Rail Simulator Content Responsibility Clause (5.4)

[BR7MT]

Derek, Adam, I am certain that there is no personal malice here, indeed no malice at all, but all this legal stuff has just put quite a lot of people on edge. Not your fault at all, but it is strange how legal jargon tends to do this so often, but that argument is for another day.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain all the implications of the licence agreement and perhaps it might be an idea to file a note somewhere that says any future updates to the T&Cs should be fully explained, in order to prevent these arguments from happening again.

Regards,

Dan

[mickoo737]

AndiS, please calm yourself.

Neither Adam nor I had any say what went into the contract you all signed, seemingly without understanding it.

Perhaps it be best if Both Adam and I retreated from these forums for a few days while everyone simmers down. I'm really not sure why such heat has been generated or why RSDL have come under attack in such a manner from some people.

regards

Derek

You come under critism because you are the face people for RS, like it or not you are the point of contact.

People also criticise because they view the product as flawed and no sign of any commitment to fix said errors.

The license agreements makes people sign up to things they have never had to do in the past.

The fees and waiver of fees is ambiguous and the license loops people have to go through is understandably making people cautious about content creation.

What RS has done is totally new to everyones previous train sim content creation and playing, people don't like change for changes sake.

On the one hand we have lots of very happy people and on the other lots of very unhappy people, some more vocal than others on both sides of the camp.

RS has so much potential but is blighted by past management decisions and blunders, most of which will probably never be rectified, so people are a little touchy when they have been looking fwd to a new rail sim and it doesn't quite match there expectations, despite all they gave free in the public forums over the years. RS appears to be a wonderful opportunity that has been squandered and that upsets a lot of people who genuinely really wanted to help and have input.

Do not assume that all the negative posters around here have hidden agendas or act on spite and malace, most are really ticked off at whats been left over and even more ticked off that they feel they have been pushed back to MSTS1 or wait for TSx.

Regards

Michael

Edit, 'attack' is personal and aggressive, ammended to critique

[AndiS]

AndiS, please calm yourself.

Neither Adam nor I had any say what went into the contract you all signed, seemingly without understanding it.

Perhaps it be best if Both Adam and I retreated from these forums for a few days while everyone simmers down. I'm really not sure why such heat has been generated or why RSDL have come under attack in such a manner from some people.

Sorry if that sounded personal, Derek. I am very well aware that legal stuff is the last of your personal duties. When I say "you" in my posts, I mean it in plural, as in "RSDL". Certainly you both are somehow representing RSD one way or the other. I do not demand official statements from you personally here in this forum. I just make suggestion what the whole organisation should communicate to its partners through channels of their choosing. I read your (RSDs) forums regularly not to miss such a communication.

The alternative to retreating in heated moments would be to proactively discuss/explain things here. Dropping some info in the night must always work against you (Adam & Derek), who then in their spare time can fight lots of people with lots of time and maybe a beer or two. At the same time, I must say that some concerns are not over-reactions of bored people. Many here have been in a situation in their life, where they dealt will cool friends representing some organisation until one day a bad lawyer representing the same organisation shows up and does nasty things and the cool friends say they cannot do anything about it. It happens again and again in the real world, and legal aspects of train simming do belong to the real world.

I am personally optimistic that it is all meant in good faith, but the real-world part of me must ask for a solid basis of his real-world activities, in particular when money (or law) is mentioned. Therefore, we can chat as happy as we like, if there is a dubious threat on some of us, coming under the same name as the good things you do yourself, then there will always be some stuff flying around (an on its way to RSD in general, it might fly past your head).

[johndibben]

AndiS, please calm yourself.

Neither Adam nor I had any say what went into the contract you all signed, seemingly without understanding it.

Perhaps it be best if Both Adam and I retreated from these forums for a few days while everyone simmers down. I'm really not sure why such heat has been generated or why RSDL have come under attack in such a manner from some people.

regards

Derek

Not a chance if the past two years is anything to by. Worse still is actually defining his position on RS.

There's no problem with the contract. You sign it or you don't. If anyone's bothered then contact RSDL privately with some dignity. If the reply is not to anyone's satisfaction then the decision is made for them.

Believe me, they'd love you to disappear. They'd continue to hi-jack every supportive thread if allowed to do so.

Like the 'simmer' down pun

Agree it's bizarre as I can't imagine how such people could ever be involved after what they've said without looking foolish.

Given some minor criticism had the lead project manager of TMTS threatening to quit, you've done extrememly well.

That'll be cut I bet?

Nothing is ever forgotten though and neither will this .... not by myself .... not by anyone.

[CaptScarlet]

I would have thought that when you boil it all down that if you want to create payware etc then it would be prudent to contact RSDL and verify the your status if your in doubt.

The "mistake" RSDL made is not having a "Plain English" contract ( assuming that would have avoided this confusion ) as it's always a problem when normal people are confronted with legal speak. Most people just never read the Eula's that accompany all software and a lot would have the same reaction, The difference here is that you were forced to read it and approve it to get the tools.

John

[stewart]

I would have thought that when you boil it all down that if you want to create payware etc then it would be prudent to contact RSDL and verify the your status if your in doubt.

The "mistake" RSDL made is not having a "Plain English" contract ( assuming that would have avoided this confusion ) as it's always a problem when normal people are confronted with legal speak. Most people just never read the Eula's that accompany all software and a lot would have the same reaction, The difference here is that you were forced to read it and approve it to get the tools.

John

To be honest I dont think it would have made much difference, people were moaning and carping about the licence before it was even published.

[simuk]

The difference here is that you were forced to read it and approve it to get the tools.

I bet a lot of people who have "agreed" to it, won't have actually read (and particularly won't have understood) the licence. It happens all too often where people will skip past something and honestly not know what they've just "agreed" to. Admittedly in the case of this licence it doesn't seem anyone is going to fall down from doing that in general, unless of course they want to release their content commercially... and if you're doing that you should be reading contracts/EULA's/docs/etc very closely anyway...

[CaptScarlet]

I bet a lot of people who have "agreed" to it, won't have actually read (and particularly won't have understood) the licence.

True ( I'am guilty of that ) but then I have no intention of using most of it, just the scenario related parts for my own use.

John

[AndiS]

To be honest I dont think it would have made much difference, people were moaning and carping about the licence before it was even published.

That is the sad thing about it. It could have been a festival for the supporters. Those who said RSD kill off any payware were wrong (going by assurance from Adam and Derek).

If they would have said "You need not pay anything if you send us the following information at least two weeks before release: a) ... b) ... c) ...", then everyone would have seen it.

But they had to say "Everyone pays £1000. If you supply unspecified information within 5 days (in registered letters), we will waive the fee." It was not only a few tossers falling to it.

Since the rumour existed so long, and was never dispelled by Kuju/RSD, how can you blame people to be slow in believing the full turn?

And don't say "How would they be obliged to say earlier?" If a company announces lots of favourable stuff and cuts out one topic, what would you generally think. As I said, it is just sad that this issue, which basically is very favourable, was communicated in such a way. And no, I do not blame Adam or Derek, I say it is a missed PR opportunity for RSD.

Regarding legal stuff normally not read: If I buy a box in a shop, they can put in any small print they want, and make me click useless "accept" buttons. We have clear consumer laws here in Austria, which clearly say that it is all void. Full stop. In contrast, if I enter a free contract in which I need not pay, and there is the vague possibility that I might earn some money for my work, then I am no longer consumer, and thus out of the protection scheme. Thus, this contract is more interesting than the meaningless stuff they normally enclosed with software you buy.