Sick of the same people posting the same nonsense about 'EULA this and EULA that'. You have your answer DIRECT from LM. What more is needed?

Strider is right, the legal terms are binding, but as to whether you give a hoot or not is a different story. Microsoft still owns the code, Lockheed Martin is just licensing it. It's entirely possible that Microsoft could will ask for more money when it comes time to renew the license -- especially when they catch on that a lot of people are abusing the developer's license and are not actually developing content. I would probably encourage people to buy the $499 Commercial version because this is what both Microsoft and Lockheed Martin is intending you to buy. EULA's do matter.Lastly I find it humorous that people who are abusing the Developers license feel they are in a position to ask Lockheed to give them new features, which could potentially break compatibility for customers who actually bothered to pay the Commercial license costs.

Now load up all your addons!

Too lazy. Just tried a few that needed no effort moving from FSX to P3D. No complex ones in other words.

Sick of the same people posting the same nonsense about 'EULA this and EULA that'. You have your answer DIRECT from LM. What more is needed?

A change in theP3D EULA?

Strider is right, the legal terms are binding, but as to whether you give a hoot or not is a different story.Microsoft still owns the code, Lockheed Martin is just licensing it. It's entirely possible that Microsoft could will ask for more money when it comes time to renew the license -- especially when they catch on that a lot of people are abusing the developer's license and are not actually developing content. I would probably encourage people to buy the $499 Commercial version because this is what both Microsoft and Lockheed Martin is intending you to buy. EULA's do matter.Lastly I find it humorous that people who are abusing the Developers license feel they are in a position to ask Lockheed to give them new features, which could potentially break compatibility for customers who actually bothered to pay the Commercial license costs.

I find it HUMOROUS that you pretend to know what LOCKHEED and MICROSOFT motives are, and details of their contractual arrangements.Where did you DREAM UP a "Renewable License" !!! {sigh}"Abusing Developers License" ??? {sigh} That surely did not come from Lockheed !!!

1. A commitement to the community rather then the same old line about 'Commercial Grade Product"2. Answering emails from PMDG and other developers.3. Some guarantee that they are being honest. It is Lockheed Martin, probably the most crooked company on the planet, who we FIRED as a contractor because they flat out lied to us through their teeth./Yes I am biased against them due to my previous dealings with Lockheed Martin.

1) Its LM's EULA. The same lawyers that said its ok for ANYONE to use P3D. If LM say its ok to use P3D, who are you afraid of 'suing' you?2) Which 'other' developers? FSDT, Orbx, FSUIPC, REX (I could go on) have had zero issues. In fact in other threads, the P3D lead dev has stated he recieved ZERO communication from PMDG. The dev has now sent a PM to PMDG to rectify this issue.3) What? What kind of silly statement is that?

I find it HUMOROUS that you pretend to know what LOCKHEED and MICROSOFT motives are, and details of their contractual arrangements.Where did you DREAM UP a "Renewable License" !!! {sigh}"Abusing Developers License" ??? {sigh} That surely did not come from Lockheed !!!

Oh Sorry, I thought what I said was common knowledge out side of my field (I'm a software developer). Because knowing what the limitations of your license agreement are is a pretty serious matter. Because if you are caught violating your license agreement (which we term Abusing a License) it can be a problem either legally or financially.Since Lockheed does not own the rights to Microsoft's code, they purchased a site license which allows them to make modifications to the code. Of course I do not pretend to know the details of their contractual arrangements, but based on my own experience as having gone through site license negotiations, with Microsoft, there is no such thing as an indefinite site license in our field -- and that is especially true with Microsoft. When their contractual term expires they have to renew the license or drop the software.What concerns me is people are convincing others to buy the $10 a month subscription fee for the Developer's license as a way to avoid paying for a $500 commercial license. Lockheed might not give a flying hoot if a few hardcore flight simmers are using their Developer edition. But if a lot of simmer's make the Development version of P3D their home without upgrading to the more expensive version, this could potentially be a problem for both parties because that's not really the intention of the Development version ... otherwise they would have called it something else and given it a more appropriate End User Licensing Agreement. This makes owing a Developer's license and assuming you are all good a fickle proposition. Because the terms can easily change right under your feet.In other word I'll make a diagram for you ...Microsoft is the Landlord ==> Lockheed is the Renter ==> People with the Development version of P3D are paying $10 to crash on the couch. However a $500 Commercial upgrade gets you a parking space with your name on it.