Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear v2.4 is Released!
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 -- Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear v2.4 is Released!
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 be easily removed) they could be watermarked with the flightgear logo which is not obvious at a first glance. A statement above or below the gallery regarding this fact would generate the corresponding awareness and they would think twice before using them for their purpose. Just an idea. Oliver -- Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear v2.4 is Released!
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 -- Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] "Pro Flight Simulator"
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 ourselves in the foot. GPL explicitely grants the right to repackage a product and get a compensation for it and in general it is an appreciatable action if somebody packs in FlightGear, adds sophisticated documentation and support plus maybe some more for the sake of usability and sells the whole thing for whatever he feels is an appropriate compensation satisfying his business model. In fact FlightGear might benefit from that. One of the success factors of Linux is based on the fact that eg. SUSE exactly did this. The problem we are facing with guys like FSP is not *that* they repackaged the whole thing but *how* they did it and *how* they advertise it. Transporting the message "We don't like (commercial) repackaging at all" is a message which imho should not be transported- My few cts. Oliver signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 11
> > 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 on and on. Well, folks, to stay on-topic and to prevent the usual suspects are continueing their game of escalation here is my offer (which I already communicated but which did not seem to get through): There are several sites on the internet which commercially provide scanned flight manuals for various helicopters. If somebody confirms that this is the data required for a decent flight model and if somebody guarantees that he is able to create such a decent flight model (and afterwards does) I am willing to spend a certain financial amount for such a document (electronic version) and donate it for such a puporse. Most are available between 20 and 30 US$ so this is the limit per manual. This offer is valid not only for the AlouetteII but theoretically for any flight model document. The only drawback is: I pay for it so I decide if it is worth having it in FlightGear. Currently I can imagine this for the AlouetteII, EC130, EC135, R22/44/66, AW139, BK117, Bell 206. Another point: Requesters must prove that they are able to derive a sophisticated FDM from this information. Fair enough, I do not spend money for nothing. Comments, agreements, denials? Oliver -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Flightgear-devel Digest, Vol 61, Issue 10
> 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 compensation aids the same way as the R22 is- just with a higher mass, a turbine and more power. Thus if you apply control you will have to make sure that you apply compensation on each (!!!) axes simultaneously. That makes a helicopter beginner struggle with the controls and propably fail but does not make the FDM unrealistic. At least it is a (legacy) helicopter with all its challenges. If you have not seen an unstable AlouetteII upon takeoff (as you mentioned in the other post) this is simply the case because you are watching a trained pilot, not a simplistic FDM. Thereore before changing the FDM in FlightGear to please the not-so-trained pilots I would have appreciated to ask some of the more experienced pilots regarding their impressions. As to my experiences with the Alouette2 I can say that I can apply stable hovers with minimum locational deviations and that I once landed the thing stable in the bay of a FlightGear carrier. Things you can not accomplish with a broken FDM. Though I have not checked it for a while. However the floats version seems to have some issues with CoG and high speed flight. So I am somehow surprised regarding the latest happenings and do not appreciate the way the FDM was changed without a concensus to do so. Oliver -- What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 through the window. I do this since 2004 and she > > has never complained. So I believe it is ok to go on with that as > > proprably she > > finds this acceptable. > > Since she doesn't know about it she cannot have an opinion either way, but > since she leaves the curtains open she must accept the possibility of it > happening. What I wanted to point out is that it is illegal anyway whether she has taken notice or not. You can not blame the victim for giving you the occasion of commiting a crime. In other words: The trademark owner has the right to decide how his work is being used and (whether or we like it or not) we have to respect his rights the same way as we have to respect the privacy of others in their own gardens and bedrooms. > > > Now back to that damn guy who regularly puts his trash in my can. I'll > > hit him > > with a large stick. > > Good solution, if you can catch up with him. You would of course be guilty > of a serious crime. I am not sure if you really noticed what I was going to say. If we do not respect the rights of trademarks owners (unless somebody slaps us) what would be the motivation for FPS to respect ours? Oliver -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 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 through the window. I do this since 2004 and she has never complained. So I believe it is ok to go on with that as proprably she finds this acceptable. Now back to that damn guy who regularly puts his trash in my can. I'll hit him with a large stick. Oliver P.S.: Noted the sarkasm? -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 to the rights holder to go to > court and seek damages. Some legislations (certainly the US and UK) have > the concept of "Fair Dealing", There is no strict definition of what this > means but it has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions > by looking at the economic impact on the copyright owner of the use. Where > the economic impact is not significant, the use may count as fair dealing. I have stated this before at various occasions- lawyers are able to approach an infringing party without being directly related to the trademark owner as soon as they are aware of an infringement. They simply have to seek permission to represent the trademark owner. Afterwards they can go own their own charging fees. For file sharing issues this procedure is applied daily. > 6. Way Ahead. When I use the term "we" or "us" I really mean Curt, since it > his name which appears on our website. So over to you, Curt. The registrant of the web site, GIT server and scenery database. In other words: Every facility which is able to distribute the information to the public. Oliver -- What You Don't Know About Data Connectivity CAN Hurt You This paper provides an overview of data connectivity, details its effect on application quality, and explores various alternative solutions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/progress-d2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 replicating the original. If you take pictures from a person you enter his privacy which can be enforced by civil law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights I believe this is also covered by chapter 8 of the european human rights convention: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/92DB8BAC-7D8D-4C28- B927-1C1360A17DC3/0/FICHES_Droit_%C3%A0_sa_propre_image_EN.pdf In various countries the rights of such a picture are with the person on the picture. Court rulings however make here exceptions eg. when photographed in a crowd or rights are transfered by contract (eg. somebody is paid for being pictured). Further exceptions relate to persons of public interests like celebrities and politicians. However court rulings vary in this area but often tend towards the pictured person. This has been said multiple times before: Photographing an item, trademarked or not, is not an infringement. It is a documentation. The only issue (not trademark related) would be if that picture was taken by bypassing measures which should prevent from being pictured (eg. the item is placed at non-public locations or explicit denial of photographing has been stated). The same applies if you do a drawing of the same scene. If you draw a picture of the trademark as the central part this is creative work in the sense of doing derivate work of the original. This is still free. However if you distribute this item there is an issue as distribution is prohibited by trademarking laws- it could be mistaken as originating from the trademark owner. Now what if you take a photograph and place it as a picture on a helicopter? Nice try. But invalid. If you make a texture from the photograph it is no longer documentation but a derivative work used for a different purpose than looking at it in a photo album. You are trying to boil a complex issue down to simple answers. It is not that simple. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 respective download- or > mirror-servers at the risk of getting into trouble. To my opinion the > only sane solution would be to let creators of disputable content host > this stuff at their own responsibility. Well I don't think this would necessarily be the case. If FlightGear just acts as a provider where content is transparently hosted and where users have agreed to terms of use stating that trademarked items are not allowed and liability is with the uploaders then we are on a pretty good side. FlightGear admins would still have to remove this content as soon as they get knowledge about it but liability would not be an issue. At least this is what court rulings in Germany and Austria indicate and I can imagine that this is valid for most other countries also. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 post other people things without taking the > responsibility for that - i.e. if FGFS proves it did its best to avoid > any legal problems. So how about an legal agreement in writing between > FGFS-Server-Resposible and the designer, that the later > - has been informed about possible risks (e.g. when using such Logos) > - has the approval to use that Logo from the owner of that logo > - and that he is of legal age > - and that he agrees that FGFS can remove his design from it's server > whenever opportune First we have various contributors which are not of legal age, starting from 13 years and up. This would exclude them from contributing to GIT. Their work is often of very high quality so it would be a pitty if they'd be discriminated against. Second I believe that besides the inclusion there is another legal problem to consider which would not be solved. By contributing to GIT a trademarked item is not only put on a server but also repackaged into FlightGear which is then distributed as a whole including those items. IMHO legally FlightGear can in this case not get back on the "blame the designer" standpoint- while on a webserver data is just transparently uploaded to be available for download, FlightGear does an active step for distribution by packaging and could be liable for spreading the item. So the responsibility for the distribution package is with FlightGear. 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. Everything which goes on this server requires signing the letter of liability by the creator. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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, history or the era you have been talking about. Well, everybody has the right to make out a fool of himself so there you go. You have of course the right to continue to transport that ridiculous image of a typical American to the outside world. I am glad to know it better that this image is an exception from the rule. Now that I know what to expect I can furtherly ignore your postings. Back on-topic. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 to exceed your disrespect for legal affairs. The above quoted section is not only extremely offensive, it is rubbishly ridiculous and disqualifies yourself from any serious discussion. I will not bring myself down to that small brain level - it seems you are ways more experienced on it than most of us. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 Disney wouldn't allow it to > happen. They bought themselves a few legislators and got copyright > extended to "protect" the rights holder. Well, trademarking is a "little bit" older than Disney and its lobbyism on politics. In fact questioning legislation (which is your democratic right to do so) is in no way a justification to ignore rights derived from such laws. > > Distributing trademarked items is wrong in terms of legal affairs the > same way > > as violating the GPL is. > > Whoever does not care has no right to complain about FPS lack of > adherance to > > the GPL. Why should they then... > > Let me set that strawman on fire for you > > FPS is claiming work done by others as THEIRS. This has nothing to do > with depicting an aircraft or billboard as it exists in real life. As far as I know they don´t as they use pictures for advertising which they have no usage rights for the same way FG is using trademarked items it has no usage rights for (liveries etc.). Besides they are false advertising and refuse to stick to the GPL. However to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that they explicitely and illegally changed ownership of items by saying "we did it". Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 > deceive" there was never any need to seek anyone's permission. Red Bull is > a > fizzy drink of some kind. FlightGear is not. Simples. Can we please stop going in circles caused by ignoring any posted facts about RB, its business model and rights to do so? The question is not whether there is a legal issue. There is one. The question is how to deal with that. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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). > > > > Yours > > John > > Really? > > I find this interesting- wasn't it you (beside Martin) telling us that > Google Earth can't be used anymore for scenery models due to legal issues? > > What's so bad about discussing legal issues? I believe what John is saying is that it is frustrating to see how people just step over legal issues without caring. If one day we have to move away the debris then it will be "But how should we have known...". Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 it in that manner. Legislation is built on social values and enforces those. This is the origin of legislation. A trademark protects the interests of its owner in various ways. One of them is to protect from false association harming the reputation of a company, another is to establisch revenue from licensing it. There are more Whatever it is in the case of RB we have not the right to question it just to make it fit into what we think is right or wrong. Distributing trademarked items is wrong in terms of legal affairs the same way as violating the GPL is. Whoever does not care has no right to complain about FPS lack of adherance to the GPL. Why should they then... Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 manner. A proper analogy would be for FPS to sell the > "associated" livery for a profit. Which if you hadn't brought this up > would have been the case. …not a bad idea. FlightGear is distributing trademarked items by providing all means of infrastructure to do so - multiplayer servers, download facilities (web server, GIT server, scenery database, etc.) and spreads them into the world. >From a legal standpoint there is no denying that at least the owners of the aforementioned distribution channels are violating trademarking rights. With the full knowledge of the infringement now. The trademark owner has the full right to define who does what with his items and trying to hide the violation from him is in no way better as if FlightProSim is trying to hide that they are violating the aircraft owners rights. It is not a question of commercial or not but a question whether people stick to the values and borders defined by legislation. And of personal moral. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 reproduction while taking a picture is documenting an item shown on a publically accessible place (unless you take a picture from it on a non-accessible place, eg, corporate location). Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 trademark we are using. I wrote it about a week ago: Enforcing trademarks is a business model for various lawyers nowadays which they will not simply abandon just because we are nice guys. They will simply estimate how often the documents in question have been downloaded and calculate the lost license revenues from that number. Oliver -- Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data in Real-Time with Splunk. Collect, index and harness all the fast moving IT data generated by your applications, servers and devices whether physical, virtual or in the cloud. Deliver compliance at lower cost and gain new business insights. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-dev2dev ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Default Aircraft Candiates
>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 or less. Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Logos and licensing
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 Google so the debate has become public anyway. I would to point out that besides the two results "yes" and "no" there might be a third one worth considering which is: "No answer from the TM holder". This might be treated the same as "yes" or "no". In case of treating it as "yes" we should agree how to treat potential consequences ;) Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .."IP" and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
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 approached just because it is more beneficial for lawyers. Putting a trademarked icon on an ebay sell? On a private web site? Good luck. Various chambers have built their own business model around copyright and trademark enforcement by actively seeking for infringements. If you think RB will not approach us, you might be right. However such a lawyers chamber might realize the infringement in FlightGear and approach Red Bull to act as a representative for them. Such requests are often granted as this is a win-win situation: The lawyer gets all penalties and fees and RB has its TM enforced. Next step: Finding out where the content is hosted and distributed from. Which is the FlightGear web site and the scenery database. Get the owners of the sites. Calculate the penalty fee- the higher the better for the lawyer, therefore in the worst case it is calculated based on the number of downloads. If unknown it is estimated. Send out the letter which is preformulated. Effort: At max 1 day. Return on invest ensured. Would you say a chamber would just say "Oh no, poor open source guys, I suspend my business model" in a country in which mothers are sued to pay 3 mio. US$ just because they have shared half a dozen music titles? > Note that I actually found a picture of a real AH-1 Cobra > (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image49158.html) in Red Bull livery - > this tells me that if Jack's AH-1 uses this same livery, there is > likely no infringement at all. The AH1 is a picture of a AH1 which either belongs to RBs fleet or for which someone has paid licenses to have it. Photographing the real thing, especially if publically presented, is not an issue. If one rebuild this livery (reproduction) and distributes it is a clear violation of trademarks as you make a copy. In fact distributing the logo is the by far more problematic issue from a legal point of view. > Awesome. Presented in a country in which I don't reside _and_ in a > language I don't read or speak. Red Bull has subsidiaries in the US and trademark law is enforced on a global scale. This has nothing to do with language or country borders. > Note that while hard to see from your high horse, you might want to look I am no longer surprised that various discussions end up becoming pretty personal sooner or later. It is propably peoples nature or education how to show respectful or disrespectful behavior towards people and trademarks. Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .."IP" and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
> 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 to take it personal. Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .."IP" and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
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 scenery database models that > clearly also use the redbull logo and have existed in our sim for years. Sorry Curt, but I did say we have to care ;) Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .."IP" and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
> 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 neighbors garden just because he is > not > > at home, won´t see it and won´t complain about it. > > > Nice strawman. Physical tresspass != trademark infringment. So your sense for legal and illegal depends ? Illegal trespassing is not ok but copyright infringement (by intention) is? For what it´s worth, trademark infringements are often higher punished than illegal trespassing. Depending on the value of the item in question, starting by a few thousands. > I've never seen a link to a legal document that has shown RedBull to be > actively engaging any entity or group over the use of their trademark > logo in any open source project. Put up or shut up. Simple as that. RB is against *any* unauthorized usage. RB *has* denied usage on various RC models (as Heiko and myself stated, links in German upon request) and just that they have not sued FG or a contact person yet does not mean they will not in the future. Because they have every single right to do so and we don´t have any right to include RB trademarks into FlightGear GIT. > Until RedBull says in very clear language, "Hey FlightGear! We need you > to remove all images that contain our trademark from your scenery & > aircraft databases!" you need to stop getting your undies in a twist. Once again: Wrong direction. It is your/my/our responsibility to ensure legality. In case of RB we know that we are currently in an illegal state. > > This is btw. another stupid effect of FlightProSim selling FlightGear- > > this makes it even worse and increases chances that FG will appear on > > RBs radar one day. > > > This doesn't have a damn thing to do with that and you know it. >I'd LOVE RedBull to chase after FPS! The following would happen: RB says "hey they are selling our logo in that FPS thing" and address FPS. FPS will tell them something about GPL and point directly to FlightGear. There you are on the radar. The fact that FPS is commercially selling derivates of FG is pretty critical. > Understand this - no company is going to go to the time and expenditure of > a lawsuit of any kind when they know full well a simple letter will > accomplish the same task. Sueing is not the first step today. The first step always is a declaration of discontinuance with an immediate penalty clause. Lawyers love those as it is pretty few effort and high benefit for them. Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] .."IP" and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
> 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 think > people are stirring shit up JUST to stir shit up. [...] > If people give you any crap about the textures, > tell 'em to See Figure #1 and ignore 'em. They're just a bunch of > bloviating windbags with nothing better to do but run in circles, > screaming about crap that'll never happen. The funny thing is that this mail ended up in my spam folder and I believe it should remain there due to its offensive character. You can´t just walk through your neighbors garden just because he is not at home, won´t see it and won´t complain about it. If we are going in circles then the reason is that some people ignore all information and links provided and restart everything with "give me evidence" and then "don´t care". Evidence *has* been provided that Red Bull is actively sueing folks using the logo for similar purposes, information *has* been provided that RB is seeking the web for copyright infringements and information *has* been provided that using the trademark without explicit grant is illegal. Why restart from scratch? Simon already inquired RB and until then hold your breath and hope it goes well. Otherwise the state is pretty clear and we will have to take actions. This is btw. another stupid effect of FlightProSim selling FlightGear- this makes it even worse and increases chances that FG will appear on RBs radar one day. Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] "IP" and litigation risks, was: AH-1 Merge Request
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 regarding the trademarked logos of Opel (spark) and Mercedes (the well known star). The court stated that a replica of an item can include trademarked logos if they integrally belong to the original item. This means that a Opel car replica is expected to have that spark logo as well as a Mercedes should have the star. A trademark holder can not enforce to exclude it nor can he claim licensing fees in the worst case. So for the Eurocopter logo the same applies if it is placed on an Eurocopter helicopter replica. It would be different to place it on a Bell aircraft. Therefore I believe we are on the safe side here. As to airline liveries things are more in a grey area but pretty similar. You expect the LH livery to be on an Airbus A380, CRJ200, etc. So as long as it is realistic and placed on the right plane type I would not expect issues here as this is common appearance and noone would expect that the A320 in FSX or FlightGear is directly affiliated with Lufthansa. Putting a LH livery on a plane is replicating LHs core business. Red Bull in turn is in a different core business and intensively merchandises its trademark for other businesses. So putting the logo on a can is prohibited as well as putting it on every other item as well as aircrafts, be it real or virtual unless stated otherwise. However I am not sure what the issue would be if we realistically modeled a RB beverage can- maybe RB would pay for advertising :) Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AH1 merge request
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 ridiculous and a bit immature how Oliver people whine about > a simple logo. For the trademark owner (which happens to be Red Bull) it is more than a simple logo. It is identification, cult and trend and it is worth money. So they are pretty picky who to grant usage rights. > If Oliver really cared about preventing fictitious lawsuits as he > claims to, he would concentrate his efforts on the several red bull > logos that are already in our database. These are two different steps to take. First secure the area from more risks to come in, then remove the existing ones. There sure should be a debate how to deal with the ones already existing and I am glad you found the others. > If this thread is further interfered with, I will be forced to result > to more forceful methods of having my work committed, or I may very > well change the license back to the CC license and our community will > have missed out on a very high quality aircraft. I am surprised that you still think this has something to do with the outstanding work on your aircraft. -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] AH-1 Merge Request
>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: >http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5017/cobra5.png >Download: >http://jackmermod.yolasite.com/resources/AH-1%2012-12-10.zip The archive Jack has provided contains a Red Bull livery which is based on the RB logo as trademarked by Red Bull, Austria. Unless it is clear that distributing this trademarked item is legal I propose not to include the livery into FlightGear GIT. Otherwise legal action against FlightGear could be filed. A clarification is currently ongoing. Details start here: http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10130&start=195#p113224 Jack had been involved in this debate. Oliver -- The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE: Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen. Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle. Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
