Poll For Freeware Asset Creators

[Darpor]

Following on from the thread discussion about whether "paid for" dvd's should be produced that contain freeware items in order to combat high asset dependencies, could all people who provide freeware assets for Railworks please vote yes or no as to whether you would be willing to allow them to be included in selected routes. If you feel the need to, please give reasons behind your answer.

Of course, this poll doesn't provide an immediate solution but could give us an understanding of the hurdles involved.

[AndyM77]

Whilst I personally haven't created any assets for Railworks (apart from my challenge route), I would have no problems with other "Route Authors" putting any of my (future)objects into their routes provided absolutely no profit would be made by them. In other words, if I create FREEware, I expect it to be available to the community 24/7 for FREE, so that the community as a whole can benefit from anything which I create.

However, if I ever released PAYware, then of course I would restrict the movement of my Asset(s) to the best of my ability.

[msey0002]

Great initiative, Darren, thank you. I will not cast a vote since I do not create any assets, but I do hope we see positive results.

[Darpor]

Thanks for the comments guys.

Andy, I probably should have made it clear that this topic is indeed for the purpose of making freeware assets available to freeware routes and I agree entirely with your comments.

Mark, yes, and I hope that we do just receive votes from those who are providing the freeware assets and not from people who just want to see a positive vote. It then kind of misses the whole point in doing it.

[dkightley]

I think that before you "re-invent the wheel", I thought it may be worth you canvassing opinion from some of those involved in the 8 years of freeware production for MSTS, as this in by no means something new.

I suppose I ought to quickly run through the way in which copyright is handled on MSTS, the difference betweem MSTS and Railworks that affect the whole issue, and a few pointers...

MSTS routes are usually shipped with all non-Microsoft assets included..which means that any third party assets will need to be incorporated in the shipment files. As this is the normal way of working, you'll find that all MSTS assets will have copyright and distribution information in the documentation....advising on what ways of distributing is acceptable. There are a few exceptions that are not shipped with routes...such as track definitions and modular platforms, but these were designed to be distributed separately. Overall, there are few permissions issues....mainly due to the documented permissions in the individual assett shipments.

Railworks has been designed to allow a felexible interaction between RS.com created assets, third party assets, and the sim itself. Because of the organisation of the data files, and the fact that the sim will run if any assets are missing, there is not an absolute requirement to supply all assets with the shipment of the route. In fact, I'm sure the design concept was for assets to be shipped totally separately to the route. This concept actually does away with the route author having to ask permission to incorporate someone's freeware assets in their route...they simply incorporate the asset requirements in the route...and advise the user they need to obtain the assets themselves.

What appears to have happened (and correct me if my assumption is wrong) is that freeware asset builders have made their assets available as "freeware" without specifying what permissions they are granting. This is not a problem for the above way of working.....but I sense a move to users not being happy with having to download several additional packs of assets in addition to the route, and they are now asking "Can you include the assets in the route shipment?"...which is sort of moving back to the MSTS way of packaging routes. But with one big problem! There's no specific permission information available for a majority of available freeware assets.

Que the subject of this thread......and I hope I've outlined the details of the problem, which might go someway to helping provide an answer to the possible issues that may arise over the coming months and years. One of my fellow moderators, Glyn, was involved in a permissions working party a year or so ago.....perhaps I ought to push him in this direction.....

[bigvern]

Yes Doug, that is the problem. Huge lists of required assets are a huge turn off (IMHO) to downloading a route. Maybe not so bad if they're all on one site like UKTS but when you have to start scouring around the www, then it just becomes too much of a chore. Unless RS.com or a third party can invent something akin to the DLS then the only practical solution is to include third party assets within the rwp file, with the chance the end user may already have these or may even overwrite a newer version.

In answer to the poll I voted yes - though the obvious caveat is that full credit must be given in the readme.

[dipper6]

See my post on exactly this.

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 6&start=30

[johny]

My assets are freeware and as such are intended for use in freeware routes. I would take a very dim view of someone building a route using those assets and then selling the route, other than a community cd, and leaving the assets out to be inserted by the user would still be making money on the back of something provided free.

John

[mikesimpson]

Hi Darren,

My suggestion for a DVD was brought about by a recent Continental route I downloaded which required me to visit 14 web sites, 3 of which no longer existed. Just to obtain the required assets. This is only likely to get worse in future when routes are available, but the assets are not.

On top of this, asset authors on the whole are useless at packaging assets. .RWP files are often bloated with .xml, .tgt and .cost files among others which are not required and just bloat the package.

Others release every single asset as a single package, e.g. 8 separate houses, whereas they could all be included in a single download.

I can foresee that in a couple of years time, the Package Manager will take 5 minutes to load having to go through all the rubbish it holds.

Mike

[KiwiPete]

I would never allowed any of my assets to be included in a NON free route. Its not why I build them. The TSNZ models ALWAYS include a readme that clearly states the copyright requirements.

I have stated it before, and I shall say it again, I personally feel the first big mistake that was made with RS and later RW, was allowing files to be upload anywhere without a Readme file. In the future its going become a complete pain to workout what files are by the vague names that are used for the RWP files.

Regards Peter

[Acorncomputer]

Hi

I have on a number of occasions suggested a Free to Distribute Asset Library. Basically any asset uploaded to that library is automatically deemed to be free to distribute with routes and no separate permission is required. There should be a standard set of rules drawn up that each author will automatically agree to simply by uploading.

The sticking point with this, I believe, is who would host and police this library. UKTS would be an obvious choice but this might cost Matt money for no significant return and RS.com could also host such a central library but might also consider the cost of administration too much.

There is a solution here somewhere but there needs to be a willing host first.

[Basherz]

I would never allowed any of my assets to be included in a NON free route. Its not why I build them. The TSNZ models ALWAYS include a readme that clearly states the copyright requirements.

I have stated it before, and I shall say it again, I personally feel the first big mistake that was made with RS and later RW, was allowing files to be upload anywhere without a Readme file. In the future its going become a complete pain to workout what files are by the vague names that are used for the RWP files.

Regards Peter

You are quite correct Peter, and I don't think any of us would intentionally wan't it to be any other way - but please don't restrict freeeware for being what it is intended to be. - "Freeware for Freeware use only"

[SAVV01]

You are quite correct Peter, and I don't think any of us would intentionally wan't it to be any other way - but please don't restrict freeeware for being what it is intended to be. - "Freeware for Freeware use only"

I'm fairly certain our TSNZ readme's copyright section states that you can redistribute with routes, but that the author must be credited alongside a link the TSNZ site being provided. Which, if I recall, was largely how files were distributed with MSTS routes. Part of the readme for the route would list everyone who's models were used etc.

[KiwiPete]

yes , which is what I said without spelling it out word for word in the thread.
The copyright notice is very clear and concise as to whats permitted and whats not.

How would one ever know who even uploaded a RWP file in a year or so if its on your Disk and you have no idea where/who it belongs to. Theres no copyright notice/readme amd you can not tell who's it is. Would you take the chance and use the asset and just hope Don Trump is not the modeller.

I am no lawyer but I would be surprised if just using something in a payware route because there is no copyright statement would be legal if someone challenged it.

I have not voted as I feel the opinions are a bit vague.
Are You Prepared To Allow Your Assets To Be Included In Selected Routes
Does this mean Selected Freeware routes or selected payware routes.??

regards Peter

[Darpor]

Hi Peter

I did realise that I hadn't stated it plainly enough so replied to the first post. This poll is intended for the use of FREEware assets in FREEware routes.