I will keep this brief as possible, as I do not wish to add acres of bandwidth to a much discussed subject. I have restrained myself from commenting until, like everyone else, I saw the evidence, and I have not been privy to any information other than what the entire Sim Community has recently seen.I worked for the Maam-team for one reason: I wanted to contribute to a team which has some of the the very best designers, which was committed to producing a wonderful aircraft and wanted to raise funds for a rare aircraft collection. Though I am a partner in my own aircraft design organisation I take on free work where I wish. I think this a good combination and I do not wish to be known solely as a commercial producer of addons.As a result of working with the Maam team it has been my pleasure to collaborate with a team of extremely civilised people. I have no hidden agenda and I am not tied to any loyalty except that which I choose as a result of my personal dealings.There has been much comment about "legality", "contracts" and various in-depth details regarding Maam vs RCS. I have seen many comments about Bill Rambow, yet the statement from Maam was issued not by Bill but by Russ, the president of Maam, whose only motivation is to keep the Maam museum healthy and vibrant. Whatever opinions exist about the arguments between personalities there is, in my view, above and beyond this, a clear case of abuse of trust.The accusations of "payware" giant attempting to slay a freeware developer gratuitously are completely wrong. I would remind everyone that the Maam team designers take not one penny from their work, and took their respective tasks on board for the pleasure of it, and because of their pride in their work. The only entity which benefits from sales is the Maam museum and the maintenance of its aircraft. The design team earns nothing.The most important point many have missed is the issue of INTENT. Russ was honest enough to point out that amongst the huge quantity of material, it was possible that unwittingly a very small proportion of the Maam-produced aircraft may have contained Roy Chaffins preparation work, but that work was always in any case clearly understood by all parties to be not Roy's property but Maam's, just as all of Bill's work is likewise Maam's property. It is inconceivable that anyone in the Maam team would have DELIBERATELY included questionable material since doing so would clearly have ruined their contentions on this very issue from the very start. But I am convinced that Maam have behaved honourably. Such mistakes as were made represent a very small proportion of the whole.I think the RCS aircraft is of a very high standard and there is much to be admired in it. But it is obvious to me that the copying of a considerable amount material from Maam's work was INTENDED, and it clearly saved RCS much labour. To me that represents a distinction that cannot be overlooked. We are not talking here of give and take, or of equal blame, but on the one side perhaps a couple of oversights, and on the other a quite deliberate attempt to borrow material and then to cover up the borrowing.To me it doesn't matter too much about the legalities, the key is in the INTENTIONS of the actions. It is a matter of morality, not legality.That is all I wish to say. Regards to all,Rob Young

"It is a matter of morality, not legality.That is all I wish to say."And very well said indeed, Rob. Thank you.

Quite right Rob, and well stated. Don't let the Bush Lawyers get you down!

completely right Rob.well said.so there are some decent human beings.....