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

 

And not forgetting, that Gulfstream have threatened to sue the pants of any developer that simulates one of their aircraft.

Let's keep this in perspective. Microsoft (as an example) doesn't really care what a consumer does in the privacy of his own home with FSX.

 

However, it certainly would care and would respond if someone reversed-engineered FSX and used its code as the basis of a commercial flight simulator.

Money talks.

I suspect that it was so they could retain some control over 3rd party development. If you created an add-on that MS disapproved of (for whatever reason), then they would probably be able to get your add-on removed based on the EULA. Just because they wrote it into an EULA doesn't mean they have to exercise their rights under the agreement.

 

Something like that anyway.

 

Also, EULAs often have a caveat attached to them that states something like "parts of this EULA may not be valid in your jurisdiction if they violate the laws of your state" (I'm paraphrasing). This is a reminder that no matter what the EULA says, if part of it violates the law, then that part isn't enforceable anyway. Since there are many countries with many laws (always changing), I wonder if MS has a standard EULA that it distributes with all it's software.

MS didn't/wouldn't disapprove an add-on in the history of FS.

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.

 

I don't even begin to understand how you twisted my post into an American vs. European argument. AND FYI...I was born in LONDON (Camden as a matter of fact) and I carry BOTH US and UK Passports.

My understanding of the EULA is that as long as the source code is not used for commercial gain without a legal license and permission from Microsoft to do so then it is illegal. This does not apply to ADDING YOUR OWN CODE to get an aircraft to do advanced functions, as it was your source code. There is a big difference between a commercial application and a private application, most likely if a single person violated the EULA Microsoft would not care as suing every single person would bankrupt the company and have a HUGE negative impact on peoples perspective especially in the government sector (once companies go broke and the govt has to bail them out, they usually get put under investigation). Remember that the SDK that MS released for FSX is completely legal for anyone to use to create what they wish, its the reverse engineering of that program and its proprietary code that is illegal.

 

 

For example it is not illegal for me to edit the aircraft config of the default 737 using real world data to make it fly more realistically, it is illegal for me to decompile the entire aircraft and repackage it as my own work with a few tweaks.

I don't even begin to understand how you twisted my post into an American vs. European argument. AND FYI...I was born in LONDON (Camden as a matter of fact) and I carry BOTH US and UK Passports.

 

The very notion of needing a license from Boeing, or whomever, to make an artistic expression is just silly where I come from.

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.

 

That doesn't extend to using others property without permission, especially commercially.

:lazy:

You make someone's aircraft... they own the rights to it's appearance.

You make someone's livery... they own the rights to it's appearance.

 

Enforcement is their perogative, and if they so choose... you really can't afford to fight them.

 

Beyond that, this thread is worthless.

Context can be useful. Here is the section in question from the EULA:

 

Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see

www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not

 

work around any technical limitations in the software;

 

reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;

 

make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law, despite this limitation;

 

publish the software for others to copy;

 

rent, lease or lend the software;

or

use the software for commercial software hosting services.

 

 

 

I read this as relating to copyright protection (ie requiring activation to use FSX) especially when you consider the other points are all related to not making illegal copies or reverse engineering etc.

 

I think the person who originally posted about the EULA "technical limitations" read it as meaning FSX doesn't do something so you're not allowed to find a way to do it.

 

For example, FSX does not support rain effects with FSX native models (it does with FS9 models but only if you copy the old FS9 textures into FSX). There are ways to overcome this "limitation" but they only involve a bit of lateral thinking to reuse the existing abilities of FSX in a new way. No need to hack FSX or do any reverse engineering. No breach of the EULA.

But surely the EULA/elephant in the room here is the P3d/3Pd issue?

 

The fact that it is frowned upon (breaks the terms of some addons EULA's) to "port" an FSX addon to P3d that hasn't been specifically written for it/to be used with it. That is a whole different argument. It is one that has been done to death and is tired. But we are conflating two issues here.

 

The "do not install/port to P3d" thing is an agreement by a licensee for a particular software product NOT to install in into a seperate bit of software. P3d is NOT FSX!

 

Whether or not MS' EULA can be interpreted this way or that way is, imo, irrelevant. It's not about FSX, or P3d. It's about whether or not a developer gives their permission under their EULA, not MS' or LM's to install that bit of software.

 

As I see it, for those softs that have this limitation, it is clear in their EULA that it is not ok. It has nothing to do with LM or MS. We may disagree with this, and in some cases, we may go ahead and do it anyway. That is our perogative as free individuals. That does not make it "ok" if the devs say it is not ok.

 

You pays your money, you takes your chance. Whether or not you are breaking the law, will continue to be open to debate. I'm not a lawyer; I fix IT. I do respect the rights of any software dev to say that I can't install their addon in P3d. I may disagree with their reasoning, which in some cases is simply because they want to make a P3d-specific version and charge a premium to have it. Again, they are running a business. That's their imperative. I do it in my business sometimes. Tell someone they must buy their systems from us if we are to support them properly. My business, my rules.

 

Again, I am not agreeing or disagreeing withy any of it. I have no stake in it as I do not run LM or an FSX addon company.

 

All this talk of EULA is boring. Let's go flying!

 

EDIT: and for the first time, in the last few days, I have been reading some EULAs for FSX software..fascinating stuff in some cases..mostly boring though :biggrin:

:lazy:

 

Wakey wakey,its a lovely day, sun shining, birds singing etc etc

its a lovely day, sun shining, birds singing etc etc

 

It actually is here in the UK for a change Talk of EULA makes it rain