If someone will provide me with an alternative address at Microsoft, I'll send my question there.Better still, perhaps a commercial developer could provide copies of correspondence (letters/emails) from Microsoft confirming that a Commercial Licence isn't required.

I think at this point no one need waste their time providing you with anything whatsoever. The thread serves no purpose.

Splitting legal hairs may be an enjoyable experience for forum users but at the end of the day the pro/con positions taken usually have little consequence.This one appears to be approaching that same end.

Can we assume from the last two posts that the developer concerned has neither correspondence from Microsoft confirming that a Commercial Licence isn't required nor a Commercial Licence?

You can ASSUME anything you want and you have already proven what happens when you do so.

Can we assumes that's another developer who has neither correspondence from Microsoft confirming that a Commercial Licence isn't required nor a Commercial Licence?

I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, THAT ANSWER!

Microsoft stated in writing that commercially distributing add-ons for FSX + Acceleration is not permitted under the EULA and that a Commercial Licence is needed.Despite the replies - many full of sound and fury, signifying nothing – that remains Microsoft’s position until someone provides a written statement from it to the contrary.Let's leave it at that.

Microsoft stated in writing that commercially distributing add-ons for FSX + Acceleration is not permitted under the EULA and that a Commercial Licence is needed.Despite the replies - many full of sound and fury, signifying nothing – that remains Microsoft’s position until someone provides a written statement from it to the contrary.Let's leave it at that.

I disgree with you 1000%. Microsoft never stated that. I also believe you know they never stated that. The question you asked was sent to the wrong group at Microsoft. Your lack of knowledge regarding what you are 'stirring the pot' about has resulted in a flawed question combined with a flawed response.Garbage in, garbage out.It is completely and totally legal to make commercial addons for Microsoft Flight Simulator. It is not legal to make a product that includes Microsoft Flight Simulator without a commercial license. Your attempts to "clarify" all of this is a typical lawyerly approach that tends to make things far more messy than it really is.I can state officially (as in I have personal experience on this) that Microsoft's legal department is extremely well aware that commercial developers are making addons for Microsoft Flight Simulator. I can state officially (as in I have personal experience on this) that they have stated what is and isn't allowed (based on questions specifically asked of their legal department regarding addon creation). I can state officially that unless you're explicitly hacking Microsoft Flight Simulator to get at underlying data that's copyrighted by a third party (nav data, terrain data, etc), that as long as you develop within the constraints of the SDK provided, Microsoft not only condones but embraces the development.Now... unless you can bring a Microsoft legal department individual into this to conversation to refute my statements... the discussion's over. And yes, I would be willing to state the above in court, on the record, under oath.

I disgree with you 1000%. Microsoft never stated that. I also believe you know they never stated that. The question you asked was sent to the wrong group at Microsoft. Your lack of knowledge regarding what you are 'stirring the pot' about has resulted in a flawed question combined with a flawed response.Garbage in, garbage out.It is completely and totally legal to make commercial addons for Microsoft Flight Simulator. It is not legal to make a product that includes Microsoft Flight Simulator without a commercial license. Your attempts to "clarify" all of this is a typical lawyerly approach that tends to make things far more messy than it really is.I can state officially (as in I have personal experience on this) that Microsoft's legal department is extremely well aware that commercial developers are making addons for Microsoft Flight Simulator. I can state officially (as in I have personal experience on this) that they have stated what is and isn't allowed (based on questions specifically asked of their legal department regarding addon creation). I can state officially that unless you're explicitly hacking Microsoft Flight Simulator to get at underlying data that's copyrighted by a third party (nav data, terrain data, etc), that as long as you develop within the constraints of the SDK provided, Microsoft not only condones but embraces the development.Now... unless you can bring a Microsoft legal department individual into this to conversation to refute my statements... the discussion's over. And yes, I would be willing to state the above in court, on the record, under oath.

I would re-read his question, whatever his motives, (and I do think now he had ulterior motives in asking it) where do you see he wants to distribute FSX with it? He clearly states he wants to develop addons for it. As for who he sent it to, if that site was where it went to from posting in the link in the Games content usage rules, then that is the correct place to ask, whether you think so or not, he just didn't pick that address from thin air.. Whether we like it or not it doesn't change MS position on this, because we don't like the answer. Remember MS has higher paid lawyers, then any of us!I think though the biggest concern to developers though, would be this sectionWhat if I create something new in your universe?If you add to the game universe or expand on the story told in the game with “lost chapters” or back story or anything like that, distribution of your Item in any form constitutes a grant by you of a royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferable, worldwide, license to Microsoft and any of Microsoft’s partners to use and distribute that Item (and derivatives of that Item) for any purpose and without obligation to pay you anything or credit you. This means that your story or idea may appear in a future game without any compensation to you. (Sorry, but our lawyers tell us we need to do this in order to avoid frivolous lawsuits getting in the way of making more great games.)Which indicates that MS can use any new addon for any purpose royalty free. Can you see MS taking the addons for FSX and uing them in Flight or some other app, without having to pay or even give credit to the original developer?

This is getting sillier and sillier.Read now an email from Michael Zykowski, then Program Manager, Developer Relations regarding DevCon 2007 (emphasis in red mine):

What: Microsoft DevCon 2007When: November 7-9, 2007Where: Bellevue Hilton, Bellevue, WashingtonCost: $325The focus of this event will be developer education and community feedback structured into 3 tracks over 2 ½ days:

• Platform Technology and Core Extensibility
• Product Franchise Extensibility
• Academic and Non-Entertainment Initiatives

This will be an opportunity to interface directly with the Aces development team through presentations, panel discussions, private meetings, and informal discussions.Seats are filling up fast, and once we hit our attendance limit we will close registration. We are not planning any broadcast or other publication of the material outside of the event; in-person attendance is the only way to guarantee you have the latest and greatest information you need to be successful in your development of add-ons for any of the Microsoft Aces Studio products.Reminder: You will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in order to gain access to the information. This is a Microsoft standard, reciprocal NDA that covers the transfer of confidential information both to/from attendees and Microsoft. This way your information is protected as well as ours.Thanks – and we hope to see you in November!Michael ZyskowskiProgram Manager, Developer RelationsMicrosoft Aces Game Studio

Note that the list of invitees included all "commercial developers" as well as a very large cross-section of the "freeware developers."That this, as well as the first DevCon held in 2005 had the full backing and support of Microsoft is patently obvious.

I agree that that was Aces policy back then, but they are no longer there, and there's the line in the usage rules that they can revoke or change any use license at anytime. (Isn't nice how they make sure they have all the power!!)

I agree that that was Aces policy back then, but they are no longer there, and there's the line in the usage rules that they can revoke or change any use license at anytime. (Isn't nice how they make sure they have all the power!!)

No, that was Microsoft's policy. ACES was a contract studio under the aegis of Microsoft Game Studio. Yes, MS does reserve the right to modify or revoke their permission, but I've seen no convincing evidence to support them trying to lock the barn after the horse has been freely roaming the countryside for the past many years...

No, that was Microsoft's policy. ACES was a contract studio under the aegis of Microsoft Game Studio. Yes, MS does reserve the right to modify or revoke their permission, but I've seen no convincing evidence to support them trying to lock the barn after the horse has been freely roaming the countryside for the past many years...

Nor have I....

The email is from microsoft.com and so it's what Microsoft has now stated - whatever it may, or may not, have stated in the past.It came from Mike Humphreys "Director, Business Development at Microsoft Game Studios." It was cc'd to Scott Andersen "Business Manager at Microsoft Greater Seattle Area | Computer Software Current: Business Manager at Microsoft, Business Development Manager at Microsoft/Aces, Business Manager at Microsoft Game Studios" and to William Chen "Business Development and Licencing at Microsoft Games Studios"http://www.linkedin....-mike/3/870/784http://www.linkedin..../Scott/Andersenhttp://www.microsoft...fm3credits.aspxAs far as Microsoft not making changes, it is instructive to compare the FS9 and FSX SDK EULAs. FSX EULA is more restrictive than FS9's - no rights over sample code or redistributables.