Ethical Question

[bob.bernstein 0]

I can never give up a chance to debate with you, Mike...I think the analogy you describe here is inaccurate. More like, if you rent me your house, but you disappear and leave no forwarding address. All my rent checks get returned undelivered. You have no family. You have made no contact for years. I keep wanting to pay you rent but I can't. Am I stealing by living rent free?And if I want to rent out a bedroom to a freind, am I stealing even more?BobPs...if you want to leave houses out of it and only discuss software, that's ok with me.

[3catcircus 1]

>>>>You are not seeing the difference here.>>>>You're absolutely right, I'm not. Because I'm not just>>talking about books. I sell a lot of things on eBay. And>at>>yard sales. >>It applies the same to those other items as it does book.>There's >no copying or reproducing being done. You have every right to>re-sell>those things there is no copying being done.>>But were you to make an almost exact reproduction of any of>those items, and distribute them. You would no doubt soon hear>from the manufacturer's attorneys asserting the patent they>have on their invention/product you just reproduced and>request you stop doing it.>>>I also return things to retailers that I've had>>for 2 weeks or 30 days because it doesn't work like I>thought>>it would, or was told it would. I'm not given that choice>>from most software developers.>>Many retailers have no refund policies. No doubt the laws the>regulate this is different in various locations. Often>retailers have a no refund policies on certain items(ex>underwear) or to certain locations (overseas etc).>>>Further, simply because a product (in this case a piece of>>software) is easily accessible or copyable is completely>>irrelevant as to who ultimately owns it after the initial>>sales price is paid to the developer. >>I agree its irrelevent how easily it is to copy.>>You cannot make any copies of it at all without permission.>>I understand your position though. You feel that since you>paid money for it, that you should be able to re-sell it or>transfer it. Like most other tangible items.>>I don't disagree with that view, but this cannot be legal>without an assurance That the original copy is no longer>available to the previous owner after the transfer or sale was>made.>>We do not have a way yet to have this necessary assurance for >downloable software. Perhaps in the near future individual>software downloads will be encoded in such a way that it will>not work for more than one owner of it at a time and this>issue will go away.>>But so far the software pirates have found ways around just>about every software protection scheme created. So its gonna>be a long while before such a thing exists.>>But still as long as you know that is the situation 'before'>you buy that downloadable product that you cannot re-sell it,>I do not see the problem. If you disagree with it, you can>restrict your purchase of software to CD versions only. Which>you can legally re-sell or transfer.>>> What you're forgetting>>is that EULAs are one sided contracts, developed over the>>years by a single party to the contract with the single goal>>in mind of never *really* selling it to you, and then they>>have evolved over the years based on the consent of that one>>party only -- and we, as concumers, have just had to>swallowed>>it hook, line and sinker. Even if customer service stinks;>>even if the product documentation stinks; even if the sales>>material is misleading; even if, etc., etc., etc. That's>not>>the way we do business in America -- it never has been!>>>>In the interest of customer service and historical good>>business practice, although I adhere to EULAs, I don't buy>>into the argument any more.>>Well I'm not really into the vast conspiracies regarding the>why's of>EULA's etc.>>What I do know is the author of the work or product owns all>the rights to make any 'exact' reproductions of their original>works.>>>>>In either case unlike software no copy is being made of>that>>book.>>>>How do you know? >>That was an assumption of your honesty on my part. >>No doubt printed books are illegally reproduced as well,>there's all >sorts of fake copies of almost anything in markets around the>world.>>>One of my points is that any other>>non-digital industry doesn't even ask -- it's built into>their>>business model.>>Not sure what you mean by 'ask' ?>>Ask if someone is going to try and make illegal copies of it ?>Does that really need to be asked ?>>If its a retail store, most of em have security guards for a>reason.>>There are honest people in the world, and there are dishonest>people in the world. Do we really need to go through extensive>research to prove this ??>>If its available, someone is going to try and find a way to>get it without paying for it.>>Regards.>Ernie.Ernie, there is something you are missing here.The creator of NAV (Ted Wright) has evidence (its in his readme file for the NAV source code) that Helge Schroeder used parts of his source code to create FSNavigator. NAV is GNU GPL'ed, which means that when Helge started selling FSNavigator instead of making it freeware, he became in violation of the GPL. For Helge to *now* turn around and declare that FSNavigator is dead and no one can buy it seems to be a slap in the face to the anyone who ever bought FSNavigator. Frankly, if Helge no longer wants to support FSNavigator and isn't planning on turning it over to someone else to maintain and update, then he should release it as freeware. In fact, since he used GPL'ed code, he is *required* (and has been ever since he released FSNavigator) to release it (and the source code) as freeware.I already posted another message with the thread detailing this (and can also provide the link to Ted Wright's source code with the details of how come Helge used the same variable names, comments, and program structure as the NAV source code.)

[bob.bernstein 0]

For years I've had trouble free success using xp as an operating system. Folks suggesting I "upgrade" to vista tell me that it works just as good as XP now. Somehow that's not too motivating.The problem is, every time I upgrade the video card I have to re-activate it. That works fine now...I just tell em I'm rebuilding my computer and they re-activate it....But....what about when support is discontinued.Will Activation be discontinued as well? Does anyone know?B

[jagabom 21]

That's what I was wondering to Bob. At some point in time Micro$oft is going to stop supporting XP I would think. Is MS going to give out codes or force you to upgrade. Hopefully the former.JimCYWG

[Chuck_B 2]

Regardless of what Micro$oft decides to do with support for WindowsXP -- everything becomes obsolete (just try to find a mechanic still qualified to work on your '49 Edsel!) -- what disturbs me the most is the fact that I don't "own" my copy of XP. This despite the fact that I've paid for it (several times!) either directly or implicitly by buying a computer with it preloaded (again, I had no choice). I have to _ask_ their permission to change the hardware in my computer because Bill Gates and Co. are so paranoid that they might lose an extra dollar or two from the home user that they have unilaterally set the OS up that way. Isn't this what drug dealers do--get you hooked on their product and then twist the noose tighter every time you have to come back for a fix? When did we become so sheepish in our acceptance of this absurdity?And their customer service is absolutely atrocious! How many tiers of charges do they offer to support a product I've already paid for? -- assuming you can actually talk to a live person! But we digress.Smooth skies!Chuck B.P.S. Oh, and by the way, Mr. Gates, if you're reading this -- it's 2008! When do I finally get my Star Trek operating system?? "Computer: load up Flight Simulator, Boeing 747, KBOS, Runway 4 Left."

[ErnieAlston 33]

>The creator of NAV (Ted Wright) has evidence (its in his>readme file for the NAV source code) that Helge Schroeder used>parts of his source code to create FSNavigator. NAV is GNU>GPL'ed, which means that when Helge started selling>FSNavigator instead of making it freeware, he became in>violation of the GPL. >>For Helge to *now* turn around and declare that FSNavigator is>dead and no one can buy it seems to be a slap in the face to>the anyone who ever bought FSNavigator. Frankly, if Helge no>longer wants to support FSNavigator and isn't planning on>turning it over to someone else to maintain and update, then>he should release it as freeware. In fact, since he used>GPL'ed code, he is *required* (and has been ever since he>released FSNavigator) to release it (and the source code) as>freeware.>>I already posted another message with the thread detailing>this (and can also provide the link to Ted Wright's source>code with the details of how come Helge used the same variable>names, comments, and program structure as the NAV source>code.)This is on a different tangent really.Plus you act like this is some sort of new revelation, its not.The 'evidence' is not in the Nav readme file Ted did not provide the evidence he just made the accusation.We all knew FSNav 2.0 looked an awful lot like Nav 1.8. And those that brought this issue up back then basically got their headshanded to them by some of the more shall we say more ardent of the FSNav supporters. There was no actual evidence made public just their word against his.Being the author of a competing product I really was carefull to keep my public opinions to myself on that issue.But really since we hadn't seen the actual codes to make a comparison anyway, one (actuall two) person's accusation wasnot enough. The original newgroup post that started this all is apparently gone (I tried several years ago to find it when I firstlearned of the accusation) so there goes the chain of evidence too.Since Helde steadfastly denied it we had to give Helge the benefit of the doubt sans any real evidence presented. They choose not to pursue the issue further publicly and basically allowed FSNav to become very successfull, without much of a fuss, that was their decision,if they really did have the goods.But no doubt the accusation put in the bottom of the Nav2.0 manual was pretty compelling one. I suspect they had an ace in the hole they were prepared to use were they ever called on the accusation legally.Pretty compelling if you ask me, but still just speculation on our part, no-one wanted to hear about these things when FsNav was the hot 'must have' add-on product.It's old news now, the timing of this new concern for (accusations of) GPL violations is no doubt suspicious at best.Now it just looks like people trying to get back at Helge for having the audacity to pull the plug on his own product. Or worse yetperhaps looking for a pretty weak reason to justify illegally obtaining his software.We can't come back now and say, oh by the way we let you make money on it all these years, but now that you have stopped, we nowthink you stole it, so we're gonna go ahead violate your copyright.Sorry that just doesn't fly now.Regards.Ernie.

[3catcircus 1]

>This is on a different tangent really.>>Plus you act like this is some sort of new revelation, its>not.>>The 'evidence' is not in the Nav readme file Ted did not>provide the evidence he just made the accusation.>>We all knew FSNav 2.0 looked an awful lot like Nav 1.8. And>those that brought this issue up back then basically got their>heads>handed to them by some of the more shall we say more ardent of>the FSNav supporters. There was no actual evidence made public>>just their word against his.>>Being the author of a competing product I really was carefull>to keep my public opinions to myself on that issue.>>But really since we hadn't seen the actual codes to make a>comparison anyway, one (actuall two) person's accusation was>not enough. The original newgroup post that started this all>is apparently gone (I tried several years ago to find it when>I first>learned of the accusation) so there goes the chain of evidence>too.>>Since Helde steadfastly denied it we had to give Helge the>benefit of the doubt sans any real evidence presented. They>choose not to pursue the issue further publicly and basically>allowed FSNav to become very successfull, without much of a>fuss, that was their decision,if they really did have the>goods.>>But no doubt the accusation put in the bottom of the Nav2.0>manual was pretty compelling one. I suspect they had an ace>in the hole they were prepared to use were they ever called on>the accusation legally.>>Pretty compelling if you ask me, but still just speculation on>our part, no-one wanted to hear about these things when FsNav>was >the hot 'must have' add-on product.>>It's old news now, the timing of this new concern for>(accusations of) GPL violations is no doubt suspicious at>best.>>Now it just looks like people trying to get back at Helge for>having the audacity to pull the plug on his own product. Or>worse yet>perhaps looking for a pretty weak reason to justify illegally>obtaining his software.>>We can't come back now and say, oh by the way we let you make>money on it all these years, but not that you have stopped, we>now>think you stole it, so we're gonna go ahead violate your>copyright.>>Sorry that just doesn't fly now.>>Regards.>Ernie.I understand what you are saying, but doesn't it just sound kind of funny for people to defend his right on it if there were accusations, if unproven, that he violated someone else's rights? I don't know about you, but I don't think someone who released freeware would claim someone was stealing from him based on a similar look.I mean, how does it sound when someone says "He can stop distributing it and if someone allows people to copy it, they are violating his rights," when there are questions as to whether or not the software should have been freeware to begin with (assuming he did violate the GPL by using NAV1.8 code, which I think everyone acknowledges is unproven)?I've always wondered why Ted Wright didn't attempt to assert his rights and try and block FSNavigator - I suspect it was due to the fact that FSNavigator was (and is) a useful tool. What if he attempted to assert his rights and proved FSNavigator is in violation of the GPL? No one is going to call for Helge to cough up some dough, but he *could* be forced to provide source code and open up FSNavigator.I bought FSNavigator just like a lot of other people, so it isn't like I want a free copy, but what could he possibly gain by refusing to allow people to continue to buy it? Ok - he won't update it for FSX, but if people are still buying it for FS2004, he has nothing to lose and still makes money. Don't want to have to deal with support? Turn it over to someone else.I think the furor would die down if he did one of the following:1. Open up the source and release it as freeware. That shuts up the people who insist he is in violation of the GPL.2. Turn over the code to someone else to continue to develop.3. Continue to distribute, but not support, the existing software.

[Guest zzmikezz]

Bob.Bernstein,Debate is healthy, welcome and fun, like a certain other activity that I'm fond of, or was until recently. (I'm 64. :))Anyway, you ask whether you are allowed to live rent-free in the scenario you cited. I think that the honorable way to do it is to pay rent into an escrow account maintained for the benefit of the departed landlord. I have no idea whether this is a legal requirement.All,If FSnav truly is a work derivative of a work published under GPL then I personally would have no problem with cracking the product.However, as far as I know there has been only one legal ruling on a GPL matter (and it may not have been GPL). If I recall correctly, a Munich court granted a cease-and-desist injunction against a company whose software product somehow incorporated an encrypted version of a that had been published under GPL.As I further recall, the judge ruled that the encryption was prima facie evidence of license violation. I suspect that one could argue with a straight face that modifying and then recompiling somebody's GPL code might also reasonably be considered encryption.But one robin does not a spring make, and one ruling out of one court in Munich does not by itself an enforceable license make.I hope somebody knows more about the case in question than I do and will post here.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxP.S. Bob, in the USA abandoned property normally becomes the property of the state in which it was abandoned. This is true for both real estate and personal property, including funds in bank accounts, I do believe.

[ErnieAlston 33]

>I understand what you are saying, but doesn't it just sound>kind of funny for people to defend his right on it if there>were accusations, if unproven, that he violated someone else's>rights? I don't know about you, but I don't think someone who>released freeware would claim someone was stealing from him>based on a similar look.>>>I mean, how does it sound when someone says "He can stop>distributing it and if someone allows people to copy it, they>are violating his rights," when there are questions as to>whether or not the software should have been freeware to begin>with (assuming he did violate the GPL by using NAV1.8 code,>which I think everyone acknowledges is unproven)?>>>I've always wondered why Ted Wright didn't attempt to assert>his rights and try and block FSNavigator - I suspect it was>due to the fact that FSNavigator was (and is) a useful tool. >What if he attempted to assert his rights and proved>FSNavigator is in violation of the GPL? No one is going to>call for Helge to cough up some dough, but he *could* be>forced to provide source code and open up FSNavigator.>>>I bought FSNavigator just like a lot of other people, so it>isn't like I want a free copy, but what could he possibly gain>by refusing to allow people to continue to buy it? Ok - he>won't update it for FSX, but if people are still buying it for>FS2004, he has nothing to lose and still makes money. Don't>want to have to deal with support? Turn it over to someone>else.>All good questions.>I think the furor would die down if he did one of the>following:>>1. Open up the source and release it as freeware. That shuts>up the people who insist he is in violation of the GPL.I don't think Helge is worried about such things.>>2. Turn over the code to someone else to continue to>develop.Even if its all your code there may still be some things in therethat may have been used in your other projects you don't wish othersto see.>>3. Continue to distribute, but not support, the existing>software.This one's an enigma especially considering how much people havestayed with FS9. Simmarket floated this idea to him, and he rejectedit. Really he hadn't supported the product in years, his customers basically did most of his suppport.Its no doubt he considered upgrading it to FSX, he even made one of his rare announcements that he was working on it.I suspect the magnitude of the FSX upgrade job pretty much made the decision for him.Regards.Ernie.

[Guest iphitus]

Regardless of what anyone thinks, nobody has any right to redistribute Helge's software or licenses to it.Read carefully. As a consumer, when you buy software, you do not own the software. You never own the software. You just gain a _license_ to use it.Read the license. That defines what you can and cannot do with the software. Helge is the owner of the intellectual property -- FSNav. Until Helge releases FSNav in public domain or another license, you remain bound by that license for eternity, unless it states otherwise.If he never releases in any other license, then you'll be one to have got a FSNav license before he shut up shop. Lucky you. I'm jealous, my 20 tries ran out.Often licenses are non transferrable, in which case, it'd also be illegal to 'sell' your license to FSNav onto someone else. I don't know of the specifics of the FSNav license. This all falls under civil law. For anyone to be convicted, Helge must sue them. It is not a criminal offence.GPL Allegation? If there's _proof_ and not just word, then Helge had no right to redistribute FSNav without the source, nor relicense it (making his license invalid). No point discussing this though unless someone finds some solid proof. Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, just have a slight interest in this area.

[Guest zzmikezz]

Right -- I said "If it is truly the case ..."As for civil cases, nobody is ever "convicted", they are only found liable. So in the eyes of the law O. J. Simpson is not a murderer, only someone who was found liable in a wrongful death lawsuit.

[N400QW 205]

To the OP's point...The answer has three parts.1. Physically or Digitally possible? Yes2. Legally possible? No3. Morally right? NoIn every discussion along these lines it becomes painfully apparent that many people ignore points 2 and 3 because point 1 is relatively easy to accomplish and effective enforcement is costly.It is also clear that folks will attempt to rationalize away common sense restriction on use and distribution of Intellectual Property in order to further their own goals.At the end of the day, men who practice distribution of Intellectual Property they do not own, or have legal right to distribute, are practicing theft.In short. If you don't own the Intellectual Property rights and have not been granted distribution rights by the owner then you have no LEGAL or MORAL ground to stand on:-)Hope this helps.

[Guest zzmikezz]

Hi Ron ... Long time no speak.You know where I stand on matters of piracy -- unalterably opposed.However, you do appreciate that a) anything published under GPL by definition is accompanied by the right to redistribute, and that b)the right to make a derivative work is not accompanied by the right to sell the derivative work, only to distribute it, and then only in source form. (Well, sources plus binaries.)I'm not claiming that FS Navigator is a GPL derivative work -- others make that claim. I'm saying that if it IS a GPL derivative work, then cracking the binaries would be perfectly okay. This would not be a rationalization if it could be shown that Helge's source code was derived from Ted's.But absent that demonstration, the presumption must be Hands Off FS Navigator.

[Guest]

I quite understand it.You want to pirate FSNav because you think it should not be discontinued, and now you're digging up old unsubstantiated accusations made years ago by someone else entirely to show that you're allowed to pirate it.Your entire argument is pathetic, as Ernie already pointed out.It's based solely on your desire to justify to yourself your decision to distribute pirated software.

[Guest]

it's EXACTLY the same.And your totally unfounded BS about FSNav being based on GPL'd code doesn't matter one iota.Maybe if you had actual proof of it and were the author of that GPL'd code you might have a case, but you don't.And most likely you wouldn't have a case as there's no legal precedent to support GPL's claims that anything that even sniffed at something that's GPL must be GPL too.You're once again just trying to talk people into pirating software, or maybe trying to justify to yourself and others your desire to do so yourself.