I'm sure we all get fed up of legal statements, don't read the small print and even agree to conditions which arn't legally enforcable and so on. This often with simple contracts like travelling on a train.
What we have here is a very complex situation made so by add-on creators the minute they moved away from the concept of file-sharing without strings attached. This was caused by muppets abusing the copyright of others. This of copyright rules became longer than the installation instructions.
Then came payware with huge rows over default content. The MS EULA was endlessly picked to pieces not helped by MS not responding as they'd given up on the MSTS. This was never resolved rather than unwritten guidelines being followed by precedent as opposed to any firm definition.
Then there was post and packing CD's which provoked a huge amount of rows as to whether it was profit-making or not. This has never been fully resolved to the satisfaction of all.
Then came donationware. That was less controvertial as it was difficult to object to money going into causes railway enthusiasts would find difficult to object to. Nevertheless, it's potentially an area as controvertial in it's definition as the above.
Then there's websites and subscription charges.
Even the term freeware is debated.
This is only MSTS.
I'm not aware of Trainz issues. It's always said Auran retain a tight grip on content but I don't see where. The DLS is a problem for some as content can't be withdrawn directly by the add-on creator.
Let's face a few facts.
The issues here are an extension of a complax situation which has evolved over 6 years of the community's making.
There's been almost continuous rows in that time over anything over quality, copyright nd many more issues.
I challenge anyone to come up with a license which would suit them as a developer of a new sim, bearing in mind all of the above and that there's still outstanding issues in many minds as to the definition of the various methods of distributing third-party content.
A further challenge would be to come up with one which would also suit the many vested interests which are involved.
Have a feeling the only license which would see agreement would be worded 'Here it is, do what you like with it'.
MS more or less did this and lo the trainsim community was pleased
They then set about fighting ach other.
But then, out of the Land of Canan came RSDL who sought to have a license and the trainsim community was not pleased (well not those wanting to nake money). The rest held a party.
Agree with AndiS in that there's time to discuss these matters and it would be far more seemly to do so in private. People can gather support on the forums but no one's going to arrange contracts in public. To do any other is to burn bridges and paint yourself into a corner. Notice wiser heads keep quiet. I've no doubt they're interested but realise 'a still tongue makes for a wise head' in these matters.
Don't believe me?
Look around at who's happy and who isn't.
The belief that third-party add-on creators are essential is based on MSTS and Trainz. A case could be made for keeping everything in house. Most commercial content creators work for peanuts and freeware even less. Skills required are increasing. In my opinion it's only fair that some reward is offered even if it's not accepted. As such they're important and should be treated with respect. Important isn't indespensible though as any need is filled if there's a demand. That depends upon the core product. That's the main issue for most and whee our feedback can make a difference.
Why am I bothering with this issue?
Attempting to place the issue into perspective of trainsimming history and waiting for my dinner
