Hi, ..I apologize, this case or these cases should probably have gone to [EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than [EMAIL PROTECTED], but flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net is also a public forum.
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:51:38 -0500, Matthew wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Still, the question is if this company is violating the GPL. We have > no proof of that. ..I'm checking my wee mirrors to find out. ;o) > (The gpl-violations.org guys go after people who > are not honoring the release of source for both distributed and > derived works - typically in embedded systems. Usually they settle > when the company honors the GPL and provides source or stops > distributing the offending product.) ..aye, this means they have valuable experience and can guide us. ;o) > At this stage it appears that they are simply selling a binary > distribution of a set of OSS applications. ..then, in good faith, they shouldn't mind saying so. My opinion now is, these people are common criminals, or a tSCOG-style Microsoft proxy team. http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/legal-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html > As mentioned before, ethics or questionable business practices aside, > we need to focus on what they are actually violating. Even the > wikipedia screen shots are licensed under the GPL can be re-used > freely. ..aye. Removals of "FlightGear.org" and "GPL" etc around these screen shots, would prove a few things though. ;o) ..and keep in mind, top posting is not quite comme-il-feaut at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;o) > Regards... Matthew > > > > > > > On 11/21/08, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:18 -0500, Matthew wrote in message > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't account for emotion. For those who > >> have met RMS, interpersonal relationships don't really fit... > >> Certain rights are gained, others are given up. > >> > >> The best we can hope for is that they are interested in being a > >> part of a community, the worst we should expect is that they add > >> no value and sell it as a package. > > > > ..in this case I think we have an excellent opportunity to stand up > > for the GPL by "enforcing it", copyright law and criminal law. ;o) > > > >> I don't believe that FG I structured in a way to be able to receive > >> funds as an organization, and consequently we can only hope that > >> they will be a good community member and sponsor and assist where > >> they can. > >> > >> If people want me to slueth around and find some more info and > > > > ..by all means go ahead. ;o) > > > >> possibly reach out, please advise. > > > > ..here I'd like the copyright owners to weigh in, me, I recommend > > hiring a lawyer for this job, to make sure we get it _right_. ;o) > > > > ..given http://www.idbproductions.com/Products/ and > > http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ this is _not_ just us, so I'd > > have Harald Welte and the guys at http://gpl-violations.org/ > > weigh in with advice on how to proceed. I cc this there. > > > > ..playing with dig, jwhois and a web browser and the > > names I find, it's _amazing_ how I get thrown back to: > > http://idbproductions.com/catalog/ ;o) > > > >> Regards... Matthew > >> > >> > >> On 11/20/08, Tatsuhiro Nishioka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > For clarifying my position, I don't care if they sell flightfear. > >> > But I do care if that affects our project in either technically > >> > or emotionally. According to some threads or posts in the list > >> > and the forum, it seems that many developers and users do not > >> > like the current situation. > >> > > >> > I guess the problem is they don't make any communication with us > >> > including contribution. I do welcome some third parties sell > >> > flightgear if they are friendly and hopefully make a > >> > contribution. Needless to say they need to observe the GPL > >> > thingies. > >> > > >> > You can pack everything into either DVD or thumb drive and sell > >> > it as long as it doesn't brake any legal issue. > >> > > >> > But... For me it's more on human relation issue. As long as they > >> > are friendly and actively open to us, then we can collaborate > >> > and make flightfear better from both open source and bussiness > >> > aspects. > >> > > >> > I think there is still much room in improving the usability, > >> > functionality, and quality of flightgear. If marchants can > >> > collect such needs and give some offers and feedback (preferably > >> > in implementation, but just an idea is OK) to flightgear > >> > community, that'll be super good. > >> > > >> > Look forward to seeing reply from them, > >> > > >> > Tat > >> > > >> > p.s. > >> > Sorry for full quote. I'm writing on iPhone. this fun tool is > >> > missing copy-past and cut-paste things. > >> > > >> > On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:16 AM, "Matthew Tippett" > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> One thing to be *very* careful of is assuming that flightgear > >> >> has some absolute right to control what happens downstream. If > >> >> this company is honoring it's responsibilities under the GPL, > >> >> there is nothing that the FG community can do to prevent it > >> >> happening. > >> >> > >> >> The GPL enshrines those rights to the recipient, and by > >> >> extension you give up the right of control as an author when > >> >> you allow code to be distributed under the GPL. > >> >> > >> >> The main thing that the GPL prevents is 'flightsimpro' creating > >> >> a flightsim that has unique features and linking it into the > >> >> the main binary and preventing the release of that. But if the > >> >> developer is keeping their stuff separate (say an > >> >> advanced-clean room implementation of terrasync using different > >> >> scenery, or a bridge to a different flight sim network), again > >> >> they have done nothing wrong by the GPL (distribution of > >> >> aggregations is a confusing area). > >> >> > >> >> Contact with this company would clarify most of this quickly. > >> >> > >> >> (A parasite isn't always violating the GPL - a lot of X and > >> >> kernel developers call Ubuntu a parasite since they don't > >> >> contribute a proportional amount upstream.) > >> >> > >> >> Regards... Matthew > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 11/20/08, Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> --- On Thu, 20/11/08, Curtis Olson wrote: > >> >>>> Someone pointed out this site to me. It probably falls into > >> >>>> the category of just barely ok, but I thought I'd post the > >> >>>> link here to get some more eyes on it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> http://flight-aviator.com/ > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> One way to discourage this sort of thing would be to include > >> >>> "www.flightgear.org" prominently in the startup screens, in the > >> >>> same way that we include "initializing sub-systems", > >> >>> "initializing scenery". > >> >>> > >> >>> Possibly with an added message along the lines of "Welcome to > >> >>> FlightGear, > >> >>> the free open source flight simulator." > >> >>> > >> >>> That would force the rip-off merchants to at least compile the > >> >>> code, rather than simply replacing some .pngs! > >> >>> > >> >>> -Stuart -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
