Assets and Payware

[Otterbear2]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

Just to be as clear as possible.

It looks to me, like I can use assets/content from Kuju, Castlerock and RSDL in payware routes.
Although,the wording in their original disclaimer seems to state otherwise...IE:"...other assets supplied by RailSimulator.com Limited or third parties
may not permit you to do this."

This may relate to other(s) software/add-ons supplied through RSDL though, But, I just wanted to be sure before I spend months developing a route.

Thanks again everybody, for any further clarification on this and for all the help in general.

[PaulH2]

This may relate to other(s) software/add-ons supplied through RSDL though, But, I just wanted to be sure before I spend months developing a route.

I suspect what that clause refers to is payware content from RS.com (or formerly RSDL). Given that the only scenic payware item they have released (to date) is the foliage pack, which is now included in RW anyway, from a route perspective you should be just fine.

[Otterbear2]

Thanks PaulH2.

[dkightley]

Just to clarify a couple of points........here's a couple of brief (but possibly not true "legal") definitions:

If something is "Freeware", you can use it without having to pay a "licence" to use it.

If something is "Copyright", you usually need to have permission to distribute it as part of your own work.

The interesting bit is that the two are not linked!

[Bullet399]

this is what i use if i give away my assets:

Copyright and Distribution
===========================

This Archive is released as Freeware. Copyright myName.
As freeware you are permitted to distribute this archive subject to the following conditions:

- The archive must be distributed without modification to the
contents of the archive. Redistributing this archive with any files
added, removed or modified is prohibited.

- The inclusion of any individual file from this archive in another
archive without the prior permission of the author is prohibited.
This means, for example, that you may not upload an archive that uses
my visuals or models with your own or include it in a
package containing other items without first obtaining the author's permission.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptions are Freeware Routes or Freeware Scenarios packaged in a rpk/rpw file.
For usage in Freeware Routes and/or Freeware Scenarios no further permission is needed.
It would be nice if the Author (me) is mentioned in the Readme of those packages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- No charge may be made for this archive other than that to cover the
cost of its distribution. If a fee is charged it must be made clear
to the purchaser that the archive is freeware and that the fee is to
cover the distributor's costs of providing the archive.

[Otterbear2]

The interesting bit is that the two are not linked!

If you could go into what that means. I'm having a hard time "linking" that comment with the previous statements...

Thanks Bullet399.

[dkightley]

Not a problem.

I hope Michael will not object to me disecting his "Copyright and Distribution" statement to illustrate what I mean....

Copyright and Distribution
===========================

This Archive is released as Freeware......

This is the declaration that the contents are freeware...ie you have a free licence to use it! As the definition of freeware relates to using it, Michael needs to move on to Copyright:

....... Copyright myName.

And this is asserting Michael's interlectual property right over the contents...the Copyright statement. So, irrespective of the contents being freeware, payware, or whateverware, Michael is the owner.

Being the kind sort of person Michael is, he's now going to give you permission to distribute the contents:

As freeware you are permitted to distribute this archive subject to the following conditions:

....within reasonable bounds, though........

- The archive must be distributed without modification to the
contents of the archive. Redistributing this archive with any files
added, removed or modified is prohibited.

- The inclusion of any individual file from this archive in another
archive without the prior permission of the author is prohibited.
This means, for example, that you may not upload an archive that uses
my visuals or models with your own or include it in a
package containing other items without first obtaining the author's permission.

All very reasonable....and very well explained! Even more good news.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptions are Freeware Routes or Freeware Scenarios packaged in a rpk/rpw file.
For usage in Freeware Routes and/or Freeware Scenarios no further permission is needed.
It would be nice if the Author (me) is mentioned in the Readme of those packages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few specific instances where permission is already granted. And a final condition to round the whole thing off, expanding on how Michael wants to stretch the conditions of freeware to allow for distribution costs:

- No charge may be made for this archive other than that to cover the
cost of its distribution. If a fee is charged it must be made clear
to the purchaser that the archive is freeware and that the fee is to
cover the distributor's costs of providing the archive.

So....in fact, Michael's statement contains three very important things...

• a freeware statement

• a copyright statement

• and conditions where he will allow you to further distribute the contents as freeware

Three different things....but the interaction between them does get a bit grey sometimes. Of course....if the "contents" are payware, then the distribution bit goes out the window - you will not be allowed to distribute. Equally, should you say that you do not wish to hold copyright on the contents, then you wouldn't be able to restrict distribution in any way.

[Otterbear2]

Thanks for going into that in more detail for me Doug, That was very helpful. Much appreciated.