Offset for DF 737-400

[WarpD 824]

>Gentlemen ,>>I need URGENTLY to know the offset for AP Altitude and AP VS>of the above airplane , I will pay to whom get those offsets.>>Thanks and regards>>Alberto KunzelIf they custom variables embedded in the gauges... reverse engineering them is illegal.

[kunzel4 0]

Gentlemen ,I need URGENTLY to know the offset for AP Altitude and AP VS of the above airplane , I will pay to whom get those offsets.Thanks and regardsAlberto Kunzel

[kunzel4 0]

>>Gentlemen ,>>>>I need URGENTLY to know the offset for AP Altitude and AP VS>>of the above airplane , I will pay to whom get those>offsets.>>>>Thanks and regards>>>>Alberto Kunzel>>If they custom variables embedded in the gauges... reverse>engineering them is illegal.Hi ,Maybe could be illegal , but when the company that produced the gauge does not give you any support , just says "we don`t know", you have to look for other way.RegardsAlberto Kunzel

[mgh 89]

"Maybe could be illegal , but when the company that produced the gauge does not give you any support , just says "we don`t know", you have to look for other way."Why should the company help you reverse-engineer its products? Also, when it says it doesn't know that's probably true. I have programmed in C/C++ professionaly and have coded a few gauges. I never knew (or needed to know) what the offsets were.Finally, you don't have to look for another, illegal, way. You can accept the situation and behave ethically.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Hi Alberto,what would you like to do with these offsets?Mind you, reverse engineering is not illegal. Just do a google search for it and you will find plenty of references. Furthermore, it varies from countries to countries. And shall I add, if what you'd do with the offset is to enhance the product in a certain way, I can see at least this opens the topic for discussion with the developper, instead of closing it.

[MachTwo 386]

"Mind you, reverse engineering is not illegal."It most certainly is if specified in the license agreement that the customer agrees to upon installing the product. I suggest you refer to the DF737 product license. I

[WarpD 824]

I find it odd a commercial developer would publicly state reverse engineering is perfectly acceptable.As you state, most of us have reverse engineering clauses in the EULA which expressly prohibits it.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Ok, this does not represent all source of information on the subject, but this is a small example just found on google, from a Computerworld article:Near the end:"Reverse-engineering is legal, but there are two main areas in which we're seeing threats to reverse-engineering," says Jennifer Granick, director of the law and technology clinic at Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, Calif. One threat, as yet untested in the courts, comes from shrink-wrap licenses that explicitly prohibit anyone who opens or uses the software from reverse-engineering it, she says. http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...articleId=65532I'm sure she his more knowledgeable than me in these matters nonetheless.

[WarpD 824]

To my knowledge, the EULA has never, ever been defeated in a court of law under any circumstances.

[mgh 89]

to clarify the position, decompiling is allowed under Section 50B - Decompiling of the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 as amended, subject to certain conditions. Although this is a UK Act it reflects the general EU law.Also, Article 50B-(4) states "Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void." This overides anything an EULA may say about prohibiting decompiling.

[WarpD 824]

>to clarify the position, decompiling is allowed under>Section 50B - Decompiling of the UK Copyright, Designs, and>Patents Act 1988 as amended, subject to certain conditions.>Although this is a UK Act it reflects the general EU law.>>Also, Article 50B-(4) states "Where an act is permitted>under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there>exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to>prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of>section 296A, void." >>This overides anything an EULA may say about prohibiting>decompiling.All depends on where the EULA's legal basis is stated. Understand that if you purchase something that has a EULA governed by the laws of a state in the U.S., the EULA also states all legal process regarding said EULA will be processed in the aforementioned state.Where a company like MS is international, and thus has regional EULAs... most FS addon companies are not and don't. Thus the user agrees to abide by the laws as represented in the 'state of origin', for lack of a better term.In other words, EULA enforcement would be accomplished in the EULA's chosen jurisdiction. If you take the time to read the EULAs... they all have a legal jurisdiction stated and you agreed to that when you clicked the "Accept". At that point you entered into a contract.

[mgh 89]

Unlike you, apparently, I did take the time to read my FS9 EULA. It states:"If you acquired this SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the United States this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. If you acquired this SOFTWARE PRODUCT in Canada, unless expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada; and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder, you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If this SOFTWARE PRODUCT was acquired outside the United States, then local law may apply." (Note the highlighted words.)As I bought FS in the UK from a UK supplier then local law will apply. In the UK and EU there is the concept of a Conumer Contract where the consumer has entered into the contract not in the course of business. Obviously a consumer includes an individual buying FS, or add-ons, privately. There is a range of laws to protect the consumer against companies and corporations.The UK Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1991 incorporates the the Lugano Convention into UK law. Schedule 3C Title II. Jurisdiction Section 4 Article 13 states:"Proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the Contracting State in which the consumer is domiciled."This means that jurisdiction clauses in consumer contracs in the UK/EU are now meaningless. If a someone were foolish enough to try to bring an action in a country other than the consumer's then it couldn't be enforced in the UK. In practice, I suggest that the courts in the other country would throw the case out at the preliminary stage because of lack of jurisdiction.Also, The UK Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 2083 identifies terms which may be considered unfair in a consumer contact. These include:"(q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy...". Imposinmg a remote jurisdiction falls foul of this.Reverting to the original point, my FS9 EULA states:"Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation."The emphasised words clearly clearly show that Microsoft knows it cannot impose an overall restiction on reverse engineering but has to comply with local laws.It is important to understand that a contract cannot override the law of the land - you can't contract out of the law!

[WarpD 824]

Um... you have some serious misguided beliefs regarding what can and can't be.How about you reverse engineer a major company's product and offer up said source to the world, free. See how safe you are.

[mgh 89]

I'm not at all misguided about what can and can't be done. You really ahould have taken the time to read what I originally said. This was "...decompiling is allowed under Section 50B - Decompiling of the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 as amended, subject to certain conditions.". (My emphasis) I'll clarify the situation for you. Read the following extract from the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 as amended:"Section 50B: Decompilation 50B.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program expressed in a low level language- (a) to convert it into a version expressed in a higher level language, or (:( incidentally in the course of so converting the program, to copy it, (that is, to "decompile" it), provided that the conditions in subsection (2) are met. (2) The conditions are that- (a) it is necessary to decompile the program to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program which can be operated with the program decompiled or with another program ("the permitted objective"); and (:( the information so obtained is not used for any purpose other than the permitted objective. (3) In particular, the conditions in subsection (2) are not met if the lawful user- (a) has readily available to him the information necessary to achieve the permitted objective; (:( does not confine the decompiling to such acts as are necessary to achieve the permitted objective; © supplies the information obtained by the decompiling to any person to whom it is not necessary to supply it in order to achieve the permitted objective; or (d) uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any act restricted by copyright. (4) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void. "This clearly supports my original point that decompilation isn't always illegal.

[n4gix 4,947]

Regardless of all the legal splitting of hairs, for all practical purposes, I would posit that the intended purpose for MOST people wishing to "disassemble" or "decompile" stuff would not fit any of the cited conditions.In terms of the OP's question, the "correctness" of anyone's answer is totally irrelevant.