Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest DreamFleet

Offset for DF 737-400

Recommended Posts

"An internet sale is generally considered to have happened at the location of the seller, not the purchaser."Considered by who - canyou provide some authority for this assertion? It certainly isn't true in the UK and the EU for consumer transactions. "If you purchase something via the internet from a U.S. company... there is no VAT due."VAT is due except if the VAT has been paid in anopther EU country. HM Revenue and Customs waive it for small value items for convenience, but it's still due.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent a few minutes googling to find out what US law actually is - as opposed to what it's claimed to be.I found the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which I believe is current. Section 1201 (f) reads:`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:This clearly envisages that a program can be reverse engineered/decompiled if that's necessary to allow an independent program to interoperate with it andv even allows copy protection (technological measure) to be broken to achieve it. Also note the similarity in meaning of the highlighted words in the DMCA to the words in the UK Copyright to Section 50B of the UK Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended: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")http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/index1.htmUS law clearly does allow a program to be decompiled for purposes that seem to be similar to UK law and under similar conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JeanLuc_

And this is pretty much standard reason for reverse engineering in all laws I've been looking at (not too many, but the few I've looked at), and if you read again one of my first post above: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=65532

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JeanLuc, I wasn't critizing you. Far from it, I was supporting your view.Yours was the first post that said reverse engineering wasn't prohibited absolutely and I have been suppoerting your view throughout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JeanLuc_

yes I know! I was not replying specifically to you in a sense of saying "hey, you are wrong here is", on the contrary! I was replying to "accentuate"/"put more emphasis" to your post, in the same direction, in recalling Ed that since the very beginning of this thread, in an article, a lawyer was already saying "reverse engineering is legal", and you confirmed it in digging the actual law content! Kind of joining the two ends of the thread together!!A fine example of how forum medium and english language (for non native speaking, me), can make false interpratations LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DreamFleet

I'll make it even easier for Alberto, despite what he said above about us.____________________________________________________________________OFFICIAL PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM DREAMFLEET:Alberto, if you can find the offset(s), go ahead and use it. I won't sue you. You can even mention the offset(s) in public! :)END OF STATEMENT____________________________________________________________________However, do not expect us to provide such information as that is not what "support" is about.Next thing you know we'll have someone asking us for all the gauge source code and complaining when we do not give it to them.The 737 is some 6 years old, it is what it is. It's not perfect, but neither should you expect us to provide code-related information either.Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...