End User Agreements

[GoranM 3,772]

I noticed a bit of confusion about end user agreements and the rights of the user.

So I'll try to clear it up a bit.

When you buy an add-on from a developer or publisher, you do not "own" the add on. What you have actually paid for is a license to run the add-on on your computer with the developer being obliged to offer support should there be any issues.

If you, as the end user, choose to make any modifications to an add-on, without informing or obtaining consent from the developer, you are voiding any support you are entitled to.

[Dozer 1]

Thanks for explaining this Goran - as you've developed many aircraft you must have had this conversation with confused users many times.

 

What do you think about users privately modifying the aircraft for their own use, without redistributing, without expecting support? Your/X-A's Terms of Service explicitly prohibit this. I hear suggestions it's a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy and X-A don't really care what users do in private, but if this is X-A's attitude why doesn't the ToS just say 'If you modify the files, we are not obliged to offer support' instead of 'modifying the files is prohibited, if you do it or discuss how to do it, your licences are void'? (That was a paraphrase.)

 

I'd like to buy a licence to receive digital files which are expected to produce a certain result (for example, to simulate a particular aircraft in the X-Plane simulator), and to receive support if it doesn't work as expected/advertised. But I'd like to make local copies of those files and make modifications to them, for my own private non-redistributed use, without entitlement to support, with the blessing of the developers and the publisher.

 

The sort of modifications I'm talking about:

- change datarefs in the .obj file (for example, changing the DME readouts and frequency selectors to my own twin-standalone-DME plugin instead of the VOR DMEs)

- change animations in the .obj file (for example, hiding the flap assemblies if the flaps had failed)

- fixing minor bugs in advance of an official fix (for example, swapping the flood and post lighting rheostat datarefs so the function matches the labels)

- changing the flight model in Planemaker (for example, altering the flap limit speeds to a different margin of error for 'gameplay'/taste reasons)

- adding a pilot figure object, visible in external view

[GoranM 3,772]

Actually, I haven't had anyone ask about making changes to anything I made. Don't know why.

 

To sum up what I want to say, basically, don't ask, don't tell. If you modify something, be aware of the potential issues (which can be quite extensive in some cases).

If you modify something and want to publish it, ask the developer/publisher for permission. If they say no, then that answer needs to be respected.

An example of something breaking would be including your DME plug in. The Saab I am working on has an immense amount of code attached to it. All the avionics, including the DME, are linked through different buses in the electrical system that then get displayed on the glass displays. So including your plug in would most likely cause serious issues in that particular instance unless the code was somehow spidered into all of that code.

I suppose it all depends on the product complexity and the end users competence in making modifications that don't negatively affect the add-on.

[Dozer 1]

Thanks Goran, that clears things up a lot.

 

In the distant past (with my old PC, which is still stuck on the other side of the world) I did modify the Duchess and other X-A aircraft, but didn't ask for permission as I didn't know the ToS required it. (Personal changes, not distributed or published anywhere.) Probably other tinkerers didn't know about the ToS either, or they did know and didn't care! That's probably why no-one asked about modifying things. Either that or they were just very happy with the downloaded aircraft and didn't see any need to change it.

 

I replaced the DMEs on another aircraft which didn't have any conflicting plugins - an unusual aircraft which does appear to have two standalone DME tuners alongside two plain VOR tuners. I'm very aware of the difficulty in making unilateral modifications to something like the Saab!

 

Possibly I'm being paranoid, but I'm really hoping there's not a situation where leading developers would desire encrypted .obj files and .acf files etc in X-Plane 11, preventing user modifications. The transparent and mutable interface between interface and simulation is very very valuable; being able to tinker and make a fix (instead of politely asking a dev to make a change, and waiting indefinitely) is a massive strength. I'm hoping that developers are happy with this, as long as their work is not distributed and they're not expected to support modified things.

[FSMP 95]

If you think Flight Sim's EULAs are long and complex, just be so thankful that Disney is not in the FS business !

 

http://boingboing.ne...to-agree-t.html

 

Kids need to agree to 120+ pages of EULAs in order to watch BluRay Sleeping Beauty

[Longranger 148]

Kids need to agree to 120+ pages of EULAs in order to watch BluRay Sleeping Beauty

 

Yes and in some countries this would even be considered a valid contract, while in other countries more fundamental laws restrict the power of these EULAs- If they are used against a normal consumer they must not include any unexpected clauses, otherwise these clauses are void. and require a written agreement that these clauses were explained to the customer and that he agreed to these terms.

 

So in fact most of these terms are invalid. It is a bit more complex with pure licences like in this case. Some judges might even claim that these terms are all valid but I don't think that you can really prevent a customer to modify his own copy in his own home for his own purposes, if he doesn't bother support with this thing.

[anthony_d 32]

If you, as the end user, choose to make any modifications to an add-on, without informing or obtaining consent from the developer, you are voiding any support you are entitled to.

 

Typically I've seen warranties being made null and void by user modifications, which is fair enough.

The actual terms I've read went further and suggested that both license and account would be terminated. That's somewhat harsh within the realms of what a private consumer would be considered 'fair use'.

 

I don't normally do mods unless something doesn't work right in the first place. In my case normally any mods I do are under the developers implicit permission (i.e. that's what they said to do in a forum).

 

However one simple mod I've made to a couple of planes (which shall be nameless) is to ensure that flaps operate correctly when there's a dead bus - a simple change in planemaker. In both instances there was no reply to a post on their support forums about the issue, so I just went and did it. It worked and there was no harm done. If it didn't work, I always had the original installation files to fall back on.

 

The thought that I could theoretically have account suspended and terminated just for that simple change just sounds utterly daft and OTT.

[rdb 44]

Possibly I'm being paranoid, but I'm really hoping there's not a situation where leading developers would desire encrypted .obj files and .acf files etc in X-Plane 11, preventing user modifications. The transparent and mutable interface between interface and simulation is very very valuable; being able to tinker and make a fix (instead of politely asking a dev to make a change, and waiting indefinitely) is a massive strength.

 

Dozer, you just took these words from my mouth! ^_^

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

Dozer, you just took these words from my mouth! ^_^

 

Yes, and from mine as well.

[FSMP 95]

 

Possibly I'm being paranoid, but I'm really hoping there's not a situation where leading developers would desire encrypted .obj files and .acf files etc in X-Plane 11, preventing user modifications. The transparent and mutable interface between interface and simulation is very very valuable; being able to tinker and make a fix (instead of politely asking a dev to make a change, and waiting indefinitely) is a massive strength. I'm hoping that developers are happy with this, as long as their work is not distributed and they're not expected to support modified things.

 

A few months ago, Austin Meyer (X-Plane creator) took part in a TS seminar on "the Digital Themepark's" TS server.

 

I took the opportunity to ask him, if X-Plane was going to support any sort of encoding/encryption for Addon developer files, to help them protect their Intellectual property.

He was a little guarded in his response, but basically I heard him say that X-Plane itself, would not have any built-in system to support such.

 

Then again, as with FSX XML in .spb, or DVD video copyright encryption, as soon as a system is put in place, someone comes up with a way around it.

 

I agree, one of the attractive features if the FS hobby, is being able to customize and enhance parts of the system, to meet your own needs & desires. Remove that, as was effectively done in MS Flight, and the result is something that is far less attractive to most into Flight Simulator as a Hobby.

 

Unfortunately, if everyone waited for "some" add-on developers to fix , even major issues in their product, hell would freeze over before the user had a correctly working add-on.