Martin Spott:
> Thanks - well, to be honest, we're having a pretty relaxed time.
> Apparently you had been in much bigger trouble wrt. "nightly diaper
> changes" than we are now.
Lucky you :)
But don't feel to relaxed as I know pretty well this might change pretty quick
:P
Oliver
-
A thought which came to my mind now that 2.4 is out: As we also have tons of
current high quality screenies in the gallery, it would be a good idea to
protect them from being ripped off and used for marketing by you-know-who.
Besides adding the copyright statement in the bottom corner (which can
Curtis Olson wrote:
> A huge !!!THANK YOU!!! to all the developers and contributors involved in
> making this the best version of FlightGear ever!
I second this. Congrats to the outstanding work and thanks to all for making
this real.
Oliver
xsaint wrote:
> We should also warn ppl that Flightgear being repackaged and sold by some
> individuals and we encourage them to download the sim from Flightgear
> instead of buying those craps
Note that by discouraging repackaging in general you will create a situation
in which we shoot our
> > Groucho aka Oliver Fels
>
> ? Who are this people ? I have known people to justify their defamatory
> used the names and peudos other people. But then, you're the best at
> this game.
This is me. Obviously you do not seem to have read this as the circle goes on
and
> All this is absolutely false. I never requested a change in the FDM
> Alouette 2 ! If I could not fly, and although it does not bother me.
> JM-26 and many, many others were sad not to do so.
The point with the AlouetteII is that it is a helicopter with absolute no
stabilisation or control c
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > > I find that a bit improbable; perhaps they aren't looking or aren't
> > > bothered. Of course, I'm inviting disaster to strike us Monday
> > > morning.
> >
> > Ah, yes, at night, I am sneaking into my neighbors garden and take
> > photographs
> > of her in her bedroom
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> One final thought. We have been using logos in FG ever since I've been
> involved - 2004 and probably longer. In that time we have not had a
> problem. Are we saying that no rights holder has ever noticed it anywhere?
> I find that a bit improbable; perhaps they arent looki
Vivian Meazza: wrote:
> 3. Enforcement. In the event of an infringement, rights have to be enforced
> by the trademark/copyright holder. In the first instance, this is most
> likely to be an instruction to remove the offending item. If we comply that
> is likely to be the end of it, but it is open
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> I'm going to set you all a simple multiple choice test - pay attention
> because I'm only going to say this once:
Viviane you are on the complete wrong track, sorry.
Taking pictures is documenting existing items while creating or redrawing
items is a creatie work replicatin
Martin Spott wrote:
> Oliver Fels wrote:
> > What I can imagine as a solution: FlightGear does not include the
> > liveries in the distribution but provides further web space for
> > separately downloading those.
>
> This still puts the maintainer(s) of the respe
Jörg Emmerich wrote:
> Why not try to put the risks where they belong?
This is of course the best strategy to follow. I have opted a few times for
this way which will keep the trouble outside.
However I see again some practical issues we would have to get around:
> It should be possible to pos
Gene wrote:
> Why do I have the intense image in my head of you saying the exact same
> thing to your parents as they're carted off to the re-education camp?
Gene, with that statement of yours it is pretty obvious you are talking about
things you have not the slightest idea of- be it trademarking
Gene Wrote:
> Vichy FlightGear Overlords. Zey hav
> vays of makingink you comply.
[...]
> you mouth-breathing back-biters
[...]
> In another era, you're the kind that would report your parents to the State
> for discussing forbidden ideas.
Gene, your disrespect for people does by ways seem t
Gene Buckle wrote:
> You're delusional. Legislation is built on whomever supplies the most
> money in order to purchase that legislation. Do you know why copyright
> was extended in the US last time? Because Mickey Mouse was going to enter
> into the public domain within a few years and Disne
Vivian wrote:
> Glad you found that. Looks like we really have shot ourselves in both feet
> by asking Red Bull. On the other hand - they might be overstepping their
> rights at least in U.S (and I think U.K law).
>
> Since our use is NOT "likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or
> to
Heiko Schulz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > It has been very frustrating to watch
> > this community repeatedly trip over legal issues. This has
> > finally become a great enough source of frustration to me
> > where all I can say is good luck in the future and enjoy the
> > scenery (whenever it comes out).
>
Peter Brown wrote:
> By this definition FG would cease to exist.
> Legislation does not define values, and commercial trademarks are just
> that, commercial. The purpose of enforcing them is to protect their
> _commercial_ business. It has nothing to do with personal moral, unless
> you direct i
Am Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011, um 16:23:47 schrieb Peter Brown:
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Oliver Fels wrote:
> No, not in your twisted logic. FG is not creating income based upon others
> work. FG is representing the environment and aircraft created in a
> realistic mann
Vivian Meazza wrote:
> Exactly the answer to be expected. Note the "association" concept.
> Shouldn't have asked.
In the same sense as FlightProSim did not ask to use the IP of others and
violate their license?
Oliver
-
Erik Hofmann wrote
> To be honest I don't see any legal difference between creating an
> accurate livery for a virtual aircraft or publishing a photograph of the
> real aircraft.
Then you have missed various points in legal trademarking ;)
Repainting a trademarked item is an explicit reproductio
J. Holden wrote:
> To all currently arguing:
> Consider it is going to be difficult for whoever would sue us to show how
> we've cost them any financial damage. Likely, someone being aggressive
> with trademark infringement is probably going simply to ask us to stop
> distribution of whatever trad
>we could have a better
> modeled helicopter than the BO-105
I am wondering what makes you feel the Bo105 is not as realistic as others. It
has one of the most sophisticated helicopter FDMs in FlightGear which has been
approved by real pilots. Almost every other FDM is based on guessing more
Stuart wrote:
>
>
> I agree with Jon on this - ideally we should be pro-active about
> asking for permission, even if we don't like the answer.
Very good points mentioned. Especially the point that this will increase FGs
appearance on some radars.
However lots of people are nowadays using Goog
Gene Buckle wrote:
> Regardless, nothing relating to open source use of logos on aircraft
> models in flight simulator.
It does not matter whether open source projects, private persons or commercial
enterprises.
In fact in certain areas (eg. file sharing) private persons are more frequently
a
> Myself wasn't aware of that we have other models with the RD-logo as well.
> I'm not sure if Oliver, the starter of this debate is.
I pretty much am since Jack pointed me to those *sigh* (never noticed it
before) and yes, I did say that we have to care about them to Jack. There is no
reason
Curs Olsen wrote:
> So why aren't we *removing* all our existing uses of the redbull logo ...
> or
> at least the ones that I can find in 2 seconds? None of the people who
> are
> saying Jack can't submit his helicopter with a redbull livery are saying
> anything about the 2 aircraft and several
> I'm sorry if reality offends your delicate sensibilities.
May I remind you of this quote here:
>They're just a bunch of bloviating windbags with nothing better to do >but run
>in circles,
If that is your style it does not deserve more comments.
>
> > You can´t just walk through your neighb
> I think the problem is that someone got on their high horse and started
> jerking him around. If I were him, I'd get just as snotty about it - more
> so probably as I've got a much lower tolerance for that kind of nonsense.
[...]
> stop. It has no basis in reality. Never has. Frankly I thin
First of all sorry for the reply format, I only have access to the weekly
digest currently so response are a bit out of context. Will change this soon.
Heiko Schulz wrote:
>Problem is more the Eurocopter-logo which I should better remove.
Last year there was a high court decision in Germany r
Jack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Red Bull livery has been removed from this release.
Jack, thanks for caring and removing the livery from the package. As I said
you can still provide it separately from your web site. This does not make it
legal but moves FlightGear out of the focus.
> I find it
>Hi,
>My development of the Bell AH-1W Cobra is far enough along where
>I feel it is time to commit it to GIT, especially in time for the new
>release. I use GIT, but I don't know enough about it to commit it
>myself. If somebody could commit it for me that would be really great.
>Screenshot
32 matches
Mail list logo
