Folks, In light of the controversy that has arisen, please allow me to elaborate on my motivation for committing the above-mentioned patch and what I intended to do as well as what I didn't intend to do with it. When I committed this patch, I realized that this might stir some controversy, and I wouldn't have done so if I had not had a specific goal in mind. I've decided to not reply directly to any of the comments posted yesterday and today, as the chances of this evolving into a straight out flame war were high and things have already been heating up since I started writing this message. Flaming is certainly the last thing on my mind. Not least of all because, strangely enough, I actually agree with a lot that has been said. My intention is to let wisdom prevail, and if the general consensus is that this patch should be (partially or wholly) revoked, then so be it.
First of all, concerning the patch. I do find it strangely amusing that many people, while claiming that the trap was too obvious to be taken seriously, have fallen for it. The patch is not about preventing the renaming of FlightGear, but about protecting the FlightGear binary from a change that would, to the best of my understanding, be illegal according to the GPL. It's about preventing that people use a binary editor to alter a URL that points out where the original program came from. I will elaborate on why I did that in a moment. I've been coining the idea of writing the URL of FlightGear's home into the splash screen a couple of times on this mailing list. I am acting on the premise that many of the ripper-off's (rip-offers??) don't actually master any programming skills, and hence would have to rely on tinkering with the resulting binary using a hex editor to change stuff they don't like. This is a bit of an assumption, but in light of the paper-thin evidence concerning the self-proclaimed enhancements that are advertised by FlightProSim and followers not an unreasonable one (see below). In essence, the second part of my patch was aimed at detecting this type of tinkering with a binary file, and reporting that. I do believe that we are fully entitled to state that an altered binary is “invalid”, in terms of the GPL, simply because there is no accompanying source that can be provided to reflect that change. As such, the patch was not specifically aimed at FlightProSim, but also at some of the anonymous resellers at e-Bay, in particular those who offer digital downloads, and therefore have a lot to gain from concealing the fact that the programs they offer on their paid website can actually be downloaded for free directly from us. In contrast, there are also many of those going an extra mile to make a nice package, include a few enhancements, etc etc. and sell it on DvD. These people shouldn't have to worry. Likewise, as was mentioned earlier, many commercial adaptations of FlightGear exist, and once again, I have absolutely no problems with that. In contrast, I think we should be flattered by those. I did come to the conclusion that we should be on guard concerning piracy though. Over the last couple of weeks, I've changed my opinion about ProFlightSim and allies from “sceptically reasonable” to “negative”. Why? Well the reason is simple, the more I read through the articles on their websites, the more I came to the conclusion that these guys are indeed nothing more than an “affiliated marketing department which is quick at building web sites and ripping off free software” (quoting Martin). In essence, I don't think they have the skill and knowledge to do any development themselves, as was more or less acknowledged on this list. Come to think of it from an advertising point of view: What does every company in the world do to advertise their product? Emphasize how, and why their product is better than their competitor's. In this light, the fact that we're only being offered vague statements should be indicative enough. Adding to that, the vague description of the ProFlightSim launcher in one of the “reviews” at Mr George Cayley's website (http://www.flightprosim.net) suggest that their advanced installer/launcher is in fact nothing more than Fred's fgrun. What ultimately pushed me over the edge was this fine piece of prose: (http://flightprosim.net/getting-free- flight-simulators/) which seems just too obvious an attempt to be negative about FlightGear, while desperately trying to hide it's origin, emphasizing again that they don't want their customers to look at our website. I agree with Tim Moore's earlier comment that “they're sleazy, they probably violate copyrights on screen shots, but no one really knows whether they live up to their GPL obligations or not and in any case, they're very small beer”. This is pretty much in line with what I wrote earlier. However, a closer look does bring up some very worrying points; it does look like these folks have a rather seedy marketing scheme, involving an “affiliate” program. In essence, it means that affiliates are independent resellers, who are offered a substantial return on every copy sold. This has the potential of releasing the wolfs, so you might expect some blood. We have already seen a few cases with the plagiarized copies of FlightGear videos, and even FSX videos on youtube. As long as we're more recognizable then these folks, there isn't a major concern. As such, I wholly agree with some folks commenting that we should try to make ourselves known (and in addition, perhaps make a concerted effort toward user friendliness). What does seem striking, in retrospect, is that FlightProSim has already been featured very prominently in google ads, and as such, has the potential to gather some signitifcant short term momentum. This in combination with a rather seedy affiliate marketing program, may allow for the sale of many more rip-offs than anyone would like. Obviously, since we are developing the program for free, this is not of direct concern to us, but it does concern innocent customers, who may unknowingly be lured into spending money on something they could have gotten for free from us. This the money goes to people who have done nothing but setting up an awkward money making scheme. Personally, I think that we have a moral obligation to do what is in our power to prevent that. In particular because people falling for these kinds of traps may not necessarily be the ones with the highest socio-economic status, and therefore not the ones who have a lot of money to spare. Concerning some recent replies I read today, it's interesting to see that the discussion has made some unexpected turns, questioning whether the GPL is still the most appropriate license for FlightGear. I personally have never questioned that, and -in fact- just recently argued on this list that the GPL is still the best license for us. Provided all parties adhere to it, it still guarantees that our work is distributed in the most open fashion, and I don't see any reason to change that. My intention has never been, and never will be, to impose restrictions beyond the terms of the GPL. The code itself was committed under the GPL, with the explicit intention of exposing crooks who had been tinkering with the binary. Anybody still has the right to change that source code, to modify it according to their needs. I tried making the trick simple enough that anybody with a just a little bit of programming skills would see how it worked (and realize the implications), while we might have a chance of exposing a few real crooks. Unfortunately, it appears that these intentions were completely misinterpreted. Therefore, I will -in a few short moments- revoke the code that has caused the controversy. Cheers, Durk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
