Atomic Systems

At the end of the licence agreement, under the checkbox that says you agree to the licence, it says:

I want to use the tools for: *

Non-commercial use
Commercial use
RSA Commercial use

What if you want to use the tools for all three? I could quite easily sit here with a personal (Non-commercial use) or business (Commercial use, and Rail Simulator Approved use) hat on and want to use the tools for each of those categories, but can only pick one...? Does picking one over another limit you to just that, or does picking commercial over non-commercial, or RSA Commercial over non-RSA Commercial inherit the rights/allowances of the other? I realise there might not be many people this specific circumstance applies to, but I/it need some (further) clarification, and would expect the same to be the case for at least a few other people on this forum alone.

Opting for non-commercial must be the safe bet. It is up to RSD to handle the situation that a freeware developer does his first payware. Not an uncommon situation, and most likely handled by an email and they change the status or something. Now that it seems to boil down to information duties, all they can throw at you if you do both payware and freeware is the requirement to send them a complete list of your freeware, which someone may well criticise, should they ever come up with such a demand, but even in this case, it would not be a surmountable difficulty.

I take it no one knows an exact answer to this?

AndiS wrote:Opting for non-commercial must be the safe bet.

Unfortunately(?) that doesn't seem to be the safe bet for me. I know I'm going to be involved in the creation of commercial content, and also non-commercial content. I'd imagine there's a strong chance of the commercial content becoming Rail Simulator Approved Commercial Content if it shapes up to be good enough (and depending on the exact details of what that'll allow for a product and require of the developer/publisher) so I'm really unsure as to which one of the three options is applicable, or if RSDL are using it simply to gauge interest in the various types of user that are requesting the tools/docs? Although even still, that doesn't help me any further as I could easily tick all three if it were possible.

Also, hypothetically speaking, I build a freeware route for RS with some custom buildings.

Payware Developer "A" comes along and says, "Wow Vern, we really like your xxxyyy station building. We'd like to use it in our mmm to nnn route. We will pay you a one off fee of £25 to cover your trouble".

Okay £25 beer money, not bad. But under the RSDL licence where does my model now fall? Am I responsible for submitting to RS that it has become a payware "item" or do the group who purchased it assume responsibility and include it in their route submission to RSDL?

Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this in that £25 suddenly becomes a £975 loss when the letter from RSDL arrives on the doormat with the opening statement, " We notice your station building made with tools under our freeware licence is now included in "A's" payware route and you didn't tell us...that will be £1000 non negotiable"

Please understand I am not trying to be negative by raising these issues - there are real concerns where this might all end up.

Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this in that £25 suddenly becomes a £975 loss when the letter from RSDL arrives on the doormat with the opening statement, " We notice your station building made with tools under our freeware licence is now included in "A's" payware route and you didn't tell us...that will be £1000 non negotiable"

Yes, however, the first time that the lawyers attempt to bully a freeware content developer who had acted in good faith, the news will spread like wildfire and no one in their right mind will continue development for the product. They may be able to squeeze a few extra quid out of a few people, but the cost will be the longer term viability of the product and any chance of making it the first in a franchise, not least because of the horrendous PR.

simuk, ok, no safe bet then.

Vern, another aspect which should be taken serious. Logic would say that only the primary contractor/vendor/coordinator of a project would be responsible, but it is not stated anywhere, and logic does not necessarily count in court. (Sorry to the one lawyer among us, not meant against you.)

ratsarrse wrote:

Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this in that £25 suddenly becomes a £975 loss when the letter from RSDL arrives on the doormat with the opening statement, " We notice your station building made with tools under our freeware licence is now included in "A's" payware route and you didn't tell us...that will be £1000 non negotiable"

Yes, however, the first time that the lawyers attempt to bully a freeware content developer who had acted in good faith, the news will spread like wildfire and no one in their right mind will continue development for the product. They may be able to squeeze a few extra quid out of a few people, but the cost will be the longer term viability of the product and any chance of making it the first in a franchise, not least because of the horrendous PR.

With the greatest of respect, since when did lawyers worry about PR ?, and second, who's going to be brave enough to try it and run the risks and see what happens ?.

Your logic is sound coming from people who walk around here, but in the legal world, theres only black and white and as you know a very good expensive company lawyer can make black turn into white quite easily at the expense of ordinary citizens and there lawyers / solicitors.

Regards

Michael

mickoo737 wrote: With the greatest of respect, since when did lawyers worry about PR ?

They don't, but the business that employs the lawyers does. The company lawyer may well advise the company to sue, but it will be a business decision whether or not to take that advice.

second, who's going to be brave enough to try it and run the risks and see what happens ?

That is a good point, notwithstanding my comment above. By trying to control any potential 3rd party development to the extent that they are, there may well be many people that are put off and intimidated by the lengthy contractual agreement.

On the other hand, we're all well used to clicking past EULAs without reading a word of them...

ratsarrse wrote: They don't, but the business that employs the lawyers does. The company lawyer may well advise the company to sue, but it will be a business decision whether or not to take that advice.

Mute point, if said company wanted to make an issue of a particular body then they may weight up the consequences and consider it a worth while prospect, very unlikely l know but a possibility.

ratsarrse wrote:That is a good point, notwithstanding my comment above. By trying to control any potential 3rd party development to the extent that they are, there may well be many people that are put off and intimidated by the lengthy contractual agreement.

On the other hand, we're all well used to clicking past EULAs without reading a word of them...

Control of third party content was always going to be contentious, there is effectively only two ways to do it, free for all and total control like IL2 and the such like, any where in between just leads to confusion.

Regards