### IMPORTANT FOR ALL AIRCRAFT DESIGNERS ###

[Guest odog]

hi friends,very interesting stuff...I would just like to throw my 2 cents in here. I recently d/l'd Steve (ratt) Robinson's Hs P 75, and much to my surprise, it included the gmax source file! How nice, I thought, a true freeware file. I understand how people feel violated when their work shows up on a site that they didnt upload to, but on the other hand, when i see someone show this sort of thoughtfullness, i think to myself how much grief would be averted by including the source files and just saying....here you go.I know nothing about GPL's and the like, and Im a little confused as to why some want restrictions placed on their work. The only thing that would disturb me is if someone started making profits from my hours of work.What would be the result if EVERYONE uploaded their source files? Am I wrong or would this prevent all the hard feelings as of late.Please excuse my ignorance on this subject...(im trying to absorb alot in a short time)...I think a 3d model is a bit like a fingerprint, the likelyhood of two being identical is nil. The only enemy in my opinon is the people selling others work. Maybe a group of viral hacks with black computers and dark suits and glasses could prevent this?I for one like the idea of uploading sources, but I also want whats best for the community.This is a great discussion and an important one, and I'd like to here more of what you all think.odog

[Guest]

>a true freeware file.That's where some of the confusion is...freeware is not the same thing as public domain. Freeware means you receive a license to use the product at no cost. You still have to follow the terms of the license. Public domain means you can do what you want with it.>I think a 3d model is a bit like a fingerprint, the likelyhood of two being identical is nil. The only enemy in my opinon is the people selling others work. That is part of the problem, but the other part is that designers take pride in their work and don't necessarily want to lose credit for what they have done. Some would call that selfish; personally, I have trouble thinking of designers, who spend hundreds of hours making beautiful models for us to use free, as selfish.Matt

[PeterR 9]

Matt,Note: This is not an argument for or against such tools.Regarding your question about these tools falling under "fair use" like the VCR, I think they could. Individuals using such tools to learn how gauges, models, etc. were made (i.e. "educational purpose") would be fair use, no?Peter http://bfu.avsim.net/sigpics/PeterR.gifBFU Forums Moderator

[Guest eko]

Here, Here Elrond!I fully agree and support the concept of "true freeware" and the GPL style license. I already do this with any work that is mine and is released. (My CPT Toggles gauges collection, for example... in my read me I ENCOURAGE folks to pick them appart, learn from them, repaint them, and use them in any way that they think will help with their project.)I am willing and available to help in any way you see fit. You can e-mail me at jspx_nospam@softhome.net.Nobody ever got smarter by not being able to open the book to read it.

[gosta 0]

Hi there,a GPL style licence definitely makes sense from a legal point of view -copyright is well established in international law, whereas legislation relating to IT is giving legislators around the world major headaches while trying to integrate it with existing laws. A prime example are the so-called 'licence agreements' or 'EULA'. Are you the owner or lessee of the software? Legislation on that differs considerably throughout the world - some jurisdictions regard software as chattels, while others, such as the US, don't. Even the mighty Microsoft appears to have problems with that concept, their German EULA for Windows XP, for example, is just a translation of the US one, and not wholly compatible with local laws. Even better is the UK EULA - defence lawyers will have a field day should MS ever decide to take legal action against a Scottish user...The point is that a) 99% of perceived transgressions relating to IT are not criminal offences, and:( even if pursued in a civil court (where the standard of proof is lower), the outcome is not likely to be in favour of the plaintiff, unless c)there is a breach of copyright.Now c) seems to be the point that causes most grievances amongst freeware authors, but this is an area of law that has enjoyed universal recognition way before the first flight simulator was even conceived. The problem here seems to be that people try to make things more complicated than they actually are - I've read 'Read-Me' files that were so badly worded, they unintentionally encouraged 'piracy'. The basic rule to make a copyright notice enforceable is to keep it simple, any limitation will invite an exception. Instead of all those awkwardly worded 'legal stuff' statements, why don't you just put something like: '(file name) copyright John Doe 2002. Redistribution in whole or in part is prohibited.'That should take care of everything, anyone who wants to upload the file to a website legitimately will contact the author, all others are in breach of copyright in most jurisdictions - not to mention those who rip off part of the software and try to pass it off as their own. So, why not say 'Redistribution in whole or in part is prohibited without the author's express permission'? Simple: Imagine John Doe is a member of ADG (Aircraft Design Group), and Jim Doe, another member, asks him on the ADG forum here at Avsim, if he can use John's engine textures for his own repaint. John writes back 'Sure, go ahead', but a week later finds that Nick the Pirate has also used his textures. Now John has a serious problem, as Nick argues that permission was given on a public forum, and as John's wording of his response to Jim's post did not include a limitation, it did in fact constitute an express permission by virtue of the public accessibility of the consent given. Now, if John's Read-Me file had just stated that 'Redistribution in whole or in part is prohibited', the fact that the he gave permission for Jim to use his textures would offer no defence to Nick, as John's permission would have amounted to an authorisation to breach one of the conditions of the copyright notice (which can only be done on an individual basis), rather than fulfilling one (which, by definition, is general).Well, rant is over - I hope more of the talented designers around here will consider GPL, otherwise reword your 'Read-Me' files and improve your legal standing against pirates.Cheers,Gosta.

[Guest]

It was recently uttered, in a widely read topic, by a "departing" artist/painter: "Please use my files anyway you like from the Avsim library and hope you all continue to do what you enjoy"That was certainly a door opening statement. I think the fingers on the keyboard out ran the mind. That was a great example where reading your "hot" post and then taking at least an hour or two before posting should have been exercised.Like tooth paste, darn hard to get it back in the tube, or change something once it is uttered in a "public" forum. Bob

[gosta 0]

Hi Bob,exactly my point, if that person's Read-Me file was properly worded, he or she would have nothing to worry about, but if it included any kind of qualification/limitation, the open invitation may well stand, or to use your great analogy - the paste is out of the tube :).On the other hand, a well thought-out copyright statement can help to protect you from the consequences of rash comments you may make on a public forum.Cheers,Gosta.

[dmaher 0]

Oh brother! I know I