>>...was done by the many freeware>>developers, who do not get one cent out of the revenue,>which>>Flight One makes with UT.>>>>Wolfgang>>Every 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!>How did I know, that you would enter the discussion at this point?I have not stated, that Flight One did anything WITHOUT permisson of the freeware authors. I just said, that the freeware authors did not get any cent from Flight One. When you say, that's shooting from the hip, then I assume that PAI , modelers and painters receive or received money from Flight One, correct? If that's the case I have no problem with it. It's quite fair I think. I just always have the feeling PAI wants to create the impression, it does everything without getting paid.BTW, I think I'm going to purchase a copy of UT, once AFCAD 2 is released.Wolfgang

>How did I know, that you would enter the discussion at this>point?LOL I hate unfounded rumors ;-)>I have not stated, that Flight One did anything WITHOUT>permisson of the freeware authors. I just said, that the>freeware authors did not get any cent from Flight One. When>you say, that's shooting from the hip, then I assume that PAI>, modelers and painters receive or received money from Flight>One, correct? If that's the case I have no problem with it.>It's quite fair I think. I just always have the feeling PAI>wants to create the impression, it does everything without>getting paid.I (nor Flight1) would NEVER publish any author's work without permission and proper compensation. That you can take to the bank :-)>BTW, I think I'm going to purchase a copy of UT, once AFCAD 2>is released.>>WolfgangMuch obliged, every copy helps us pay our outragous bills and keep PAI FREEWARE. :-)http://fsgateway.com/frank/fs9paibeta.jpg

>Much obliged, every copy helps us pay our outragous bills and>keep PAI FREEWARE. :-)Allways happy to help! :-)Wolfgang :-beerchug

I guess horrible is in the eye of the beholder, I found this discussion quite interesting.The original concept was quite boring, why focus additional energy on a witchhunt....within the third post the bad guy was shut down.

Jaap,<>I disagree! (wink)I prefer blissful ignorance over reading "jurisprudence"...That's why laywers earn the big bucks, cuz they are willing to read thru all that junk.B

>"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?Simply - yes. If anyone who creates freeware, shareware or payware is in it for the warm fuzzies - they're in the wrong place.However, if I download a freeware product and don't like it or think it's poor quality - I won't flame the author - I'll just delete it.I used to write shareware, back in the DOS days and as long as they didn't remove my name or alter my product, I WANTED them to distribute my product to as many places as possible.As far as their feeling - they uploaded a freeware product for ME, for MY enjoyment - if I choose to get it from someone who made my life easier by compiling them on a CD - that's MY business - they should be happy that I'm using their creation just as I am happy that they created it. :)Just MHO,Vic

That's the point exactly! If the freeware author expressly FORBIDS his work being added to any compilation that has a fee involved - then I agree, it should NOT be there but if it is not expressly forbidden - then this guy has done NOTHING wrong - which was my original point mnay posts ago. :)Just MHO,Vic

Greetings Bob!"(...) That's why laywers earn the big bucks, cuz they are willing to read thru all that junk (...)"I guess they're truly worth their money then(grin)! After all, those who are willing to perform the low, despised and tedious jobs for us, should be paid well!Jaap Verduijn.

JohnCi - the 'damage' test was brought up by my attorney friends :) I think an interesting legal issue here would be - is the compiler of the CD making a profit from your (generic) work or is he in fact just charging for a service? OK folks, this here compilation CD is free to all people but there is a $15.95 shipping and handling charge.Now, that would cover all the freeware authors who say they don't want their product on a compilation CD that is sold for profit. Those who don't want it on ANY cd still have a valid point.I like to read the fine print on a lot of these television "specials" and it is amazing. Product is priced at $4.95 +S&H. Money back guarantee! Fine print says purchse price refunded does not include S&H which is $34.95.Unethical? Yup - illegal? - nope. If I wanted to put a compilation CD together ( which I don't ) that's the way I would sell it - I would only exclude those who expressly forbid ANY type of compilation. And for the rest when they complain - too bad - I'm running a business.Hope that didn't sound like an "in your face" - not my intent - just making a point. Gawd! sometimes I hate the written word.Just MHO,Vic

Vic, you turn things upside down. If the author does not expressly PERMIT the things this thread is about, they're forbidden by law. Not the other way around like you say. We all know the term "RTFM", don't we? Well, you go RTFL (the L standing for "law")!Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

"I found this discussion quite interesting"I'm glad you participated Bob.... There's extremes of control, and you have a point which may have been missed. I know there's some here who won't allow certain sites to host their work because a certain portion of their subscribers are paid. Heck, everyone's favorite punching bag, FSPlanet, grabbed one of my files (the Microlight) without asking permission as requested in the license. I ain't going to waste my time going after Ferdy....kind of flattered, really. But if Ferdy decided to lock the site down and make it a paid site, then yep....I'll file whatever case European courts allow. Darn right many freeware authors are control freaks. I won't let people sell pictures of my daughter over the web either--my sim projects and my daughter--both my "creations" and both labors of love. I can't make it any clearer than that...-John

>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.Y'know - that brings up another interesting point, Bob. At what point does discrimination enter into it. Attempts to control distribution have been met with many legal challenges through the years and, IIRC, in most cases, the decision went against the manufacturer who was trying to control distribution. I seem to recall a famous case involving Schwinn bicycles that was a landmark in that area.I wonder what would happen if a place like FSPlanet decided to sue all those freeware authors who forbid having their product uploaded there - based on discrimination. In today's legal climate, at least here in the US, they might win.Just MHO,Vic

well said John, that's just about what i wanted to say :)Cheers,

OK - you have a good point which I generally agree with.However - :) - I refer you to the ORIGINAL post in this thread. This guy was called a dufus and was asked to remove the product - for no other reason than he compiled a CD. He *may* or he *may not* have obtained permission, probably not, but the original poster was displaying the knee jerk reaction of "cd compilation = bad stuff" thiat I find ridiculous.Observing an author's wishes - agreed - but, as far as the original post goes - who says the seller on ebay didn't?Just MHO,Vic

Well! I am astounded AND smiling. Over 100 posts in this thread and other than a few hairs rising it has been a civil and entertaining discussion with no name calling.Well - THAT'S ENDING NOW - you are all a bunch of blowhards!:)Just MHO,Vic