I should clarify, since it seems to be a misunderstanding by some. I'm not actually making any Ads revenue. I don't run ads ON my site. I pay Google to run ads that advertise my services (custom OpenGL/OSG consulting -- I do NOT even advertise the downloads in question) on Google search pages and presumably other sites of interest, in order to bring people TO my site.
Which makes it even more bone-headed. If you look at the form, there is an "Other" checkbox where I don't claim to be the sole authorized distributor, but it looks like I only get one chance at appeal, and given their obtuseness in understanding F/OSS software distribution, I'm not confident of my ability to explain the finer points of non-sole-source distribution and F/OSS. Since this is apparently a new AdWords policy, I am hoping to get the attention of someone with a larger clue at Google who will actually revise the policy to incorporate F/OSS concepts. I know what they're trying to do. They're trying to stamp out sites like those that prominently advertise "FREE VLC MEDIA PLAYER!" and then send you to their download which is chock full of malware and toolbars and adware. But they seem to have overlooked something along the way. I'm wondering if we need to propose/demonstrate to them that I (and Torben, if he's nearby and listening) are, while not SOLE EXCLUSIVE, at least ARE legitimately authorized distribution sources. It still smacks of being against the principles of F/OSS, but I guess nobody ever said AdWords and F/OSS had to get along. I may just have to foist the downloads off onto a different site, but then my bread and butter business loses all the promotional benefit that allows my to pay the hosting and bandwidth costs for the big downloads. It's a pickle.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
