You need to calm down a little, and ask yourself why you are so defensive about a product you dont own/like.

 

You seem to wish to have people respect and consider your opinion on a product you do not own and have no intention on purchasing, yet you have no intention whatsoever in respecting the decision of people who decided to purchase, enjoy and use the same product.

 

We are all big enough and ugly enough to make our own decisions, even though, as you put it "our heads are in the sand". If it is, then it is the prerogative of people in this forum, please let it be.

 

As for me being Avsim staff, I am a volunteer reporter, not a forum moderator or general staff, but even so, as an Avsim general member, I would find it hard to go to forums of products I dont own and tell people why I dont like what they purchased.

 

Will,

 

I'm very calm, how can I dislike a product I've never tried or own, so your wrong about me disliking P3D, lets have a little popcorn and discuss this a little more...

 

Let me apologize first for not asking about your banner, I was under the impression that all members with a banner were all on the same level at Avsim, my mistake.

 

I'll be buying P3D in a heartbeat (after their big patch to come) if their licenses were crystal clear, does that mean somebody else can't...of course not and I will respect their choice but why calling a duck something else.

 

Ian wrote this.. But frankly the Academic version seems to get very close in my interpretation.... so to me if you have to make your own interpretation of a license to feel better about using it ....something is wrong somewhere.

 

@ Dr V. Great post,

 

Of course you can buy a bedside table and use it in your living room, it's like installing a scenery on a hard drive or a SSD who care about where you will install it.

 

Following your reasonning, I can legally buy a semi automatic gun, add some modifications to it in a way that will makes it fully automatic, and get away with it since I first got it legally....and what about me posting my findings on how to modify my gun to make it fully automatic,.... please let me and others enjoy what we did with the gun........about asking the Feds on this...

 

Now, does the creator of the gun has the moral right to restrict you from doing so...I'd say YES but there will always be somebody who will not care about that since he's getting something out of it for personal gains.

If you bought a bedside table from Ikea, would it be right for them to prevent you from using it in your living room?

 

http://www.ikeahackers.net/

 

 

Good post, BTW.

 

H

http://www.ikeahackers.net/

 

 

Good post, BTW.

 

H

 

MOUgnagnahaha good one. :good:

Then you'll be aware that the Academic Licence authorises use

Since I am a developer and therefore have a Developer's License, the above is frankly irrelevant to me or my situation.

 

You once again adroitly side-step from my actual question. Perhaps I wasn't clear?

 

What business is any of this of your's? Why do you seem to feel your purpose in life is to act as everyone else's conscience?

 

The simple and plain facts are that you are doing more harm to the hobby than good with your constant carping.

Bill,

 

With all due respect (and I do respect your opinion very much so) lets be honest here, you do have a dog in this race, as a developer you are understandably making money (what ever the amount is) from your work, unless you are doing everything for free, and if you are working for free you are right as to say that this is irrelevant to your situation on all level and not only the license authorized use.

 

Having said that, you still have the right to express your opinion on the subject no matter what.

You once again adroitly side-step from my actual question. Perhaps I wasn't clear?

 

I didn't answer your question because it is irelevant to a discussion in forums like these. I am not answerable to you, or indeed, anyone for my opinions. As long as others give their opinions on the Academic Licence EULA, I shall continue to give mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a

Keep beating this horse and maybe he will die...

Unless you work for either LM or Microsoft... your opinion regarding the LM EULA and it's applicability to any given individual is of little value and serves no purpose.

 

Only LM and/or Microsoft have a stake in this entire discussion. Period.

 

As for developers allowing or disallowing their product(s) to be used in Prepar3D... it's a matter of legal liability, and gets extremely complex. Especially if their product(s) get used for real world training.

 

None of this issue is going to be resolved in these forums.

 

Until such time LM tells them otherwise, each individual will have to determine on their own whether they are or are not in violation of the EULA for Prepar3D. No one else is in a position to do so.

 

 

Ha ha. That's hilarious Efran!

Hahahaa good one Efran.....here is the other side of the fence.

 

 

 

 

 

In all fairness to everybody we (I) are just exchanging ideas on how we see things, opinions are debated and discussed, we are just simmers with differents views, to each is own but I will always debate what I thing is a distorded interpretation from some of the P3D Academic license.

Until such time LM tells them otherwise, each individual will have to determine on their own whether they are or are not in violation of the EULA for Prepar3D. No one else is in a position to do so.

 

It seems to me that LM could at any time issue a clarification of the Academic licence along the lines of "If you're not using it in an actual learning-to-fly scenario, you're in breach", yet they have pointedly failed to do so. It would seem to follow that they don't care. Possibly because they like the extra bit of revenue, or possibly because they get testers who don't mind paying them. (Well, it works for Carenado...) They only seem to care about not being seen to step on MS's toes in terms of what they say the license allows, but not enough to actually stop the great unwashed from using it. Microsoft can't be unaware of this either, but don't appear to be making any fuss about it, so I can't see why anyone else should either. If people are putting their own interpretation on what the licence allows, it's because the LM's information is sufficiently vague to allow them to do so. In fact, the word "Academic" doesn't even appear in the EULA, just in the store blurb. The EULA doesn't seem to distinguish between the versions at all.

 

No I don't have Prepar3d yet, but I am watching its progress with interest. If it starts to incorporate a couple of killer features, then I'll pull the purchase trigger.

 

And how are you supposed to pronounce "Prepar3d" anyway? Am I the only one who thinks it's a stupid name?

 

 

H

Good post H,

 

There is a reason why LM is so vague with their licenses, they changed the writing of their licenses at least once already.

 

LM is making money fo sure....are they making money only with the sales of their licenses? Is there other players behind the scene here? Who can really profit (money wise) from P3D after been kicked out of another project by MS?

 

That's where it all started, they needed to find a way to make the license work for them since MS showed them the door.

It seems to me that LM could at any time issue a clarification of the Academic licence along the lines of "If you're not using it in an actual learning-to-fly scenario, you're in breach",

 

From the Licence:

 

14.1 "Academic Education" means education programs for elementary through undergraduate students in fundamental academic disciplines such as science, technology, engineering and math, including history and social sciences related thereto, but NOT in connection with professional training or certification of any kind, including, but not limited to, military training, emergency responder training, commercial flight training, private pilot training, air traffic control training, airport ground control/logistics training, driver training or nautical training.

 

Note the NOT in capitals

Just two points:

 

1. Currently, paragraph 14.1 defines "Documentation". http://www.prepar3d....agreement-eula/ . The word "Academic" doesn't even appear.

 

2. Elsewhere on their site, it does say that: "the Prepar3D application is not to be used, offered, sold or distributed through markets or channels for use as a personal/consumer entertainment product." But they don't define what a personal entertainment product is. Dictionary definitions of "entertainment" seem to focus on entertainment of an audience. A flight simmer is not an audience however, he is a participant, so their definition still allows wiggle room.

 

Again, I suspect that this is deliberate. It would be very easy for LM to say, "FSX users should not use Prepar3d in the same way as they use FSX, because to do so is in breach of the licence." Have they ever said this? Even when asked for clarification?

 

I ask this, because I remember one response to a request for clarification from them which basically just repeated what the license said, and they seem to be going out of their way to neither approve of nor prohibit FSX-style use. A golden opportunity, one would think, to say "FSXers, this product is not for you" - if they wanted to.

 

H