Now, if you "quietly" want to use their product elsewhere, who's to know (honestly) that's up to you, but don't come here and spout off about how to do it, or how well it works, your just asking for "trouble", common sense people, thats all.

 

Good for you Stephen.

 

Agreed.

 

What is pompous & self-righteous (let me add arrogant and disrespectful) to come into a forum and "spout off" as you say. One puts the mods in a bind and displays a total disregard for the developer(s).

+1

 

Seems pretty simple to me. These companies offer a product for FSX and P3D, each with it's own end use license.(?)

 

Now, if you "quietly" want to use their product elsewhere, who's to know (honestly) that's up to you, but don't come here and spout off about how to do it, or how well it works, your just asking for "trouble", common sense people, thats all.

 

Good for you Stephen.

 

I second that, the motion is accepted.

 

 

The real question to ask is "Why don't they do it already" ??

 

Really, they have to do that because one can't read or does not care about what's written??

 

So, next time I go to my bank (since I have money in my accounts) and see their safe open I'll make sure I grab some cash or safety deposit box out of there and tell them I had the right to do so since their safe was not locked..... and if they don't want me to do so they better make sure I have their written rules in black and white on paper , the safe locked and have the manager tell me in person that the use of the safe in a matter I see fit for my personal use is not permitted....will that work?

My understanding is that the EULA for GEX allows use only on FSX. If so, using it on Prepar3D would be a breach of the EULA.

 

A developer has the right to put whatever terms it wishes into its licence. We have the choice not to buy a licence if we don't like its terms. We don't have the right to ignore them.

 

Actually, you do have a right to install it and use it in any way you would like. Yes, you would be in "breach" of the EULA, but the only remedy the developer would have is to sue you for breaking the agreement. And, (here is the key) the developer would have to show damages. Now, the developer cannot show damages until they have a product that competes with its FSX products in P3D. Hence, why scenery solutions and Flight1 have been putting up such a fight. They are developing a package for P3D (that will most likely be cost prohibitive to most "academic" users) and until they can show damages, they are screaming at people to not use their products in P3D, in order to maintain a client base and market share for the new product.

 

Everyone should remember one thing when we have these stupid EULA arguments: an EULA is a contract between you and the developer. Breaching a contract is a valid strategy in many situations and it is not necessarily illegal, unethical and/or immoral. I have advised clients to breach contracts on many occasions because it is in my clients interest to do so. If the developers care enough about these breaches, they will bring suit, but again, they have to show damages, and in order for the litigation be worthwhile, they will have to show significant damages. Hence, the developers tactic of threatening and scaring people about "breaching" the EULA -- the legal options for these people are few, so they resort to scare tactics, intimidation, and harassment. I've seen it in these forums and Ian is right to be a little upset about it.

 

I for one will no longer purchase anything from Scenery Solutions and Flight1 is also putting a bad taste in my mouth over the GEX stuff. They claim its an issue over "training and academic usage" which, in theory, could bring them more liability. However, I don't see how adding scenery enhancements to a training sim would bring major liability concerns. A full aircraft with accompanying FDEs -- sure there are liability concerns there (see PMDG). But I still fail to see how adding a few textures or some street lighting to a scene will bring added liability. Its all about the chance to gouge "commercial" customers for high priced packages. Just have a look at the Flight1 Aviation Technologies page. $300 for an upgraded "mission builder" and you cant even develop with it for that price?!?!? This is just ridiculous. I actually looked into purchasing it to design some mission enhancements, but if I can't even commercially develop for a $300 license, then they can bend over and kiss something I'm too polite to speak of here.

 

Ian, as long as you are using the sim and the addons for personal use, I would not sweat over the language in the EULA and no one else should give him or any other person installing addons into P3D any more grief. The developers have a means of pursuing action if they wish to, but as I outlined above, they won't because it is not worth it. All Scenery Solutions and Flight1 are trying to do is keep its loyal customer base from using the products they have already purchased in another sim. They want you to pony up for what will be very expensive packages for P3D. I for one think this is a misguided business strategy but it is their strategy and they have a right to pursue it. Since you bought the product, I say go ahead and use it. Just do like me and stay away from any new "upgrades" or "service packs" that they put out that are just updates to break compatibility with P3D.

 

To the EULA police out there, so long as a person is using P3D for personal, academic use, leave them alone about these stupid restrictions. They have a right to breach their contract and the developers will not pursue its rights to sue for that breach. It's as simple as that!! If someone is using P3D for commercial use and is violating these EULAs, by all means inform the respective developers and they can take action. But lets all agree that personal/academic users can and will do whatever they want with the software they purchased.

 

I for one will become a loyal Orbx customer and since Orbx is so helpful with its customers and doesnt try to SCREW them out of the use of hundreds of dollars of addons they have purchased over the years, I hope they continue to devour a larger and larger share of the market in relation to scenery solutions and GEX. The former's developers are arrogant, condescending and ungrateful and that usually does not bode well in the business community. So to scenery solutions, GEX, and the EULA police out there ... GO FLY A KITE! Kudos Ian for being resilient in the face of legal bullies. I for one enjoy your posts and look forward to conversing with you in the future.

These threads invariably split on ethical grounds between those whose ethics are “I want it and I’ll take it even though I’m not entitled to it” and those whose ethics are “I want it but I won’t take it because I’m not entitled to it”

These threads invariably split on ethical grounds between those whose ethics are “I want it and I’ll take it even though I’m not entitled to it” and those whose ethics are “I want it but I won’t take it because I’m not entitled to it”

 

I disagree that its unethical to breach a contract. I am not in breach of my ethics as an attorney (in any jurisdiction in the USA) if I advise a client to breach a contract. And the "ethics" go both ways. Should the developer prevent personal use of the software in P3D simply so they can make an installer that is compatible with P3D and resell it again to the consumer. No it is not unethical. But is it the right thing to do? Both sides of this argument have to ask themselves that questions and come up with their own answers. My point being, no one side should try to claim the moral high ground on this argument because their isn't one. I think Ian is simply asking that the righteous indignation from some in this community come to an abrupt halt. That includes people snipping about "bad ethics", mgh. I'm pretty sure I have a sophisticated understanding of the term "ethics" and I in no way see an ethical breach by installing software you paid for in a compatible program. Again, a breach and violation of the EULA ... yes. Unethical ... absolutely not!!

The key thing to remember about Orbx is that originally they were going to make a small charge for P3D conversion. They then did a rather commendable volte face when they presumably began to see the commercial advantages and enhanced customer relationships that a free transfer approach would engender. It's a philosophy that certain developers might care to learn from. However, as others have correctly said, how they conduct their business and the composition of their EULA is their own affair. Fortunately the consumer has the same amount of freedom in the product purchase comparison process...

 

FTX Global looks like an absolute must buy!

 

And that's all I have to say about that!

Once more into the breech with this topic ,opening salvo aimed at the Mind Police ... like we have nothing better to do with our computer? Please gentlemen, go fly your addons instead and be content there are so many other ways to be frustrated.

Why even discuss this? Just ignore their posts and continue to do what you like in the privacy of your home.

I'm watching XP-10 forums right now cause it's the future...

My suggestion would be to spend a few minutes thinking about it... and hopefully you might gain some clarity into what I am trying to say. Honestly, it is not that difficult a concept to grasp.

 

Just a simple "is that how you want to be treated" kind of thing.

 

I see... so almost unenforceable... so go do it...

 

Maybe someone wants to hack your server in a certain way for their own means and ends. I am sure since any recourse is essentially impossible, you won't have a problem with it.

 

I don't see, and I really don't understand one word of what you are trying to say. !

 

What does "HACKING someone Else's server" have to do with "running Unlicensed programs on one's own computer".

 

Are you Ozzie Osbourne ? :shok:

 

OK, I think I get it, and your Hostility towards my Post.

 

You object to the idea that a Developer should enforce their Licensing "Programatically", but instead should rely on the Honesty of their customers, and the torrent crowd.

 

Maybe if you were a developer, you might feel different.

 

But yes, , I now see where you are coming from.

3rd party developers have profited hansomely from me over the years. I have a business myself and treating my customer's right is job #1. My company is very well respected in my industry and I am very proud of that. I treat my customer's with the utmost respect. I dont charge them for everything that I could and that has paid for itself in customer loyalty and a growing customer base over the years with zero $ spent on advertising. Word of mouth is the best kind of advertising there is.

 

Now I read alot of people here talking about ethic's. Well one thing I'll tell you that is unethical in my book is charging people twice for the same product. That would be akin to me manufacturing a cigarette lighter and making my customer buy a second one to light a cigar because it is written in a Eula, which many are unethical and incidentally are not legaly binding document's and many don't hold up in a court of law.

 

Company's can live and die by word of mouth.

As my earlier post also emphasizes, as consumers we make the ultimate assessment of a developer's products and attitude to customer service at the point of purchase. No bickering about EULA semantics on either side of the "fence" will change the essential truth that the market will judge the actions of all who sell products in it and informed purchasing decisions will be made, taking into account all relevant factors. In the meantime, developers are at liberty to even try to sell thin air on a repeat basis, if they so wish, and consumers are free to compare the merits of each and every product offer.

3rd party developers have profited hansomely from me over the years. I have a business myself and treating my customer's right is job #1. My company is very well respected in my industry and I am very proud of that. I treat my customer's with the utmost respect. I dont charge them for everything that I could and that has paid for itself in customer loyalty and a growing customer base over the years with zero $ spent on advertising. Word of mouth is the best kind of advertising there is.

 

Now I read alot of people here talking about ethic's. Well one thing I'll tell you that is unethical in my book is charging people twice for the same product. That would be akin to me manufacturing a cigarette lighter and making my customer buy a second one to light a cigar because it is written in a Eula, which many are unethical and incidentally are not legaly binding document's and many don't hold up in a court of law.

 

Company's can live and die by word of mouth.

 

I got some addons from Aerosoft to be used in FSX and if I follow what you are saying correctly I should be able to use them in XP-10, since I already paid for them? Is it right for Aerosoft to sell me the same addon twice?

I got some addons from Aerosoft to be used in FSX and if I follow what you are saying correctly I should be able to use them in XP-10, since I already paid for them? Is it right for Aerosoft to sell me the same addon twice?

 

Yes but do your addons from fsx work in x plane, or did Aerosoft have to make some sort of changes to the product to get it to work . As far as I know you can't just port an fsx produuct into xplane the way you can use a product from fsx in p3d.

I got some addons from Aerosoft to be used in FSX and if I follow what you are saying correctly I should be able to use them in XP-10, since I already paid for them? Is it right for Aerosoft to sell me the same addon twice?

 

I have no idea what the format and code differences are between FSX and XP-10 but if it was like the difference between FSX and P3D and I called the shots at Aerosoft I would have the product usable and installable for all. Changing nothing but the name of the product and charging full price to someone who has already paid is wrong or should I say "unethical".