Atomic Systems

Ok - Everyones next point of contention:

Rail Simulator License Agreement wrote:Responsibility for your Content

5.You must ensure that the Content:

5.4 does not, to your knowledge, operate with any other simulator except (current and future versions of) Rail Simulator;

As promised, I have sought clarification so here we go:

This agreement is in place and governs your access to the Developer Tools of Rail Simulator. This agreement covers the contents of those downloads and what you are permitted to use the tools (designed to create compatible content for Rail Simulator) for.

Article 5.4 from Section 5 of this agreement, is that content you create with the tools is not compatible with any other simulator. This does not however cover any material created outside these tools. This agreement does no cover content created in any modelling or art package before it is used or referenced in the Rail Simulator Developer Tools.

In short, we do not permit developers to use our tools for the creation of content for other games and simulation software. Clearly we dont want our effort creating a Rail Simulator tool set benefiting a competative product! What ever you do with material created in Max, Photoshop, Canvas, TSM, MS Paint, Google Sketchup, Blender, Fireworks, is not of our concern (although we hope that its Rail Simulator content you're making! )

Time for Q&A's

So please change the clause accordingly so that it clearly expresses this limitation. Otherwise, it is a legal trap. Thanks.

Klaus

RSAdam wrote:In short, we do not permit developers to use our tools for the creation of content for other games and simulation software.

Hohoho, I smoke the right dope! Must look for another editor for Andi Sim then.

Klaus, it is not a bad trap. As Adam and others said, they do not have control over your creations anyway. They only can regulate the usage of their own tool.

It is quite self-explanatory really - you can't use their software to create content for another simulator.

It is not a matter that I don't understand Adam's answer. But why can't the licence contain a sentence saying exactly this? A judge only looks at the contract, and not anywhere else (like this forum, for example). Adam's statement is simply not part of the that contract.

However, doing a short scan over the documents, it more and more becomes clear that it doesn't matter for me anyway. But that's an issue for a different thread.

Klaus

Given that clarification, it all seems fair enough to me. I would be somewhat surprised if it were possible to use RSDL tools to create for anything else, anyhow.

It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Lots of jumping to conclusions, then the facts emerge...

All I will say is that where it says "5.You must ensure that the Content:" might have been better worded as "5.You must ensure that the Content created with these tools:".

It appeared clear enough to me originally.

Then again I can read and not looking for trouble.

johndibben wrote:It appeared clear enough to me originally.

Then again I can read and not looking for trouble.

Quite frankly, the furore that ensued when the licence was posted was ridiculous, with many of the rants (and their source) being rather predictable. I said once before it was like the pitchfork and burning torch brigade were begining to gather. Well last night it looked like the were trying to hammer down the castle door. I hope the mob rule mentality that showed itself then never resurfaces on these forums and I also hope that the instigators will relfect on their actions and feel a certain amount of shame for their actions in helping to fan the flames. Hats of to RSDL for steering a dignified path through the maelstrom. you deserve your champagne guys.

stewart wrote:

johndibben wrote:It appeared clear enough to me originally.

Then again I can read and not looking for trouble.

Quite frankly, the furore that ensued when the licence was posted was ridiculous, with many of the rants (and their source) being rather predictable. I said once before it was like the pitchfork and burning torch brigade were begining to gather. Well last night it looked like the were trying to hammer down the castle door. I hope the mob rule mentality that showed itself then never resurfaces on these forums and I also hope that the instigators will relfect on their actions and feel a certain amount of shame for their actions in helping to fan the flames. Hats of to RSDL for steering a dignified path through the maelstrom. you deserve your champagne guys.

I agree Stewart, it may have put some potential people off who could bring something to the sim, No railway simulator is a life or death matter but one would be inclined to think so after reading some of the hysteria that was typed yesterday.

I would not like to think what will happen if MSTS2 has a single bug or inaccuracy!

Aren't YOU a little bit overreacting now?

I haven't looked at the tools yet, as I am not at home. But I assume that the output of the tools are usable only for RS anyway. If the output would be generic enough that it could be used by a different simulator, nobody could tell that the tool has been used for the production anyway, except if this tool would be the only one in the world that is able to generate this output (which, again, makes it quite unlikely that a third party would base its whole developing infrastructure upon RSDL's tool set).

As such, the current official interpretation is rather hypothetical and the interpretation that was brought up by the community was much more likely. Also, I wouldn't bet that RSDL did not quickly change their mind.

Klaus

Edit: added missing "only"

stewart wrote:

johndibben wrote:It appeared clear enough to me originally.

Then again I can read and not looking for trouble.

Quite frankly, the furore that ensued when the licence was posted was ridiculous, with many of the rants (and their source) being rather predictable. I said once before it was like the pitchfork and burning torch brigade were begining to gather. Well last night it looked like the were trying to hammer down the castle door. I hope the mob rule mentality that showed itself then never resurfaces on these forums and I also hope that the instigators will relfect on their actions and feel a certain amount of shame for their actions in helping to fan the flames. Hats of to RSDL for steering a dignified path through the maelstrom. you deserve your champagne guys.

I firmly stand by the issues I raised from the poorly worded licence, certainly not hysteria when one mistake could see you landed with a £1000 bill.

There has been some clarification by RSDL on the forum but as already mooted...
1. Why wasn't the licence written more clearly in the first place.
2. Will the new caveats, exemptions and clarifications be retrospectively incorporated.

One assumes any issues with the payware will now happen "in camera" though these things do have a habit of getting out - particularly when Dev. A has been chinged a Grand to release a rolling stock pack for £5 a copy while Dev. B gets a token £100 fee to sell their £25 route pack.

It will be interesting to see how this all shapes up in practice... However I'm now quite content to sit on the sidelines as an ex RS'er and watch for the time being.

Klaus,

What is it that you think are the real motives behind RSDL?

Clearly what ever we say in any frame of mind and under any circumstances is not good enough for you. We are all interested to know what it is you think we're trying to do here? Maybe then we can put some doubts to bed and get on with enjoying train simulation.

bigvern wrote:1. Why wasn't the licence written more clearly in the first place.
2. Will the new caveats, exemptions and clarifications be retrospectively incorporated.

One assumes any issues with the payware will now happen "in camera" though these things do have a habit of getting out - particularly when Dev. A has been chinged a Grand to release a rolling stock pack for £5 a copy while Dev. B gets a token £100 fee to sell their £25 route pack.

What licenses are written in english? Certainly none that I know of. If they were, most lawyers would be out of business over night! Their sole purpose I thought was to take simple statements and make them incomprehendable to the public.

Nothing needs to be retrospectively applied in light of the clarifications posted. The only likely people to take this license agreement to court over a dispute is RSDL, and we already understand its legalities. However as already demonstrated, we are more than will to assist people if they require further explaination.

The last paragraph totally looses me im affraid, so I cannot respond to what ever it is getting at.

stewart wrote:
Quite frankly, the furore that ensued when the licence was posted was ridiculous, with many of the rants (and their source) being rather predictable. I said once before it was like the pitchfork and burning torch brigade were begining to gather. Well last night it looked like the were trying to hammer down the castle door. I hope the mob rule mentality that showed itself then never resurfaces on these forums and I also hope that the instigators will relfect on their actions and feel a certain amount of shame for their actions in helping to fan the flames. Hats of to RSDL for steering a dignified path through the maelstrom. you deserve your champagne guys.

Where was the vote or poll that made you judge advocate over what people write or express here ?, your arrogance and pomposity is no better then others venting, predictable source or not, and the above statment is merely fanning the flames even more with snipe remarks. Like Vern l stand by what l said.