The philosophy of content

[KL-666]

Mr Runner is obviously a fraud. He speaks with a double tongue, disrespects the rights of the original author and wants others to break the law.

Not very good credentials for respecting his wishes. I'd actually stay far away from his wishes, before i become also part of his fraudulent scheme.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

Have the balls D-echo.....!

[bomber]

So D-echo feels there's no need to answer any questions asked of him here..... but he can find time to post links to this forum on the other forum.

Hi MSR,
as it seems, the people at thejabberwocky.net would be happy to help you, so you might want to try
Regards
D-ECHO

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 8&start=75

Simon

[KL-666]

Hi Bomber,

Though it would be nice to know whether D-echo agrees with the given arguments or that he has compelling counter arguments, he is free to choose to speak or not. Even though he started the discussion, no one can force someone to speak. In my mind i stick with the good old Dutch saying: Who remains silent, agrees.

Kind regards, Vincent

[bomber]

In a way I agree., however what we've had here in this thread is D-echo creating a hypothetical case to ask members here questions and create a topic of discussion almost as if to utter Horray's parlance 'he set out to trap us' with words. Out of good faith others joined in and hopefully some misconceptions were dispelled, during that discussion questions were asked of him, rather simple questions of which he seems oblivious to answer.

How then to assess the character of the individual ?

Simon

[D-ECHO]

So I started this topic here, yes, somehow not to deny I started it to know what's your "philosophy of content" and I learned that there is a general difference in philosophy and ideas which makes it somehow unnecessary to discuss, in this case both sides have arguments and arguments can be seen for both sides which means that people have different "value propositions?" (that's what google translate said ). Also, my time atm is more than quite limitted so I simply hadn't the time (and spirit) to reply.
"Who remains silent, agrees" is a nice saying but shouldn't be taken too high in daily conversations as there can be many different reasons to remain silent. I'd rather say, "who agrees, agrees", which makes life somehow easier and clearer
But a last point, to concentrate the example case on the main part, let's say all the other authors he took work from also are not happy with seeing their content in fgmembers, or he didn't took work from anybody different but only likes to make it GPL so it appears in fgaddon (to help new users finding his work and having fun).

[IAHM-COL]

that's quite sad! :S

Someone who releases "content" on GPL with the philosophy that the content is GPL only for a group of his chosen people, but not-redistributable by others who he chooses not to?


I have to repeat, that person or group of people must seriously revise their behavior. It's unmoral, unethical, and most likely illegal.

Nasty people, I preffer not to have bounds with! (feeling sick)

[bomber]

Oh I see no spirit to answer but just enough to make an extra point at the end ?

I think you'll find the actual thing is "you're too mean spirited to answer"

So mean spirited you support the divisions that have appeared in the FG community

"authors he took work from also are not happy with seeing their content in fgmembers"

Do you listen to yourself when you write these words ?

A question I have, I don't expect or want an answer, not with your black heart.... But

How does having a plane downloadable in a single place make it easier for others to find an authors work or have fun, or for that matter having it in more than one place make it harder to find or less fun ?
Even the flightgear executable is mirrored in more than one location, how come this technique is good enough for the executable but not for the content ?

[bomber]

that's quite sad! :S

It's not sad it's fecking disgusting !.... pure scum !

[KL-666]

Look here D-echo, i find searching for loopholes against the purpose of a law or license despicable. As much as i find it despicable to hack a website with the purpose of abusing it for personal gain. The only good reason for searching for loopholes can be to alert the owners, so they can fix the false opportunity.

You may get away with your gpl scheme, if you play it via the very first author. There seems to be some room there for people with bad intentions. But even if you have the first author, it will be very difficult to justify followup actions by secondary authors. There the license is pretty clear about.

We clearly have very different moral standards where it comes to abusing loopholes. My tax advisor does good work with standard things i would not know about. But sometimes he suggests options i can not agree with. His suggestion is perfectly legal, but i find it not in line with the purpose of the tax law. For my feeling i would not be a 100% truthful, even though for the law i would. So i say, let's skip this one, and he agrees morally but not practically.

It always makes me wonder why people want to seek out loopholes to abuse. It is so pitiful and non-productive. In case of tax law you just get a sorry few extra euro's. And what do you get from abusing gpl? Do you think it makes you look smart to abuse a loophole?

And your general conduct on this topic does not look nice on you either. You have already set up a thread with the name of someone, only to spread slander about him. Now you behave exactly like what you accuse that person of: "What I find impolite is asking in a hundred of Threads people to do something for you. And then after some people spend their time on trying to help him he just asks again for another Airport"

What have you learned from your questions and our answers, we spent time on for you in this thread? All you do is just ask for another airport. Do you actually live by any moral standard at all?

Edit:
Just to spell out that last bit for you, before you start whining that you are incapable of understanding again: There is a serious moral issue with saying on the one hand that someone is impolite by certain behaviour, and on the other hand saying it is perfectly ok for you to do that very same behaviour. If you think like that, you are ripe for arbitrary rule, like a dictatorship. Or did you want to tell us that you are impolite yourself?

Kind regards, Vincent