2 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

If all freeware developers had the same mindset as AIG we wouldn't have Working Title, FBW and many other great cooperations of freeware for MSFS.

In fact all freeware developers I know include exactly that kind of disclaimer within their works, that distribution of their work may not be done without express permission.

That is how it works in the freeware community. You can use other peoples work IF you ask and give credit where credit is due.

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by Farlis

9 minutes ago, Farlis said:

In fact all freeware developers I know include exactly that kind of disclaimer within their works, that distribution of their work may not be done without express permission.

That it works in the freeware community. You can use other people's work IF you ask and give credit where credit is due.

Still fortunately enough there are many freeware developers who are willing to tolerate infringements of such a disclaimer by other freeware developers if it is done politely or they even go ahead and offer the other freeware developer to work together for the benefit of the community.

1 hour ago, Waldo Pepper said:

Replacing the default airliner skins and the aviators club / xbox skins would hold me over nicely until a full AIG solution.   

Dito.

28 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

Still fortunately enough there are many freeware developers who are willing to tolerate infringements of such a disclaimer by other freeware developers if it is done politely or they even go ahead and offer the other freeware developer to work together for the benefit of the community.

How you 'politely' infringe another freeware developers express disclaimer not to use their IP without their explicit permission, escapes me. I think you are saying that it's ok to copy someone else's work as if it's your own since 'enough' freeware developers will not openly object to such copying.

Not acceptable really. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Moria15 said:

Except, the one they just shut down didn't use AIG flightplans..  it left  the Online AI from microsoft to provide the flight data.

 My bad, that was ANOTHER Traffic addon for MSFS at Flightsim.to. Still though, the copyright info is included with EVERY model and repaint which was then ignored by guy who uploaded that package.

2 hours ago, Moria15 said:

Except, the one they just shut down didn't use AIG flightplans..  it left  the Online AI from microsoft to provide the flight data.. all the .to one did was use livery matching to display correct liveries, so no threat to AIG's data sources.

I still accept the premise that you shouldn't copy files, but AIG say no-one asked in advance to do this very simple interim solution, and yet talking to a couple of developers who have asked, the response is either NO or no-reply.

Graham

Yes, but the point is that the legal path is well trodden with IP protection, copyright, passing off, copying, disclaimer litigation, plagerism and other issues around this. 'NO' means no and 'no-reply' is not explicit approval especially since if any such approval was forthcoming it may well be stacked with a number of conditions, not the least of which will be appropriate credit. From a future business perspective, (if they wanted or needed to monetise this) AIG have every right to protect potential future earnings and to avoid the possibility of encouraging others to start up and compete against them by using AIG's own IP.  

I'm not sure how a freeware developer fares from a legal standpoint but as a minimum, all of us who are so grateful for the time and effort that freeware developers put into the community would at the very least give all credit to the those authors and out of an abundance of respect would not use their files unless explicit approval was given. 

Another thing.  As soon as AIG says no, or withholds approval and says you can't use my stuff, then the other freeware developer appears to be unable to continue and we consider that unfair on the community? Really? What it says to me is that we are very fortunate AIG are able to get close to Asobo and get the software changes necessary to create a viable and long term stable AI platform which other freeware developers are unable to do. All credit to all freeware developers for their community efforts but this is an area of the sim that is ether broken or not adequately developed yet and it is unlikely freeware developers will overcome this on their own. Watching large ships taxi to the gate is head in hands stuff for users and freeware developers alike!!

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by Lord Farringdon
Clarification (in italics) as pointed out by Tuskin38.

6 minutes ago, Lord Farringdon said:

AIG have every right to protect future earnings and to avoid the possibility of encouraging others to start up and compete against them using AIG's own IP.  

AIG is freeware.

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by Tuskin38

Well it’s aig right probably to stop others stealing their work. I have the old version of this mod and seems I won’t update then until aig delivers. Default traffic is utter word not allowed and this mod was godsent 

15 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

AIG is freeware.

Yes, apologies.   You are quite right.  Unfortunately I blurred the distinction by trying to discuss the difference between payware developers and freeware developers and also thinking (but not saying in my post) that any developer including AIG may want to go payware at some stage when the cost of licences become too much or any number of other reasons and that protection of IP in a freeware stage is important for that reason. But I tripped up by thinking and typing payware where I should have used freeware. DOH! The principles remain the same the same though and I have edited my post accordingly.

 

Thanks  

 

4 hours ago, Kaiii3 said:

 

5) And then there is still AIGTC that needs to be MSFS ready as well, since BGL traffic will no longer be fully supported (at least this is what Jörg told me), we need to make sure the SimConnect based AI traffic is runnign fine.

As you can see: This is not just pack some FSX SimObjects and update some textues and as all of you now AIG has always put Quality before Quantitiy and this is taking time.

And as long as MSFS has some major issues only comming up becuase of AI, I have strong feelings against releasing cause we can not handle the amount of support request.

Wait, so no BGL traffic? Does that mean only the Flight Aware live traffic? That would be not good...

6 hours ago, Kaiii3 said:

The guys should ask before they do this! In ALL cases so far they did not ask before release and wonder why we react this way...

So if all who want to do what he did just asked you are you saying you would say sure..just give me due credit?

As of now, you say you "aim" for 4th quarter but SU5 messed that up.  So what's new aim?  What about SU6,7,8 etc?  Your project (in the ideal way you want it) could easily extend in to next year....  

So why not let others (or you) put out stopgap?  We look forward to your work (and people should ask) but the sim has been out a year now.  

I have other livery matching mods that work pretty well for me for now.  But as a forum, we appreciate any flexibility you can provide.  

6 hours ago, Kaiii3 said:

The guys should ask before they do this! In ALL cases so far they did not ask before release and wonder why we react this way...

 

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by knich
double post

3 hours ago, Drebin8 said:

Wait, so no BGL traffic? Does that mean only the Flight Aware live traffic? That would be not good...

I think by not supported they mean not bug fixing it if it breaks (unless it crashes the game I assume). BGL traffic still works right now

But re-read what you quoted, Sim Connect injected traffic will still work, so third parties will have to use that for offline traffic instead of using BGL files.

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by Tuskin38

6 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

I think you are saying that it's ok to copy someone else's work as if it's your own since 'enough' freeware developers will not openly object to such copying.

No. I never said that. 

And those that were shut down recently did give credit to the authors and did not claim it to be all their own work.

Your post is a typical strawman argument.

8 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

Yes, but the point is that the legal path is well trodden with IP protection, copyright, passing off, copying, disclaimer litigation, plagerism and other issues around this. 'NO' means no and 'no-reply' is not explicit approval especially since if any such approval was forthcoming it may well be stacked with a number of conditions, not the least of which will be appropriate credit.

I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone here has suggested that AIG doesn't have the legal right to go after these stopgap packages. The question, as @Moria15 so eloquently put it, is whether in going down that road they are doing the right thing, as opposed to the legal thing.

I think AIG has every legal right to aggressively pursue this stuff. I just wish they wouldn't, for the benefit of the community.

James