Assuming that many payware and addon creators frequent this forum I wonder if you can give me your opinion/experience concerning this topic.If I'm beating a dead horse here, please let me know where I can find more info. All I found was one old thread regarding FSUIPC.Anyway, here it goes:The FS9 EULA states:"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."Considering that there are official SDKs, the line is obviously blurry to where something is considered reverse engineered.But correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't the following examples of payware impossible without a certain degree of reverse engineering:FSUIPC: obviouslyMyTraffc, Ultimate Traffic, whatever traffic: airport data extraction (for flight plans and AFCAD data)Active Camera...I'm sure there are countless others that use more than the M$ published information. Please let me know what you think or any insight in terms of how that is handled by M$.

I don't think any of these fall into that category. Microsoft is also well aware of all of these tools and has not made any effort to block those who make them. When Pete took FSUIPC payware, I mentioned that it wouldn't have been possible without the tools based on FSUIPC that made it such a great tool to have. MSFS's sales would also suffer were it to become closed to third party development--all the tools out there, many of which you mention, make it a stronger product. An example of reverse engineering would be the NO_CD patch--actually taking the code, breaking it apart, and changing it. None of the utilities you mention change code or modify it. And many of them evolved out of SDK's that Microsoft promotes.-John

I guess my main question would be - Why do you care? Since these products have been available for a long time I would venture a guess that if MS cared about it they would have done something by now.Also, FYI, the developer of FSUIPC worked WITH MS to develop the product for FS9.In answer to your other question - Yes, you ARE beating a dead horse. Go fly and enjoy yourself.VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/images/as2004proudsupporter.jpg

MS fully supports addons. They even encourage it (that is why they release SDKs)That disclaimer just means that someone can't reverse engineer the software and make their own flight sim off of it (if that would even be possible). Anyway, it is Friday, quit reading the EULA and go out and have some fun! :)

I care because I am a software developer and I recently found the time to do the research into an addon I have been envisioning for a long time now but wasn't sure it is possible.I think I gathered all the info I need and I think I can do it pretty much as I hoped for it to be. Now I am worried that I start spending a lot of time on it just to be told by a publisher that it would be a problem to release it (because of the reverse engineering clause).My addon functionality would be based on extracted BGL data, use FSUIPC and add additional functionality to FS. I do not mess with FS code any more than FSUIPC or other modules do. But in a sense I combine all issues from the apps mentioned in my post (btw. my product will not compete with any of them, nor any addon I am aware of).I assumed it won't be a problem but before I spend all this time I thought I gather some feedback.Matthias

Even my own application, Landclass Assistant, is based on research into bgl data made by intrepid users. Some of those users examined the bgls in order to make tools like Landclass Assistant, EZLandclass, FSLandclass, etc... possible. All these tools have reaped a huge benefit for Microsoft, as they've been used to augment/improve/patch issues in both FS2002 and FS2004. But I do understand your concern, as there are some software developers out there who release product with heavy restrictions on what can be done. MSFS has a long history of being the opposite.

It's not easy to have a clear answer. Here are some infos gathered through the internet:European Union Directive, (Software Copyright Protection) 14 May 1991: Article 6: Decompilation 1. The authorization of the rightholder shall not be required where reproduction of the code and translation of its form within the meaning of Article 4 (a) and (:( are indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:...This, translated, means that you do not need "the authorization of the rightholder" like you would for 4a (temporary reproduction of a program) or 4b (translation, adaption, arrangement and any other alteration of a program) if this is necessary to debug and/or run the software you have bought. The "following conditions" are that you do it yourself and only insofern as you deem to need it really.Note -what's even MORE important for reverse engineering- that at article 5 there are some EXCEPTIONS to the restricted acts:Article 5: Exceptions to the restricted acts 1. In the absence of specific contractual provisions, the acts referred to in Article 4 (a) and (:( shall not require authorization by the rightholder where they are necessary for the use of the computer program by the lawful acquirer in accordance with its intended purpose, including for error correction. 2. The making of a back-up copy by a person having a right to use the computer program may not be prevented by contract insofar as it is necessary for that use. 3. The person having a right to use a copy of a computer program shall be entitled, without the authorization of the rightholder, to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.Here is an interesting snippet about disassembling and law in the States, 1992Disassembly of Object CodeSega v. Accolade, decided by the Ninth Circuit in 1992, makes clear that, in certain instances, the unauthorized disassembly of a computer program's object code in order to derive source code is not a copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit applied the 'fair use' balancing test to determine that Accolade's use of reverse engineering techniques to produce an 'intermediate copy' of Sega's source code did not constitute copyright infringement. Accolade never distributed the intermediate copy commercially, but instead used it only to extract unprotectable ideas

I think you are probably right that under US law, copyright does not restrict reverse engineering under fair use, except if the reverse engineering is to learn copy protection devices, as defined under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.In this case, though, the question seems to be that if software is sold via a licensing agreement scheme, if the terms of the license supercede rights which normally would be available under the Copyright Act. I'm no laywer, but I suspect in the US these sorts of disputes are covered under applicable state law (I imagine the EULA specifies that the laws of Washington State are applicable) via contract law or the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Note that there has been an attempt to revise the UCC to restrict the rights of software licensees. There was a tremendous uproar from groups like EFF and USACM. The proposed new section IIRC was enacted in Virginia State, but nowhere else as states were lobbied. I think now the group which puts together the UCC has withdrawn the proposed section and there is not yet agreement on terms. scott s..

So why do you come in here screaming that others are in violation of the license?Wouldn't it be better to go to Microsoft with that suspicion and your own request to be allowed to do what you want to do instead of trying to inflame the community?You sound like just another lowlife troll to me, or maybe someone attempting to justify his own illegal activities by claiming that it's no problem because everyone else does it too...

JeroenIf it were me, I'd have you banned from the forum for that tirade.... Kind of a final straw. He explained his reasons, and as a software developer I understand his concern, even if you don't. Sending an alert to the mods....-John

What the heck is an Avsim Chat Operator? Anyway, if your post is what they do, I don't think I want to be one!Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

I'd imagine that the purpose of the "reverse engineering" clause in the EULA is to provide MS with enhanced legal grounds to prosecute those who would steel MS code for use in competing products, or strip copy protection scemes for the purpose of piracy. There would be no reason for MS to go after people who create items that enhance the value of MS programs, even though they might be in technical violation of the EULA.David

Wow, I can't believe I get flamed like this !Jeroen, if you read my post you will see that I have not made any accusations but just stated a question. If you refer to the postings title, that was just an attention getter so people are more tempted to take a peak inside and give me their opinion (in your case that worked a little too well, I guess).I'd be the last one to inflame the community with this kind of accusation as I would accuse myself then in terms of the project I am working on.John,thanks for the support.Matthias

> That disclaimer just means that someone can't reverse engineer the> software and make their own flight sim off of it (if that would> even be possible). >> Craig from KBUF>>There would be no reason for MS to go after>people who create items that enhance the value of MS programs,>even though they might be in technical violation of the EULA.>>David> I think this is probably the key to this issue. As long as I use the result of my reverse engineering work to enhance the FS experience and increase it's value I won't have a problem.Thanks for all the feedback, so far. I feel a lot more comfortable to continue on. I don't even touch their code anyway, which is probably a lot more of an issue than just extracting data or adding a module.Matthias