On Sunday 25 Oct 2009, Durk Talsma wrote: > On Sunday 25 October 2009 09:50:40 pm leee wrote: > > I'm sorry Durk, but you still don't get it. The license is not > > there to protect anything but the freedom of the software. > > It's not there to protect or assert any rights of the the users > > (other than to use it as they wish for their own purposes) or > > the developers and is only there to ensure that the software > > may be distributed without the imposition of restrictions > > beyond those specified in the GPL license. > > Arrrgggg, > > 1) As far as I can tell, I never suggested that the GPL implies > anything else but ensuring that the software remains free and > open. And, as I clearly stated stated, I'm in full support of > that. > > 2) I've pointed to a very possible scenario where the the GPL > would be violated. Granted, piracy might -in retrospect- not have > been the best choice of words, but copyright violation certainly > is for the scenario that I described. Closing your eyes and > pretending that everything is alright is, in this respect rather > naive in my opinion.
I think your assertion that I'm closing my eyes and pretending that everything is alright is not only baseless but unwarranted. The scenario where someone uses a binary editor to modify the FG executable program isn't something that FG should consider dealing with in the code of the program and to do so in anticipation of it happening just smacks of paranoia. If someone were to redistribute an altered binary derived from a GPL'd work without making the corresponding source code available then it is a straightforward violation of the GPL and that is where the remedy should be sought, otherwise why use the GPL at all? Redistribution of copyrighted material is only an issue when the terms and conditions of use and redistribution have been violated i.e. where the copyrighted material has been released under terms and conditions that forbid amendment or redistribution. Atm, everything in the base package is considered to be released under the GPL, which allows modification and redistribution. Holding copyright to a work does not automatically forbid others from amending and/or redistributing that work. It is up to the copyright holder to state the terms of use and redistribution, and only when those terms are breached is copyright violation an issue. For those people who are concerned by these companies using their work or screenshots: ensure that the terms and conditions of use and redistribution are clearly displayed along with the work or images. > > 3) I said *moral* obligation, not obligation. Obligation would be > something that we would have needed to do according to a formal > requirement; moral obligation is something entirely different. I > specifically said: "Personally, I think that we have a *moral* > obligation to do what is in our power to prevent that." This does > indeed have nothing to do with the license, but everything with a > sense of justice that every normal human should have. You said > that it is up to me personally to act on that. Well isn't that > exactly what I'm doing? You said "..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." The only issue is whether the GPL, or other stated non-GPL conditions of use and redistribution of the material have been violated. As long as those conditions are complied with then there is no issue of "luring" or deceiving "innocent customers" into doing anything. You have no right to stop these companies advertising what they are selling, which they do in the hope that people will pay them money for FG. If anyone is at *moral* fault here it is the FG project, for not advertising its work more widely so that people see the free FG adverts instead of the pay-for adverts of the companies selling FG. You also said "This patch [...] was aimed 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." Your idea of morality here seems to be based upon how much work someone puts into redistributing a GPL'd work i.e. an anonymous low effort redistribution = immoral but high effort redistribution = moral. The GPL allows either of these approaches and having decided to use the GPL, you cannot pick and choose which bits of it are ok and are *moral* and which bits aren't and are immoral. > > I'm sorry if this comes across as overly harsh, but I don't like > it when things are being attributed to me which I never implied. > I cannot escape the impression that throughout the reading of my > post you've been a bit presumptuous regarding my understanding of > the GPL. Please read it again with a more open mind. > > Cheers, > Durk In the end, people must accept that their GPL'd work may be sold for money as long as the GPL is complied with and the only time where any action is appropriate is where the conditions of the GPL have been violated. If someone thinks that a violation has occurred then they need to prove it, and once that proof has been obtained action can be taken. It is as simple as that. There is no moral aspect to this, beyond that fact that violating the GPL is by definition wrong. One issue that I first raised years ago, and which I think really does need looking into, is whether it is appropriate to use the GPL for non-software material i.e. the data, such as the aircraft models and textures etc. Much of the GPL simply doesn't apply to data. For example, there is no 'source code' as such, where GPL says notices of amendment should be placed if the work is amended. Trying to use the GPL inappropriately, as it seems we are doing here, is asking for trouble as it could be argued that it is impossible to comply with the license, making it invalid, and thereby leaving the FG data material completely unprotected. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
