Not So Fast...

[bigvern]

I notice the License thread was rather rapidly locked since I last looked at it.

While the points re payware have (sort of) been cleared up and in particular the issue of download sites/at cost CD distribution, there are still a couple of issues outstanding.

The main one is that about not releasing content for RS that is also for any other sim. Now it's fairly obvious that an item or route in the RS proprietary file format is not going to work in MSTS, TRS, BVE or any other sim. Therefore that can only mean if I model a building, or a route for RS that I am not then able to offer that route as an add on for any other sim? What about a route I created previously for MSTS or Trainz that I wanted to do in RS? Does that mean that any previous versions of that sim must be withdrawn.

Sorry but the licence agreement is frankly all rather woolly on this and indeed the matters already discussed. For payware it seems to be we may charge you a fee, which may be up to £1000 but surely the exact circumstances need to be set forth in the agreement?

As others have said I have no objection to Zoe Mode/RSDL taking their cut on commercial work but it needs to be done in a properly structured way so that anyone setting out on a project has an exact idea of what the cost to be. Up to £1000 also seems to be sheer greed when one considers many add ons don't even sell 1000 units. And of course it will now be all too convenient for RSDL to sit behind the "we don't discuss individual deals on open forums stance".

Sorry, but nothing I read in the latter half of the locked topic has changed my original view about RS post Dev Tool release.

[NeutronIC]

I locked it as the other point had been answered (satisfactorily or otherwise, I think it's a closed issue from the download-site point of view though) and i'm happy for the discussion to continue on this and other unclear points in the license, I too am keen to hear more!

Matt

[simuk]

As others have said I have no objection to Zoe Mode

.....

That's another rumour/confusion that seems to be galloping up on the rails ('xcuse the pun) which needs to be killed off rather quickly...

[RSderek]

RSDL

[MartinvK]

When I got to

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

I had to read that twice to be sure that I was not hallucinating. What were they smoking when they inserted that clause?

I've built many objects for other sims and there is a constant reuse of parts, even whole sections, when creating another object. Aside from the fact that RS models as-is will not work in any other sim, which means the clause is useless, I can only conclude that it means that the source files can not be used or have been used to create a model for another sim. Does anyone seriously think that the content source files, from a simple box to a massive loco, will not be reused? Yes? ,well I've got some prime swampland ...

[rabid]

I'm no lawyer but given how that clause reads I don't see how RDSL could enforce something like that is essentially someone else's intellectual property (or why they would want to). If I create an object in a 3d package I can do what the heck I want with it as it belongs to me, not RSDL. It's like saying by using our vacuum cleaner on your carpet you must not ever use any other make of cleaner on it again. I can only surmise that it has either been poorly worded or the person who wrote it did not fully consider the consequences (or both). Let's wait and see.

[AndiS]

When I got to

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

I had to read that twice to be sure that I was not hallucinating. What were they smoking when they inserted that clause?

I did not smoke anything after I turned off the computer yesterday, but I had their vision.
Simply, what if MS decide to make their sim compatible with KRS and save the effort to write tools that do whatever the KRS tools do? This scenario must be prevented, mustn't it?

The funny thing is, if they do, or more realistically, if little AndiS is so frustrated with the whole lot that he starts writing his own sim, and he realistically starts by making it compatible to others, and now it is known to the world that Andi-Sim can use KRS models, then as a modeller, you must not use the KRS tools as per 5.4 above, because you know that the output of the process can operate with another simulator.

There is no way to get control over the input to the conversion process anyway. We must have been pretty heated yesterday to believe such a thing anyway, and I must say that the whole licensing contract contributed to it. How much better would it have been to discuss it in open daylight a week ago, with all the responsible people at hand to explain any funny bit. Or, have the contract proof-read by a cynic before publishing it. I always tell people: Better an Andi rant now, than a thunderstorm later.

E.g., I would have added the following clarification, regarding the "answer questions or pay £1000" riddle. "If you contact us at the start of your project, and you will receive a list of questions. The answers to these questions (as soon as you can give them, but at the latest 2 weeks before release) will exempt you from paying the licence fee."

If I ever make anything slightly looking like payware, it would be this way for me, and I would be happy to receive confirmation better sooner than later that this is a safe way, because paying £1000 is not an option for me.

[MaxFreak]

I'm no lawyer but given how that clause reads I don't see how RDSL could enforce something like that is essentially someone else's intellectual property (or why they would want to). If I create an object in a 3d package I can do what the heck I want with it as it belongs to me, not RSDL. It's like saying by using our vacuum cleaner on your carpet you must not ever use any other make of cleaner on it again. I can only surmise that it has either been poorly worded or the person who wrote it did not fully consider the consequences (or both). Let's wait and see.

They can't ... and they know it .

~A~

[bigvern]

Interesting to see that RSDL responded, but did not answer the question re content that might have featured/could feature in other sims.

Besides, surely all these little clarifications etc. need to be incorporated in the licence agreement itself, rather than as asides on a forum? It rather looks as if the licence was written by a lawyer with little or no idea of how things work in the train sim world!

[Neptune50006]

So does this mean that Kevin's Jinty tank loco, that he has built initially for RS, will now be "illegal" because he has released it for MSTS first? I believe, but am not totally sure, that several of the latest releases for MSTS have been built with an eye to converting them to RS. What a shame for all if they can't be used.

[KlausM]

@bigvern: Did I misunderstand Adam that he will provide us an explanation of this weird condition today?

@Andi: There is only very little a content creator can do to prevent some third party train simulator to import his creation if he knows the formats used by RS, whether this is legal or not. Been there, seen that (my dispute with Auran, BSI). Therefore I think that this interpretation is quite unlikely.

Klaus

[jascott]

Interesting to see that RSDL responded, but did not answer the question re content that might have featured/could feature in other sims.

Besides, surely all these little clarifications etc. need to be incorporated in the licence agreement itself, rather than as asides on a forum? It rather looks as if the licence was written by a lawyer with little or no idea of how things work in the train sim world!

I would be amazed if any legal document has ever existed than is understood 100% the same by everyone who reads it, no matter how clear the author of the document thought it was. They usually require some sort of clarification and/or addendum after the fact.
The reason for not answering point 5.4 was clearly given, so we need to have patience until it is answered, which I am sure it will be.

John

[longbow]

Let's play lawyers for a moment.

As we all know, no content made to run on RS will be able to "operate with any other simulator except (current and future versions of) Rail Simulator (Clause 5.4)" An RS 3F is not the same product as an MSTS 3F, even if it they are based on a common model. Therefore MSTS and Trainz versions of the same content are not subject to this clause. Not guilty, mi'lud.

Seriously, most licensing agreements operate on the basis that the licensor reserves every right imaginable and business is then done by permission rather than by contract. It's pretty clear from Kuju clarifications that they intend to operate on this basis. As it seems to me that in most cases they benefit hugely from having content ported over from other sims, I'm pretty sure we'll get a positive clarification on this area too.

[RSderek]

Guys, no one panic...

Adam will be posting up shortly and I think you will all be happy!

regards

Derek

[AndiS]

Seriously, most licensing agreements operate on the basis that the licensor reserves every right imaginable and business is then done by permission rather than by contract.

That's why I hate them one and all. They always make you sign big things, then tell you informally that you need not care about it - as long as you are nice. Alternatively, you pay a load to a lawyer to show that making you sign that was illegal anyway and that the contract has no legal binding. I found the part very cute where they say that if something in the contract is found to be illegal, than at least the other parts should be considered legal as much as possible.

Anyway, I am convinced about the good intent behind the bad wording, I just wonder why it was necessary to have it in the first place.

Klaus is right that my version to explain 5.4. is unlikely, but it is the best I can offer without resorting to substance abuse.

I am more after a concise statement of the £1000 questions to be answered, let's hope we get both right and clearly so.