CreativeRail's freeware policy

[pjt1974]

I meant in the sense of DPS's Ed Glas route if you are say swapping out kujunk stuff for better assets and adding scenery then that can be distributed as a mod.

I think the main difference here is that Darren will have the required permission to do so.

Also his is only distributed via the workshop by Thomsons request.

True. Thanks for correcting me. I was getting mixed up with his scenery extension to Stirling which just added scenery tiles to the existing route.

(I shall await another spanking of ones backside by Thomson)

[tluamiani1]

It's theoretically possible to make a patch for tracks.bin, removing the need to actually distribute something that's copyrighted. This means you can make all the changes you need to the original route as normal, then create a patch with the changes in it (which is a list of differences between the original and your new one) then distribute that instead.

People then apply the patch themselves and end up with the new, extended route.

I've seen people doing that with GeoPcDx files to add things like pantographs to models etc, files but not tracks.bin yet. Nothing preventing it from what I gather though!

From what I understand, tracks.bin is the only file that actually needs to be updated - everything else can be simply copied from the original route and then your own route tiles added to it.

Creating a set up to do something like this, on the other hand, is a different matter!

Iain

[Tom5305]

AP says clearly that his Wherry route is NOT to be amended for any purpose - it is worth reading the small print! However I suppose what you may do in the comfort of your own home(!) is your affair.
Publishing unauthorised alterations could lead to more than "smacked legs"! Or whatever it is we can do to punish folk these days!
I would seek an irrevocable permission from "copyright" holder before publishing anything - better to be safe than sorry?
The fact that no Producer hasn't, as far as I am aware, taken Legal Action for infringements doesn't mean they won't ever!
Regards
Tom

[phat2003uk]

The license with the Wherry Lines is a fail safe position but if anyone e-mails requesting permission, we are 99% of the time fine with any modifications. Just as long as the original pack is required for the modification to work.

[Tom5305]

A very kind comment from Richard Armstrong regarding the Wherry Route. As an aside, I have been in communication last night and today with problems I had
in getting his new route to show some items of obviously missing assets. He promptly responded fairly late yesterday evening with help and today - Bank Holiday
he has responded yet again. The issues were nothing to do with the supplied route but transpired to missing assets from a dependant route. Thanks once again Richard!
Tom
Doncaster
ps hope Moderator doesn't object to this post partly referring to a slightly different topic?

[thetrainfan]

Oh for heaven's sake

In my view, Thomson and now CreativeRail have gone one step further to ruining the community. Mods and suchlike were the backbone of UKTS at one stage - maybe still now but to a lesser degree.
ECML is a fabulous route and I love it to bits, but to not allow a fix that makes it a little bit more aesthetically pleasing for non-commercial purposes seems absolutely stupid - yes, I know it's their work and they can do what they want but, by doing so, you're potentially limiting people's own experiences.

Re Thomson and the workshop - same thing. Not having scenarios outside of Workshop limits the experience incredibly; seeing as Workshop cannot have third party stock included.

TS used to be a magical thing where you could drive any loco you fancy on any route you fancy to your heart's content - however now, I feel that it's becoming more like 'this MUST be driven with xx route'...

[chrisonline]

That's a bit of extreme of hyperbole there for what only applies to a couple of developers and a couple of routes!

TS hasn't become anything, it is what it always was, but richer for the mass of new assets that have come along and the technical advances with them.

Instead of criticizing Thomson and Creative Rail, how about applauding the extra creations they have given us (and which no on has to buy if they choose not to)? Their business models are their business, but to suggest that they have taken things "one step further to ruining the community* is plain nonsense

[gptech]

Re Thomson and the workshop - same thing. Not having scenarios outside of Workshop

But you can, it's just not officially endorsed.

[pjt1974]

I honestly don't see where some are coming from here.

Creative Rail's policy is the same as it was for everyone pre-Workshop.

Has anyone taken a look at JustTrains' policy about editing a route and uploading it. I'd imagine it would be pretty much the same, just as it's always been.

Editing the route for your own use is fine. If you wish to upload and share with others, you cannot upload any part of the paid product, you can only upload files that were not supplied with the route. I stress again. That was what the Policy was for most, if not all routes before the Steam Workshop and has pretty much remained the same for all none Steam routes since.

They have to protect their product one way?

[pjt1974]

Re Thomson and the workshop - same thing. Not having scenarios outside of Workshop

But you can, it's just not officially endorsed.

I think, allegedly, that line from the Trent Valley manual was directed more at Commercial Scenarios and the mention of the Workshop and endorsing the Workshop as a place to upload scenarios is probably more to do with their association with DTG and DTG's association and promotion of the Steam Worskhop. Although I could be wrong, it does happen

[rkk01]

So, one reason that I buy routes is to acquire suitable assets to use in my own little route projects...

Now, sadly, the chances of me distributing a freeware route are probably quite low, but I'd like to think that I could specify the use of the various assets that I have bought (I appreciate that thus is somewhat different to the modification being discussed here in respect of changing CR routes...)

Nevertheless, the doubts that creep in are enough to keep wallet in pocket

[secludedsfx]

I honestly don't see where some are coming from here.

Creative Rail's policy is the same as it was for everyone pre-Workshop.

Has anyone taken a look at JustTrains' policy about editing a route and uploading it. I'd imagine it would be pretty much the same, just as it's always been.

Editing the route for your own use is fine. If you wish to upload and share with others, you cannot upload any part of the paid product, you can only upload files that were not supplied with the route. I stress again. That was what the Policy was for most, if not all routes before the Steam Workshop and has pretty much remained the same for all none Steam routes since.

They have to protect their product one way?

DTG have always allowed mods of their routes (even if they prefer them to be on the workshop) and tbh there isn't much more commercial route builders out there bar Just Trains and a couple of others (who allow reskins of their products so this should be the exact same situation).

[J0hnG]

Hello,

I don’t think there’s too much of a problem here, as long as you’re carful.

Hypothetical scenario (well, one I’ve been thinking about doing).

Adding Glossop to the Woodhead Line.

To ensure I don’t distribute anything that I have not modified I would do the following:

Copy the route in its entirety. Both route and assets. This is important; you want to be able to compare the original to your modified version so you only distribute the files you have modified.

Prepare a software licence.
Be clear that your mod must only be used on a legitimately purchased original version of the route.
Be clear that your mod will not function without the original route.
State that your mod is free and should never be sold.
State that the original authors of the route are free to distribute the mod if they wish as long as they do not charge for it.
State that the mod is provided AS IS and you cannot be held responsible for any problems resulting from it.

If you have created additional assets such as stations/buildings say that you relinquish your copyright to the route authors.
Make your changes.

Use software such as the Windows command line “FC” program to tell you what files you have modified by a comparison of the original files against your modified ones.
Only distribute your files!

Finally, there is there very real question of quality. Routes are quite often a labour of love, even commercial ones. If you’re attempting to mod a commercial route, you need to be as good as or better than the original route in terms of quality.

[deltic009]

Hello,

I don’t think there’s too much of a problem here, as long as you’re carful.

Hypothetical scenario (well, one I’ve been thinking about doing).

Adding Glossop to the Woodhead Line.

To ensure I don’t distribute anything that I have not modified I would do the following:

Copy the route in its entirety. Both route and assets. This is important; you want to be able to compare the original to your modified version so you only distribute the files you have modified.

Prepare a software licence.
Be clear that your mod must only be used on a legitimately purchased original version of the route.
Be clear that your mod will not function without the original route.
State that your mod is free and should never be sold.
State that the original authors of the route are free to distribute the mod if they wish as long as they do not charge for it.
State that the mod is provided AS IS and you cannot be held responsible for any problems resulting from it.

If you have created additional assets such as stations/buildings say that you relinquish your copyright to the route authors.
Make your changes.

Use software such as the Windows command line “FC” program to tell you what files you have modified by a comparison of the original files against your modified ones.
Only distribute your files!

Finally, there is there very real question of quality. Routes are quite often a labour of love, even commercial ones. If you’re attempting to mod a commercial route, you need to be as good as or better than the original route in terms of quality.

Modified tracks.bin is still a file from the route, because without it their would be nothing to modify, so it isn't 'your own file' it is a reworked version of the authors original file and it is not yours to put a copyright on.

[gptech]

Richard posted that if you contacted him to seek approval for modifications to Wherry Lines there's a high probability of approval being given. This contact to be using e-mail, presumably to start a meaningful dialogue.
What we're discussing here is the response to a vague question on (presumably) social media, a medium not known nor suited to in depth discussions of what really is a confidential matter. Possibly the response would have been different, almost certainly longer at least, if the initial question had been more specific and through a less transient medium.