My reply doesn't sidestep anything. You seem like an octopus squirting ink. You're obfuscating, creating issues here from nothing, because, like anyone presented with facts unfavorable to his prior position, you seem all of a sudden to be a little less verbally discriminating and objective, and newly unable to distinguish significant factual differences. If, in your mind, a small 3rd party developer writing programs FOR a simulation platform is no different than the software behemoth creating the platform itself, then I'm probably unable to help you. I'm certainly not going to hold your hand and walk you back through each improper inferential leap you've taken in this thread to get us here, but do review it and notice how your "main issue" seems to have changed several times. That means something... not just retreat, but also that your indignation regarding the lack of an answer (to what you must know is a VERY disingenuous question) seems a little out of place.

Sprintz,Thanks for the evenhanded approach. It is much appreciated. :(

It

But you can't bring yourself to say yes, we should respect Microsoft's EULA exactly the same way as we respect 3rd party developers' EULAs.I wonder why?

Oh how cute...Okay I'll say it:"Yes, we should respect Microsoft's EULA's -- AND all other enunciations by Microsoft as to 3rd party developers' legal standing -- exactly as we respect 3rd party developers' "(I hope that little bit in the middle isn't a stick in your spokes.)

But you can't bring yourself to say yes, we should respect Microsoft's EULA exactly the same way as we respect 3rd party developers' EULAs

The EULA is a legal instrument

Oh how cute...Okay I'll say it:"Yes, we should respect Microsoft's EULA's -- AND all other enunciations by Microsoft as to 3rd party developers' legal standing -- exactly as we respect 3rd party developers' "(I hope that little bit in the middle isn't a stick in your spokes.)

Not at all. That's effectively what I said earlier:

Microsoft's approach is set out it's EULA - that's all most of us have as guidance. I say most of us because it's possible that the major 3rd party developers may have a different relationship with Microsoft

Of course we don't know what other enunciations Microsoft may have made

MGH,The question was moot the first time it was posed and remains so despite your efforts to extract an answer that would satisfy you.Why moot you might ask? Because the answer is blatantly obvious to any thinking person. Of course folks were already "respecting MS and 3PD Eulas" prior to your asking and they will continue to so despite your asking. :(

Correct, Microsoft gives Pete Dowson a tacit nod and neither you nor I can even imagine why that may be....My personal view is that Microsoft is satisfied with the status quo regarding Pete Downson and his excellent FSUIPC Utility.Are you building a broad indictment of Pete Dowson and every 3PD who take advantage of what has become an "industry standard" to provide features that are not possible without the FSUIPC Utility??If so, you are also bringing the same indictment to yourself and thousands of users who have their FS enjoyment enhanced via FSUIPC Utility.Frankly you need to drop the "high ground" remarks since you've personally enhanced your own sim experience by using FSUIPC. :(

Remember that I'm the guy making the argument FOR adaptation/modification and FOR preeminence of copyright law over the EULA. I think FSUIPC is great, and have no problem using it. In my eyes, FSUIPC is reverse engineering for the purpose of compatibility, something allowed by copyright law but forbidden by the Microsoft EULA.But there's a certain amount of inconsistency and hypocrisy in integrating software and the capabilities it brings--software derived outside the bounds of the MS EULA--into your own works, and then calling the adaptation of a program for personal use "illegal" because it is similarly derived outside the bounds of a EULA.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Modifying them using the Microsoft supplied editor is allowable - I never said otherwise. The extract from the EULA that deals with editors states: You may reproduce and share files or scripts created with the Editor with friends or family on a non-commercial basis only. Microsoft does not grant you the right to sell or otherwise distribute files from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in exchange for value.This effectively limits it to personal and private use though.

This is an interesting point, because nearly all .air files contain large portions of the original Microsoft .air files within them.

I can answer this part... the .air file is a data file. It is not protected by a EULA. Same with .bgl files as well.

I see the Ed has claimed that .air and .bgl files are data files and therefore not subject to EULA restrictions. So it'd be OK then to publish a freeware Citation using the Eaglesoft .air file? Or to include the .bgl files included in Eaglesoft's FBO scenery as part of a payware package? Really?RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

This is an interesting point, because nearly all .air files contain large portions of the original Microsoft .air files within them.I see the Ed has claimed that .air and .bgl files are data files and therefore not subject to EULA restrictions. So it'd be OK then to publish a freeware Citation using the Eaglesoft .air file? Or to include the .bgl files included in Eaglesoft's FBO scenery as part of a payware package? Really?RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Yet another personal insult... gee Mr. Scott, aren't you the one who thinks that's the first sign of losing an argument?? I am not 'the Ed'.Taking the Eaglesoft .air file and redistributing them is in fact a copyright violation. But then, you already know that... and I'm certain you also know why.

Sprintz,Thanks for the evenhanded approach. It is much appreciated. :(

No problem. Just callin' it how I see it. I can't believe people think that companies such as yours would spend so much time and money on developing addons WITHOUT having strong legal footing.

Yet another personal insult... gee Mr. Scott, aren't you the one who thinks that's the first sign of losing an argument?? I am not 'the Ed'.Taking the Eaglesoft .air file and redistributing them is in fact a copyright violation. But then, you already know that... and I'm certain you also know why.

Sorry, it was supposed to be "I see that Ed..." Typos are insults now?So the Eaglesoft .air file with a bunch of tables copied straight over from the original Microsoft .air file isn't a copyright violation? How does that work? This, I believe, was MGH's point.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Figure out why it's 100% legal to modify .air files... and you'll understand.Thus far... no one's figured that out.

Sorry, it was supposed to be "I see that Ed..." Typos are insults now?So the Eaglesoft .air file with a bunch of tables copied straight over from the original Microsoft .air file isn't a copyright violation? How does that work? This, I believe, was MGH's point.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, again with the assumptions and baseless allegations? Will you and MGH not stop until you've made utter fools of yourselves in a public manner?? :( Sorry boys but our CX2.0 is protected by copyright law. In addition, due consideration has long been forwarded to one Rob Young of Real Air Simulations who also has a direct interest.Despite anyones idle speculation trust me when I say that redistribution of Eaglesoft Development Group Air Files will be met, not with idle forum speculation, but actual action.

MGH,The question was moot the first time it was posed and remains so despite your efforts to extract an answer that would satisfy you.Why moot you might ask?Because the answer is blatantly obvious to any thinking person. Of course folks were already "respecting MS and 3PD Eulas" prior to your asking and they will continue to so despite your asking. LMAO.gif

And there's no of course when a 3rd party developer agues that copyright law and his EULA make modifying his files illegal, even for personal and private use but then argues that doesn't apply to Microsoft's files because (1) Microsoft's definition of Software Product doesn't cover .air and .bgl files and (2) because they are data files so they can be reverse engineered.And to answer the obvious question before it's asked, I have modified both Microsoft's files and 3rd party developers' files for my personal and private use legally and will continue to do so.

No problem. Just callin' it how I see it. I can't believe people think that companies such as yours would spend so much time and money on developing addons WITHOUT having strong legal footing.

Ha Ha, just remember the context of this discussion and who the players are in this comedy of errors :( One need not look far to observe which parties insist on "ludicrous logic" in order to keep the pot stirred here. :( We are content to let the clowns complete their act, receive their applause, and get off stage. :( Bottom line is that you are correct. You do not build a solid working relationship with a company like Microsoft by playing Bravo Sierra Parlor Games in FS Forums.Oh, and this ain't our first rodeo ...