Yep... wanting to know who someone is when talking with them is a smear. :(

You may wish to know who I am but I haven't the least interest in knowing who you are.It now appears that:

As for the EULA, it has yet to be defeated in any manner for commercial software.

(My emphasis)really means that EULAs have been defeated in some manner!

The other cases showed that restriction of transfer of license/ownership rights by a EULA was not enforceable. It did not defeat the entire EULA, in fact in subsequent cases the courts upheld that only the parts of the EULA that attempted to override the Copyright laws were void.

...and some courts hold that federal copyright statute preempts EULA contract clauses, too.Glad to see you finally acknowledging that some EULA provisions have already been overturned in court. They're not nearly as bulletproof as your earlier post made them out to be.And now we're back to the ad hominem personal stuff, this time with you attacking MGH for his user name rather than his argument. Once again, that's a clear sign of a losing position in a discussion. Don't like the message? Then smear the messenger.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, with respect, you and mgh are making yourselves look like you have very little respect for the hard work of others, work you derive a fair amount of pleasure from. That's not an indictment at all, but just an observation of the "feel" of this thread.As to the legalities... I practiced law for 4 years, and though I was not involved in intellectual property matters, I can pretty much guarantee that the short excerpts from statutes and the few cites to case-law that have appeared here are FAR from the whole story. It is tremendously more complex -- I'm sure there are cases interpreting cases interpreting the relevant statutory sections, cases from different federal circuits seeming to contradict, and so on -- but an attorney specializing in this area would know this law. Well. It would not be complex to him / her. So there are many pitfalls to the type of arm-chair lawyering seen in this thread. Consider: no one has even mentioned whether or not a copyright symbol is present, whether the work is registered, etc.... all relevant issues.(I'm taking this beyond the specific software asked about in this thread, because it seems others were quick to do so.)Beyond legalities, let's look at a simple hypothetical. What if the end user makes a modification to the program he "owns," then later on something seemingly unrelated goes wrong with the software? Then the end user needs to turn to the technical support resources of the software provider. Of course he never mentions his mod. And the problem with the software, the reason tech-support invested those hours, turns out to be related to that very modification made by the end user, made despite the requests of the software provider. End user would never have predicted that his small modification had larger ramifications, as he deemed himself familiar enough with the program's guts, its config files, etc. But he has just essentially taken money from the pocket of the software provider and put it into his own. Now, that scenario makes most sense and is more costly with a more substantial piece of software than is typically produced for FSX, but it is relevant. It's been relevant to pay and freeware flightsim developers. It's been relevant to freeware I've released, and is one of the reasons I've turned more to payware. It would be stupid for anyone in this hobby to ignore the tug away from freeware that many developers ultimately feel, and the reasons for it. These kinds of things -- expectations of support for your software which you later find out has been modified -- are one decent sized reason.

It

Bob, with respect, you and mgh are making yourselves look like you have very little respect for the hard work of others, work you derive a fair amount of pleasure from. That's not an indictment at all, but just an observation of the "feel" of this thread.

There's a very large difference between disagreement and disrespect for their work. I certainly do not advocate that people be allowed to steal from developers...piracy and adaptation for personal use are very different issues. I posted instructions on these forums some time back showing how to do a simple binary edit to disable rendering of the VC for users with lower-end systems that used 2D panels only. A few devs chimed in as if not wishing to use the VC as designed in the panel was disrespect for their work--something tantamount to peeing on their leg. Sorry, but shutting off part of a panel I won't use in order to improve performance is nothing of the sort. This is exactly the sort of adaptation I refer to in this thread discussion, in fact.

As to the legalities... I practiced law for 4 years, and though I was not involved in intellectual property matters, I can pretty much guarantee that the short excerpts from statutes and the few cites to case-law that have appeared here are FAR from the whole story. It is tremendously more complex -- I'm sure there are cases interpreting cases interpreting the relevant statutory sections, cases from different federal circuits seeming to contradict, and so on -- but an attorney specializing in this area would know this law. Well. It would not be complex to him / her. So there are many pitfalls to the type of arm-chair lawyering seen in this thread. Consider: no one has even mentioned whether or not a copyright symbol is present, whether the work is registered, etc.... all relevant issues.

All true...the moral of the story for me being that the position that "it's illegal and that's that" is overreaching. It's an (unsupported) opinion--not the law.

(I'm taking this beyond the specific software asked about in this thread, because it seems others were quick to do so.)Beyond legalities, let's look at a simple hypothetical. What if the end user makes a modification to the program he "owns," then later on something seemingly unrelated goes wrong with the software? Then the end user needs to turn to the technical support resources of the software provider. Of course he never mentions his mod. And the problem with the software, the reason tech-support invested those hours, turns out to be related to that very modification made by the end user, made despite the requests of the software provider. End user would never have predicted that his small modification had larger ramifications, as he deemed himself familiar enough with the program's guts, its config files, etc. But he has just essentially taken money from the pocket of the software provider and put it into his own. Now, that scenario makes most sense and is more costly with a more substantial piece of software than is typically produced for FSX, but it is relevant. It's been relevant to pay and freeware flightsim developers. It's been relevant to freeware I've released, and is one of the reasons I've turned more to payware. It would be stupid for anyone in this hobby to ignore the tug away from freeware that many developers ultimately feel, and the reasons for it. These kinds of things -- expectations of support for your software which you later find out has been modified -- are one decent sized reason.

But the same complications regularly occur as a result of configuration and/or modification of the OS, or to FS itself, or to system hardware, or to other possibly interfering programs running alongside the software. If the user calls in for support, the developer asks him if it's his original unmodified software as installed by his installer, and the user lies about it, then the wrong committed here isn't the modification of the software. I know that these guys in particular have a policy about not supporting, for example, addition of the RealityXP gauges to their add-ons, and I don't expect them to. If I were to write in with a problem related to getting that gauge to work, they'll tell me they don't provide support for that. Fair 'nuf. But if somebody's telling me that it's illegal for me to strap on that challenge myself...that's overreaching. It's absurd, in fact.But thanks for engaging in rational discussion.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

You guys are still taking about personally modifying copyrighted material

Bob and MGH,Let's all agree that OPINION is NOT Law shall we? Despite Bobs vast knowledge and experience in the AF and at University it is rather clear that all of this "Barbershop Law" boils down to not much more than another exchange of OPINIONS in an FS Forum.As mentioned before, I have all the legal advice I could ever neeed at my disposal and would suggest that those who have a real case pending should ignore the "legal opinions" as set forth in FS Forums. :(

Hey Ron,As you have time to troll the Avsim forums, I assume the Nav Data Update for the Citation X is ready?

Hey Ron,As you have time to troll the Avsim forums, I assume the Nav Data Update for the Citation X is ready?

And your order number would be?Actually... I don't really care... you're welcome to your opinion... no matter how flawed it may be. :(

And your order number would be?Actually... I don't really care... you're welcome to your opinion... no matter how flawed it may be. :(

Flawed? Please elucidate.

Your assumption is that Ron is the one writing the code. Flawed.Thus you managed to troll in a less than stellar manner. :(

Geez, I didn

Your assumption is that Ron is the one writing the code. Flawed.Thus you managed to troll in a less than stellar manner. :(

Oh, sorry. What does Ron do?

Oh, sorry. What does Ron do?

Spoken like someone who

I will if you will. That means you and your minions not showing up whenever the topic comes up telling people that software adaptation is "illegal." That's your opinion, and not the law. Which is my point exactly.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, to the point. I have no "minions". I do have independent individuals who are mature and able to speak for themselves without my input whatsoever and they are as free to do so as you are.Reread any forum post I've made and you'll easily find that I've not engaged in "legal hairsplitting" or "finer points" of any category of law.Why is that you may ask? The answer is quite simple...If I need to argue those points I'll do so with proper legal advice in the proper legal setting in an authoritive manner.Like it or not, I do understand the difference between "legal opinion" and "legal authority". Quite an important distinction wouldn't you say?Frankly, "Barbershop Law" in FS Forums bores me to tears. All this posturing and sputtering over "legal opinion" boils down to Bravo Sierra just before the threads become locked. :(

Hey Ron,As you have time to troll the Avsim forums, I assume the Nav Data Update for the Citation X is ready?

Bill, I don't have time to troll but do visit a number of forums each day to keep myself aware of what's going on in the community and of course post from time to time.To directly answer your question, the Navdata Service Upgrade has been in beta for a while now and we actually hope to have some pleasant news before Friday this week. :( Finally, if you've followed any of the threads I've been involved in you'll find that I often post in response to Bob and MGH since they seem to have adapted the role of antagonist toward me personally or toward my company. What their reasoning for that role may be escapes me at the moment. :(

Oh, sorry. What does Ron do?

Lots. :(

Beyond legalities, let's look at a simple hypothetical. What if the end user makes a modification to the program he "owns," then later on something seemingly unrelated goes wrong with the software? Then the end user needs to turn to the technical support resources of the software provider. Of course he never mentions his mod. And the problem with the software, the reason tech-support invested those hours, turns out to be related to that very modification made by the end user, made despite the requests of the software provider. End user would never have predicted that his small modification had larger ramifications, as he deemed himself familiar enough with the program's guts, its config files, etc. But he has just essentially taken money from the pocket of the software provider and put it into his own.

So what's your (and others') views on the use of scenery editing programs like AFCAD and air file editing programs like FDE? After all they create a modified copy of someone else's file - Microsoft's. Microsoft never publicly released details of either its .bgl or .air files for FS9. Microsoft's SDKs didn't cover those details. AFCAD, FDE, and similar programs were developed by hacking, or reverse engineering if you prefer - something prohibited by the EULA.

We have to distinguish, also, between FSX code and the code of 3rd parties. It's the code of 3rd parties, like Eaglesoft for example, that I think is being discussed here.

Why make the distinction? Surely Microsoft entitled to have its rights respected as much as anyone else?