...they added stuff such as one cannot reverse engineer, alter or find ways around software limitations in their FSX EULA?

 

Ever since this was hinted at in another thread, it has been bouncing around my head. What exactly were they saying?

 

Because if taken literal, that would mean that the DX10 tweaks, Bojote poking around the dlls, messing around with the cfg file or even PMDG writing their own AP logic to circumvent stock FSX limitations would be in violation of the EULA.

 

On the other hand, MS themselves released SDKs helping people to create their own addons!

 

So that would sort of be like MS themselves telling you here is what can be done and here are the limitations of the software, so edit at your hearts content.

 

I am not trying to stir things up, but just trying to understand what exactly they meant by those clauses in the EULA.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea but my own opinion is that some of the interpretations of the EULA (such as the whole P3D thing) are a bit like going 10 km and hour over the speed limit. Yes it is technically illegal but really who cares.

I have no idea but my own opinion is that some of the interpretations of the EULA (such as the whole P3D thing) are a bit like going 10 km and hour over the speed limit. Yes it is technically illegal but really who cares.

 

The interested parties and their representatives who may or may not decide to penalize you in any number of unpleasant ways if they so choose.

Reverse engineer is simple, you're not allowed to 'decompile' FS to get the source code and then use that build your own flight sim. The no circumventing limitations is also standard legalese boiler plate, it means that you're not allowed to bypass copy-protection for example. I don't have the EULA in front of me, but there's a difference between tweaking a program to run better and hacking your way around software-enforced license restrictions.

One limitation I thought of when I first read it was the fact that there's a limited demo version of FSX. Finding a way around that particular limitation would be very much against the EULA. I'm pretty sure that's what they had in mind.

 

Hook

The interested parties and their representatives who may or may not decide to penalize you in any number of unpleasant ways if they so choose.

 

I suppose so but realistically very unlikely to happen in the FS world and even if it did go to trial and the company won, what would the expected damages be....I am guessing it would be very low and depending on where you live it might be zero. Most of these companies simply don't have the resources to go with this route. I should say for the record that I don't even use P3D, and quite frankly I am not skilled in any other methods to break EULA's so this whole EULA business does not apply to me.

[messing around with the cfg file or even PMDG writing their own AP logic to circumvent stock FSX limitations would be in violation of the EULA.

 

Don't think so.

 

Adding entries to the cfg wouldn't be in violation. The cfg is open, accessible, there for all to add or delete entries as they see fit. It would be an inaccessible file, if that wasn't the case.

 

In terms of developers coding outside the sim, that's not in violation I wouldn't think. Precisely because it's "outside of the sim". Such coding may talk to the sim, buts it's external, so not in violation.

 

Not that I'm an expert.

The fact that none of these people who are discussing things that may be in breach the of EULA, have ever received "Lawyers letters" (correct me if I'm wrong?), and the fact that people are still buying FSX long after it's natural sell by date, why would they want to kill it?

The flight sim community are no threat to LM core business, but do add to their revenue stream, and are no threat to Microsofts profits, who now have no competing product, why on earth would either want to kill a small golden goose?

I gave the MS folks a headsup regarding this thread. After over six years, someone has finally read the document. Totally worth it! ^_^

Some EULAs have little to do with the consumer, but have to do with the contract between the producers (for example between LM and Microsoft), so for example LM has to put in their EULA that their software can only be used for educational purposes.

 

Some EULAs have terms that clearly violate the laws or fundamental rights of users (for example forbidding one to publicly discuss their product).

 

Some EULAs prevent the user from doing anything with the software except what is written in the EULA (would you feel obligated if you bought tires for a car, and the contract said that those tires could be used only on that specific car?).

 

In sum, EULAs are the perfect proof that when private business is left to its own initiative without government overwatch, common sense will prevail (if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell for almost nothing...).

 

Henri

...they added stuff such as one cannot reverse engineer, alter or find ways around software limitations in their FSX EULA?

 

Ever since this was hinted at in another thread, it has been bouncing around my head. What exactly were they saying?

 

Because if taken literal, that would mean that the DX10 tweaks, Bojote poking around the dlls, messing around with the cfg file or even PMDG writing their own AP logic to circumvent stock FSX limitations would be in violation of the EULA.

 

On the other hand, MS themselves released SDKs helping people to create their own addons!

 

So that would sort of be like MS themselves telling you here is what can be done and here are the limitations of the software, so edit at your hearts content.

 

I am not trying to stir things up, but just trying to understand what exactly they meant by those clauses in the EULA.

 

I call B-S on the selective enforcement of EULAs and Copyrights in this community. How many developers and artists have received license approval from the real airlines to copy their liveries? How many have really received licensing approval from Boeing, Airbus, Cessna, Beechcraft, etc? Some do...most don't. What about appropriate approval to replicate cockpit instruments from their respective manufacturers, etc? Then there is the use of Google and Bing Maps for injecting scenery into FSX DESPITE the fact that it is a violation of their EULAs.

 

The fact is that this hobby exists because we "bend" the rules a little to make the hobby more realistic. A lot of the aviation industry looks the other way when we infringe on their copyrights and infringe on their EULAs. Sometimes they don't. Remember that American banned the use of their logo for many years!

 

If we're going to go by the letter of the law then we must do it universally. Make sure everyone goes in and make sure all of their add-on aircraft are properly licensed, liveries are properly licensed, photoreal sceneries are using properly licensed ground texturess, that each instrument in their cockpit is properly licensed from the mfg. So after we go in and make sure that no one's EULA or copyright is violated we'd have nothing available by either freeware or payware authors.

 

If its a violation to post a hacked SIM.DLL file to adjust ground friction then I assume its also a violation for Project Airbus to release their Airbus without paying for licenses from Airbus Industries.

 

Methinks we need to lighten up.

 

 

I call B-S on the selective enforcement of EULAs and Copyrights in this community. How many developers and artists have received license approval from the real airlines to copy their liveries? How many have really received licensing approval from Boeing, Airbus, Cessna, Beechcraft, etc? Some do...most don't. What about appropriate approval to replicate cockpit instruments from their respective manufacturers, etc? Then there is the use of Google and Bing Maps for injecting scenery into FSX DESPITE the fact that it is a violation of their EULAs.

 

The fact is that this hobby exists because we "bend" the rules a little to make the hobby more realistic. A lot of the aviation industry looks the other way when we infringe on their copyrights and infringe on their EULAs. Sometimes they don't. Remember that American banned the use of their logo for many years!

 

If we're going to go by the letter of the law then we must do it universally. Make sure everyone goes in and make sure all of their add-on aircraft are properly licensed, liveries are properly licensed, photoreal sceneries are using properly licensed ground texturess, that each instrument in their cockpit is properly licensed from the mfg. So after we go in and make sure that no one's EULA or copyright is violated we'd have nothing available by either freeware or payware authors.

 

If its a violation to post a hacked SIM.DLL file to adjust ground friction then I assume its also a violation for Project Airbus to release their Airbus without paying for licenses from Airbus Industries.

 

Methinks we need to lighten up.

 

Luckily we're not all living in America, although Americans seem to think otherwise. We have something called freedom of speach and expression over in socialist Europe.

There was some thing years back with American Airlines sending a letter from their legal dept to cease some developers for using their logos, etc on flight sim related product

They're a big company with lots of lawyers and just wanted to cover their butt every which way possible knowing that users weren't going to read the EULA anyway. So they have complete flexibility to act if and when they choose. Given the state of FSX and their position related to it I would suspect they will never act on any of the terms. But yes, good find, they're there...

There are a lot of laws on the books in the world that are not enforced. In some places, spitting on the sidewalk is a criminal offense and you COULD be cited for it. IMHO EULA's fall in the same category. Individuals who violate a EULA are subject to prosecution *IF* the developer chooses - and, in most cases, they do not. More often than not the EULA is a way for a company to have the means to go after a wholesale pirate, who might break copy protection and start selling bootleg packages.

 

The decision to technically violate the EULA remains with the individual and the decision to prosecute remains with the company.

 

IMHO, if one DOES decide to violate a EULA, STFU about it. Keep it between you and the mfgr.

 

And, going back to the OP - YES - Bojote's tweaks and even FSUIPC could be considered violations of the EULA as it is written. Now, the fact that they had cooperation from MS itself would negate that.

 

You just can not paint all EULA's with the same brush.

 

Vic