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....

What I get out of this is that Eaglesoft knowingly disregarded the Microsoft EULA where it suited them...how else do I interpret their leader stating that MS could have told them to stop?So why would it then be wrong for any one of us to disregard the Eaglesoft EULA...Eaglesoft could, after all, contact any one of us to "cease and desist."That appears to me the moral justification for adaptation in the privacy of your own home. Disregard the EULA where it suits you up to the point where the company contacts you. Works for Eaglesoft...works for me.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

What I get out of this is that Eaglesoft knowingly disregarded the Microsoft EULA where it suited them...how else do I interpret their leader stating that MS could have told them to stop?

Well, if that's what you get out of this... you certainly missed a great deal.Eaglesoft has not violated the Microsoft Flight Simulator EULA. At no point has it been shown to be implied, let alone factual... unless I count your 'get out of this'.Your 'interpretation' is quite clearly a blatant attempt to make a claim that is not in evidence by any factor of common sense.As in all, and I do mean all of your prior posts... you will grasp at absolutely anything in an attempt to justify your own personal actions.Oh, and I'm not a minion... that is an insulting and derogatory term being used by you.

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? :(

Ron, I've been in numerous forum discussions like this where the whole Eaglesoft team shows up and chimes in. That is what I refer to as your "minions." It's when you and your employees start taking turns cutting loose with the personal crap like Ed's comments about mgh "hiding," and you attacking my qualifications to even have an opinion--then you guys start to look like a scraggly WWF tag team.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Well, if that's what you get out of this... you certainly missed a great deal.Eaglesoft has not violated the Microsoft Flight Simulator EULA. At no point has it been shown to be implied, let alone factual... unless I count your 'get out of this'.Your 'interpretation' is quite clearly a blatant attempt to make a claim that is not in evidence by any factor of common sense.As in all, and I do mean all of your prior posts... you will grasp at absolutely anything in an attempt to justify your own personal actions.Oh, and I'm not a minion... that is an insulting and derogatory term being used by you.

You know Ed, I looked up the word "minion" and didn't see anything there in the dictionary identifying the term as a perjorative. Ron's the boss, you're the subordinate...the dictionary definition fits.If Eaglesoft hasn't knowingly violated the Microsoft EULA, why would your boss tell us here that MS could have sent a "cease and desist" letter for what you were doing? He acknowledges that what you were doing was something that MS had a right to stop. It sure seems clear enough to me...you want to have it both ways.One of my old AF commanders once old me that the hardest standard to enforce is one that you don't meet yourself.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

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.

.Where it's legal to reverse-engineer files that's only to determine their structure, not their content. which is still protected by by copyright law. For example, you can't reverse-engineer a .doc file, a .bgl, or .air file and then use the copyright information in the file. The contents of these files are still copyright. You can't steal someones copyright by claiming to have reversed engineered the file containing it.AFCAD surely reads Microsoft's copyringht information for a .bgl file then creates a new modified version of it?

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 ("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"). The SOFTWARE PRODUCT also includes any updates and supplements to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT provided to you by Microsoft."Please note that it does not state that any and all files installed/created/provided are part of the legal definition of 'SOFTWARE PRODUCT'. The term 'associated media', on the surface, is a rather generic term that one might imply includes the files... except media is a form of information presentation by definition. Thus it would actually be applicable to any audio/video that is included as part of the 'SOFTWARE PRODUCT'.If you live in the US, the DMCA generally prohibits reverse engineering if you have to circumvent a "copy protection technology" to do so, but it makes specific exception for circumventing it for the purpose of making something compatiable with the format.

Your interpretation, that Computer software is only program files is novel. My interpretation of Microsoft's definition that SOFTWARE PRODUCT covers everything provided the sensible and obvious one - especially as reverse engineering not not give any rights to copyright data. The last sentence you included (which I had omitted for clarity) - The SOFTWARE PRODUCT also includes any updates and supplements to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT provided to you by Microsoft- supports my view. Fs9 SP1 updates and supplements FS9 and adds .bgl files.

Well... you certainly know how to stretch definitions to suit your purpose. However... it won't hold up in court.I realize you won't agree with that... because you couldn't agree with me if I stated we live on the same planet.I know, for a fact that modification of .air files is 100% legal. I even know why. I leave it to you to figure out whatever would give me that view. There is a reason, and it's something that Microsoft said/did.I know, for a fact that creating your own .bgl files is 100% legal. I even know why. I leave it to you to figure out whatever would give me that view. There is a reason, and it's something that Microsoft said/did.Note... I said they said/did something... that's active afirmation, not passive allowance.

.Where it's legal to reverse-engineer files that's only to determine their structure, not their content. which is still protected by by copyright law. For example, you can't reverse-engineer a .doc file, a .bgl, or .air file and then use the copyright information in the file. The contents of these files are still copyright. You can't steal someones copyright by claiming to have reversed engineered the file containing it.

The part I highlighted... is a literal impossibility. The 'content' of a Microsoft Word document can and is modified by OpenOffice. Thus based on your claim, it violates the copyright.

What I get out of this is that Eaglesoft knowingly disregarded the Microsoft EULA where it suited them...how else do I interpret their leader stating that MS could have told them to stop?So why would it then be wrong for any one of us to disregard the Eaglesoft EULA...Eaglesoft could, after all, contact any one of us to "cease and desist."That appears to me the moral justification for adaptation in the privacy of your own home. Disregard the EULA where it suits you up to the point where the company contacts you. Works for Eaglesoft...works for me.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob, with all due respect you appear to be a bit irrational in your antagonistic approach here. My remarks should have been quoted in total. By trying to "get out of this" whatever you would like by taking statements out of context you've shown blatant ignorance and misunderstanding.Context is a very important thing Bob. A reread of my entire statement follows:"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.... "Please note the "Couldn't agree more" statement was in response to Sprintz's post and the "MS could have contacted us all to "cease and desist". is reference to the fact that if an NDA, SDK, or EULA were violated in any manner by any developer that Microsoft retained the right to hand any 3PD a "cease and desist".The next statement references the fact that Microsoft initiated the request and provided the NDA, SDK, and of course the EULA and no where in that statement can anyone in their right mind construe that Eaglesoft has somehow violated the terms of any aggreement with Microsoft. For you to make blatantly false claims with no other basis than your opinion and "what you get out of this" causes me to wonder about your motives? :(The facts of the matter are clear. Microsoft requested, we complied and delivered and both Microsoft and Eaglesoft continue our relationship to this day without acrimony or "imagined breaking" of a EULA. :(

Well... you certainly know how to stretch definitions to suit your purpose. However... it won't hold up in court.I realize you won't agree with that... because you couldn't agree with me if I stated we live on the same planet.I know, for a fact that modification of .air files is 100% legal. I even know why. I leave it to you to figure out whatever would give me that view. There is a reason, and it's something that Microsoft said/did.I know, for a fact that creating your own .bgl files is 100% legal. I even know why. I leave it to you to figure out whatever would give me that view. There is a reason, and it's something that Microsoft said/did.Note... I said they said/did something... that's active afirmation, not passive allowance.

Would you care to share your knowledge with the rest of us?EDIT: I never said creating you own .bgl wasn't legal. Microsoft provides a compilier for us to do it. Modifying Microsoft's. bgl files is an infringement of copyright.

The part I highlighted... is a literal impossibility. The 'content' of a Microsoft Word document can and is odified by OpenOffice. Thus based on your claim, it violates the copyright.

If I have copyright in the contents of a Word document it doesn't matter what you use to open it, the content still remains my copyright. It is an infringement of copyright to copy or modify it withou permission.

Bill, you

Well... you certainly know how to stretch definitions to suit your purpose. However... it won't hold up in court.I realize you won't agree with that... because you couldn't agree with me if I stated we live on the same planet.I know, for a fact that modification of .air files is 100% legal. I even know why. I leave it to you to figure out whatever would give me that view. There is a reason, and it's something that Microsoft said/did.I know, for a fact that creating your own .bgl files is 100% legal. I even know why. I leave it to you to figure out whatever would give me that view. There is a reason, and it's something that Microsoft said/did.Note... I said they said/did something... that's active afirmation, not passive allowance.The part I highlighted... is a literal impossibility. The 'content' of a Microsoft Word document can and is modified by OpenOffice. Thus based on your claim, it violates the copyright.

Microsoft provides editors for .air files, so modifying them is allowed in their EULA. I agree with Ed on that point. :( But let's look at the Eaglesoft Citation X version 2, which uses FSUIPC to do throttle control. FSUIPC is a program which was created through substantial community effort to reverse engineer FS, something that's clearly not permitted in the Microsoft EULA, but overlooked by them for a long time. We know that MS has tacitly allowed the continued development of FSUIPC...but it's also clear to me that one can't comply with the EULA in its entirety and still have developed that program.I can't give Eaglesoft a position on the high ground when they're using the fruits of known circumventions of the Microsoft FS EULAs done by many others to make their own products run. There's lots of gray area here.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Microsoft provides editors for .air files, so modifying them is allowed in their EULA. I agree with Ed on that point. :( But let's look at the Eaglesoft Citation X version 2, which uses FSUIPC to do throttle control. FSUIPC is a program which was created through substantial community effort to reverse engineer FS, something that's clearly not permitted in the Microsoft EULA, but overlooked by them for a long time. We know that MS has tacitly allowed the continued development of FSUIPC...but it's also clear to me that one can't comply with the EULA in its entirety and still have developed that program.I can't give Eaglesoft a position on the high ground when they're using the fruits of known circumventions of the Microsoft FS EULAs done by many others to make their own products run. There's lots of gray area here.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

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. :(

But ACES did support and promote modification. For them the benefit was greater than the harm.So I don

Microsoft provides editors for .air files, so modifying them is allowed in their EULA. I agree with Ed on that point. :(

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.

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

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.

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.

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?