bad idea, in fact it will actually benefit some people no doubt about that, but this person's action is clearly wrong (only in this instance imo) can't help but think - what is the difference between this person's action (for this instance) compared to FSplanet's? I think if he had asked some authors it would be a different story...Everyone's entitled to their opinions and I'll always respect that, but when i think of Freeware i think of free of charge, so it's a bit unnatural in my thinking that charges are made by distributing it. Sure i do understand there are costs involved in making these CDs, but then i still think that it could jeopardise the integrity of calling it freeware... I'm pretty sure there are no one definition of Freeware and hence there will be a lot of different definitions :)Thanks for the reply, I'm out ;) - don't have more to add - It's a pretty fine line between argument and flaming, and I'm glad this one is the intellectual one - alas!Long live freeware!:Dp.s. just for interest, I also have a slow dialup connection.. LOLCheers :),

Greetings Bob!I give up (grin)! You go on and on and on, showing yourself to be blissfully ignorant of issues like the differences between "freeware" and "public domain", and between "copyright violation" and "plagiarism".This whole issue (it's not at all confined to flightsimming) of utter confusion and profound ignorance started with the very coming of the internet, when millions of people who never had any publishing experience nor any knowledge of copyright issues pertaining to publishing, suddenly found themselves in the position of... publishers! Each and every single message you post on the internet, each and every single file you make and put up for reading or downloading, each and every picture you add to any file or message, is PUBLISHING... and hence governed, ruled and restricted by all legislations pertaining to publishing in the widest sense of the word. Back in the "old days" (I'm ancient - grin!) when publishing was mainly done on paper, and private individuals who wanted anything published did not have the easy possibilities like internet we have now but had to go to a professional publisher, publishing was a trade or profession one had to learn, and part of that learning was (and for professional publishers still is) to study the legal parts and to actually KNOW what "copyright" is, and "plagiarism", and "public domain" and such.Publishing via the internet and/or via the burning and distribution of CD's now has become "everybody's everyday's activity", which I consider a very good thing that I enjoy very much, but it's STILL publishing, and please... before confusing things even more than they already are by giving opinions on how you THINK legalities are arranged, do some homework by reading the various laws in order to learn how legalities in fact ARE arranged. It really is quite different from what many contributors to this thread think.Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

"(...) never knew of this distinction...and I'm not sure I agree with you... (...)"Bob, you're terrible (wide and wicked grin)! It's not a matter of agreeing with me, it's a matter of knowing ESSENTIAL legal distinctions like the one between "public domain" and "freeware". Sorry if I sound exasperated, but really: it's all written down in those great big lawbooks and in the equally big tomes of jurisprudence, and this whole discussion is basically void of any use or meaning without "both parties" being aware of at least the meaning of some concepts, (some of the) legislation pertaining thereto, and (some of the) jurisprudence on these issues.Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

Damn guys..you have took this far to much off the original subject..why does every topic have to turn in to a horrible argument debating absoloutly everything said..this is an endless cycle.

It seems you're bitter about a great many things that have nothing to do with the rights of a freeware developer to protect the rights to his or her creation.There is a huge difference between a former freeware developer going payware and a freeware designer being upset his copyright was violated. There is no corrolation at all and I'm unsure why you've used it as a rebuttal to my comments.For the record, I don't consider it greed that for instance FUIPC is now payware as opposed to freeware. The designer of that program has been providing us a much appreciated boost to our hobby for years - free of charge. I hardly see it as greedy that now he wishes to be compensated for his effort. He's not charging an arm and a leg for his product and as he explained - it was either he made the further investment of time into development of his product financially fruitful or he had to close up shop. It's almost as if you condemning the man for having bills and a family to feed and suffering financially to devote his time to further freeware development. As they say time is money. You either work to provide an income or you starve.I'm also not aware of any 'former' freeware developers that have these extensive intrusive 'anti-piracy' features for their products you speak of. Companies like PSS and PMDG have always been payware. Regardless, it's because of the actions of individuals, like yourself, who refuse to ackowledge that the law is the law and not up for personal interpretation, that these anti-piracy steps are taken in the first place. Kinda ironic is it not?Like it or not, agree with it or not, a copyright is a copyright. That's what the 'courts' have decided.Any in any case, what does Anti-Piracy protection and former freeware products going payware have to do with respecting a freeware developers copyright? I fail to see the corrolation.

And no one said otherwise Bob.The points made speak to those who have stipulated that their work was NOT to be included for resale or compilation. And as much right as you have to not care how your product is distributed - others have the right to.That's the point at hand.

Actually, almost to total majority of FPS Mods have the same stipulation - no redistribution - no sale for profit - no manipulation - all without the authors consent.Same thing for maps and skins and the like... those that don't care where their work goes or who does what with it usually say so CLEARLY in the readme.The reason we don't see these same arguments is because most of the kddies don't steal other people's work :) Kinda sad when you think about it.