Spoken like someone who's never worked a day.Man, that attitude burns me

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

The distinction seems pretty significant to me. Microsoft defines its own rights, just as the small 3rd party addon developers define their own. Microsoft has over the years pretty clearly taken a more open approach to the flightsim series, encouraging addons, releasing SDK's, obviously viewing the program more as a platform than as final product. They could have, at any moment, changed course and snatched those rights back up. They chose not to, but to instead allow others to develop payware. (Who developed the first payware addon? Did they ASK Microsoft? I don't know....) But how many 3rd party developers would there be if Microsoft had said "okay, we want 3rd parties to develop addons, but we won't allow them to assert or enforce basic EULA or copyright law"? There would be none. If you're going to encourage 3rd party developers, you've obviously got to give them the right to protect their own work. By the way, I see little PRACTICAL difference between "users may not modify this software" and "provider will not offer technical support to users who have modified this software." (One is just specifying a remedy for violation of a contract term, the other not.) Why would any small software company go after someone like Bob, or whomever was wanting to modify gau bitmaps, when there is no real economic gain in doing so?? It really only becomes a practical issue, I think, if someone were to start redistributing the modified work.

The distinction seems pretty significant to me. Microsoft defines its own rights, just as the small 3rd party addon developers define their own. Microsoft has over the years pretty clearly taken a more open approach to the flightsim series, encouraging addons, releasing SDK's, obviously viewing the program more as a platform than as final product. They could have, at any moment, changed course and snatched those rights back up. They chose not to, but to instead allow others to develop payware. (Who developed the first payware addon? Did they ASK Microsoft? I don't know....) But how many 3rd party developers would there be if Microsoft had said "okay, we want 3rd parties to develop addons, but we won't allow them to assert or enforce basic EULA or copyright law"? There would be none. If you're going to encourage 3rd party developers, you've obviously got to give them the right to protect their own work. By the way, I see little PRACTICAL difference between "users may not modify this software" and "provider will not offer technical support to users who have modified this software." (One is just specifying a remedy for violation of a contract term, the other not.) Why would any small software company go after someone like Bob, or whomever was wanting to modify gau bitmaps, when there is no real economic gain in doing so?? It really only becomes a practical issue, I think, if someone were to start redistributing the modified work.

Couldn't agree more. MS could have contacted us all to "cease and desist". Instead, we were asked to be the first to build an FSX Version for public showing....We complied and were happy to do so for obvious reasons. At no time did they interfere with normal business practice and the only restrictions were to stay within the NDA, SDK and of course the EULA for FSX.The distinction is important because they actually fostered a good relationship as opposed to having developers "hacking away" while looking over their shoulder.The imaginations of some that would have small devs trying to investigate and prosecute individuals for personal "adaptations" is ludicrous when one considers that there is zero ROI on such activity. :( Let them DISTRIBUTE copyrighted work and you have an entirely different story....

Spoken like someone who

You're wrong. But as stated above; "you're welcome to your opinion... no matter how flawed it may be." I asked a question reagarding Ron's role in a company from which I have purchased many products over the years. How that lead you to such a brief but insulting tirade is one for the professionals. Settle down. There is no need for that kind of behavior on this or any other flight sim forum. We are here to help each other.

Bill, I hope I've answered you question to your satisfaction. :(

Bill, I hope I've answered you question to your satisfaction. :(

Yes Ron. Thank you.

The distinction seems pretty significant to me. Microsoft defines its own rights, just as the small 3rd party addon developers define their own. Microsoft has over the years pretty clearly taken a more open approach to the flightsim series, encouraging addons, releasing SDK's, obviously viewing the program more as a platform than as final product. They could have, at any moment, changed course and snatched those rights back up. They chose not to, but to instead allow others to develop payware. (Who developed the first payware addon? Did they ASK Microsoft? I don't know....) But how many 3rd party developers would there be if Microsoft had said "okay, we want 3rd parties to develop addons, but we won't allow them to assert or enforce basic EULA or copyright law"? There would be none. If you're going to encourage 3rd party developers, you've obviously got to give them the right to protect their own work.

That reply sidesteps my question. Should we not respect Microsoft's EULA exactly the same way as we are expected to respect 3rd party developers' EULAs?The rest of your reply is a red-herring. I never suggested that Microsoft should/could interfere with 3rd party developers rights. My question is still should we not respect Microsoft's rights as set out in its EULA? It also didn't address the use of applications like AFCAD and FDE.This question has come up before and the responses tend to get a bit woolly - Microsoft has over the years pretty clearly taken a more open approach... 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

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. They are not actual code and thus can be legally reverse-engineered. Code can only be reverse-engineered under very specific conditions, of which FSUIPC most probably falls under. Reverse-engineering data files is not illegal under any circumstance that I can think of except if the data is part of a copy protection system.However, modifying copyright works for asthetic purposes is unlikely to fall under any allowable definition of 'adaptation'.

You're wrong. But as stated above; "you're welcome to your opinion... no matter how flawed it may be." I asked a question reagarding Ron's role in a company from which I have purchased many products over the years. How that led you to such a brief but insulting tirade is one for the professionals. Settle down. There is no need for that kind of behavior on this or any other flight sim forum. We are here to help each other.

Bill, you

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. They are not actual code and thus can be legally reverse-engineered. Code can only be reverse-engineered under very specific conditions, of which FSUIPC most probably falls under. Reverse-engineering data files is not illegal under any circumstance that I can think of except if the data is part of a copy protection system.However, modifying copyright works for asthetic purposes is unlikely to fall under any allowable definition of 'adaptation'.

The Microsoft EULA actually reads:END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR “MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2004: A CENTURY OF FLIGHT”IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: This Microsoft End-User License Agreement (“EULA”) is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, and “online” or electronic documentation (“SOFTWARE PRODUCT”)...Editors. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT contains a software Editor, or a software Editor is made available to you by Microsoft for use with the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you may use the Editor only in conjunction with that content specifically identified in the documentation for use with the Editor. If no content files are identified, you may not use content or other files from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT with the Editor. 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.Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. Note that the EULA applies to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT which is defined as including computer software and associated media, printed products and online or electronic documentation. None of the latter contain code. What is your justification for claiming the EULA doesn't cover the .air or .bgl files when they are clearly part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT?

Just like OpenOffice can read/write every single format for Microsoft Office files. It is legal to reverse-engineer data files, that can not be obstructed except where said data is directly tied to copy protection.The courts have upheld this, repeatedly. You are interpreting the term 'SOFTWARE PRODUCT' as you see fit, and incorrectly.Here's the EULA's definition:"This Microsoft End-User License Agreement (

From my limited understanding EULA

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. :(

I disagree with you on issues like this one...is expressing disagreement now "antagonism" in your eyes?? And as to the "personal" nature of things, I'm arguing on the issue, whereas you and your minions are the ones who attack the person and not his argument.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Correct Danny.The right to "pull out the big guns" if required is implicit if not directly expressed..Some tend to forget that in the real world these matters often go to "intent" as well as the letter. :(

I disagree with you on issues like this one...is expressing disagreement now "antagonism" in your eyes?? And as to the "personal" nature of things, I'm arguing on the issue, whereas you and your minions are the ones who attack the person and not his argument.Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, I have no problem on the issue of "disagreement over opinions". I think we all know the old saw about "opinions are like a holes, everyone has one, and they all stink" :( As to the personal aspect, I need only point out that you've now repeated a false allegation when you state that I somehow have "minions".Having addressed that issue up thread is it any wonder that I perceive a bit of antagonism in your and MGHs posts? :(