Class 60 scenario.. Now approved

[Wikkus]

This may be a moot question, is it possible to package scenarios in such a way that freeware/repaints is ditributed , or is that not allowed..

I would prefer to avoid this next time..

Don't think so, but I stand to be corrected. Was thinking along alternative lines, myself; if there were a means by which to generate a stock list that showed all the non-standard items. At the very least, I was thinking to run a stock report using Mike Simpson's RW Tools and then use the "remove duplicates" option and then save and edit the report for inclusion with any scenarios.

Cheers, Rik.

[Wikkus]

Hi

I seem to be missing a lot of non-default fsawagons -any idea where I can download these ?

Cheers

This link should be what you're after -- "News" Euro container pack V2.0 at http://www.rail-sim.de

Hope this helps,

Rgds, Rik.

[Basherz]

All "Freeware" should be allowed to be repackaged, unaltered, in any route or scenario you wish to use it in. Whilst I can happily understand that the original creator would not want it altered in any way, if you have any further restriction, then routes/scenarios are not worth doing at all.

I'm sure there will be disagreement in these forums.

[psimpson20]

Thanks for the link Rik

I also found the 5Plankwagon download at the same site

no missing stock now

Cheers

[Wikkus]

All "Freeware" should be allowed to be repackaged, unaltered, in any route or scenario you wish to use it in. Whilst I can happily understand that the original creator would not want it altered in any way, if you have any further restriction, then routes/scenarios are not worth doing at all.

I tend to agree, Chris, only adding that, out of courtesy, I'd attempt to contact the author if there were no details posted with the asset when originally distributed/published as to what restrictions they placed, e.g. whether it was under any sort of recognised system such as "copyleft". David Hossack may have some input to add...

I misunderstood what ightenhill was referring to as I interpreted his post to mean having the ability to include assets within the .rwp, instead -- D'oh!

I'm sure there will be disagreement in these forums.

Surely not...

Rgds, Rik.

[Wikkus]

Thanks for the link Rik

You're most welcome

I also found the 5Plankwagon download at the same site

D'oh! Didn't even check that!

Well done on finding it, at least the "mystery wagon" (non-Scooby Doo variety) is solved

Cheers, Rik.

[Basherz]

All "Freeware" should be allowed to be repackaged, unaltered, in any route or scenario you wish to use it in. Whilst I can happily understand that the original creator would not want it altered in any way, if you have any further restriction, then routes/scenarios are not worth doing at all.

I tend to agree, Chris, only adding that, out of courtesy, I'd attempt to contact the author if there were no details posted with the asset when originally distributed/published as to what restrictions they placed, e.g. whether it was under any sort of recognised system such as "copyleft". David Hossack may have some input to add...

I misunderstood what ightenhill was referring to as I interpreted his post to mean having the ability to include assets within the .rwp, instead -- D'oh!

I'm sure there will be disagreement in these forums.

Surely not...

Rgds, Rik.

Well yes, perhaps I should have added that bit Rik. What i was more thinking was that I am sure I have seen a
"cannot be freely distributed" somewhere (or something meaning the same) within "so called" freeware, and if this is the case, then this doesn't appear freeware to me.

[ightenhill]

Thanks for that its been driving me mad... I'll update the description..

[Wikkus]

What i was more thinking was that I am sure I have seen a "cannot be freely distributed" somewhere (or something meaning the same) within "so called" freeware, and if this is the case, then this doesn't appear freeware to me.

The readme with DT's "giveaway" stock (20T brake van picked as an example):
"This model is provided as freeware, and is not for commercial re-use without express permission."

Which is absolutely understandable and right...

...but is immediately followed by the line:
Please do not re-distribute, copy, decompile or reverse engineer without express written permission from Digital Traction."

Which is slightly at odds with the concept of "freeware". However, I also appreciate why they may prefer to have such a tight restriction which is to leave no loopholes that may be exploited by the unscrupulous and besides, it'd not be too onerous a task to drop them an email to ask permission to bundle it in a "stock pack" to accompany a freeware scenario.

Edit: Incidentally, it's the whole "intellectual property" thing, here -- it's not a tangible product, but thought and effort have gone into creating something so rather than financial reward, the author merely asks for acknowledgement of their efforts or credit where it's due. In my experience, it's often no more than a disclaimer along the lines of "Special thanks to {insert name here} for allowing the use of their {insert name of product}" and then ensuring that you have your own disclaimer to ensure your "product" (the scenario or stock pack) can also not be changed/redistributed, etc. without appropriate acknowledgments, etc.

Cheers, Rik.

[PaulH2]

I don't wish to go too far off topic, but I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here about what "freeware" means.

It is not free for you to do whatever you choose with it (i.e. redistribute, reverse engineer, claim as your own work, etc.), but it is provided for you to use, as laid out in the author's readme without charge, i.e. it is provided for free under those conditions, nothing more. Author's generally retain copyright to their work, even if it is provided for free, in other words they are not relinquishing authorship or rights to use their work other than what they explicitly give permission for.

What you are talking about is "public domain". This is something entirely different as is (generally) free for the public to use in any way they see fit.

With regards to distribution, many authors are wary because a lot of people have been stung in the past. There haven't been too many cases in the rail simulation community but in the flight sim world there are a couple of notorious sites which have redistributed other peoples work as their own, including tinkering with the files, then blaming the author when things don't work properly any more. There have also been instances of people taking other people's work, shoving it on a CD and selling it on for considerable profit (i.e. making money from other people's hard work).

Ultimately, you have to remember that it is entirely the author's right to determine if, how and when their work can be distributed. When the rest of us choose to install their work, we accept those terms and conditions and if we don't like them, our option is to not install it.

With respect to distributing repaints etc. with scenarios, I think this is a very bad idea. You end up creating huge download files which many users will not need, wasting people's bandwidth not to mention bogging the UKTS download system down with unnecessary traffic. By far the best approach is a well written and comprehensive readme file and to use the facility provided to link the necessary files with the scenario on the download page. The only change I'd like to see here is the ability added to place links with the download to non-UKTS files where necessary. This is where community CDs can come in though, where scenarios, stock, repaints etc. are all provided together and can be installed as necessary.

Paul

[ightenhill]

Thios is where I get lost by the logic (or illogic) of this..

So if "x" rights a scenario that uses "y" and "z's" assets.

He cant include them in the scenario for ease..

Yet its ok for "a" who just downloaded the scenario and needs the assets to run it to log on and then download all the needed assets..

I hate web talk but WTF.. why make it hard work for "a" who just wants to run the scenario

[PaulH2]

Thios is where I get lost by the logic (or illogic) of this..

So if "x" rights a scenario that uses "y" and "z's" assets.

He cant include them in the scenario for ease..

Yet its ok for "a" who just downloaded the scenario and needs the assets to run it to log on and then download all the needed assets..

I hate web talk but WTF.. why make it hard work for "a" who just wants to run the scenario

Basically yes. However, you can of course include assets where the author has allowed this, either explicitely in the readme, or where you have asked and received permission. That said, personally I don't think that is a good idea for the reasons I mentioned (file size etc.).

Now, what would be really nice is if, for example, there were some way of making it possible for RW_Tools to download and install missing assets for you. Of course thats another can of works altogether, but might make it easier for the end user.

[Basherz]

I read your previous thread Paul, and basically agreed with all of it, with the exception of distribution.

But your last thread, it is verging on defying logic as, a). on the one hand, you would rather see 3rd party addons not in the original route/scenario download, although in b). the other hand, you would find it preferential if the sim could download the missing items for you.

My answer to this is:
a). With todays broadband speeds, the extra item or so would hardly make any difference as downloads, especially for scenario's, amount to ⅔ of SFA, and
b). if the sim downloads them, (I like the idea), you are then saying that the user, whoever it is, can have the item???

You really can't have it all ways round.

[PaulH2]

My answer to this is:
a). With todays broadband speeds, the extra item or so would hardly make any difference as downloads, especially for scenario's, amount to ⅔ of SFA, and

For many of us, it won't make a vast difference in download time, but you're talking about going from <100kB for a scenario (probably much less) to several MB for scenario plus stock. That increase, if the user has the stock, is a waste of time, a waste of UKTS bandwidth and its going to hurt non-premium downloaders as the quota will be eaten up 10 times faster than need be.

b). if the sim downloads them, (I like the idea), you are then saying that the user, whoever it is, can have the item???

Precisely, as the author's wishes have not been violated, the necessary files (and only the necessary ones) were downloaded from UKTS according to the original permission. The point is, it doesn't matter what you or I want, it is the author's wishes that are at issue. If they don't want their content repackaged without permission, then that's just the way it is.

Repackaging (i.e. including assets with a scenario) also presents a problem - what happens when the author releases an updated version? The ones included in the scenario could end up overwriting the updated version so now the scenario author has to update their version (which probably won't happen) or you end up with users having a real mess as to which versions they have installed (as far as I know, the RW packager isn't smart enough to know whether it is overwriting newer files or not, but could probably bemade to just not overwrite if the asset already exists).

Another problem is that by putting restrictions on distribution and packaging, authors also retain the right to remove their work if they so wish. Nobody likes it when that happens, but it is the author's perogative and it has happened on more than one occasion in the past (and often because the author felt their wishes weren't being adhered to in the first place). In that circumstance, UKTS is left with no choice but to also remove any other files which include those assets, wheras if teh scenario is distributed alone, users can use RW_Tools to substitute other assets in.

You really can't have it all ways round.

Again, it's nothing to do with what I want, but authors can have it any way they want, it is their work and unless they release it to the public domain, they are just allowing you to use it for free. There is a fundamental difference between somebody downloading a file, as originally packaged, from the site (manually or automatically) and somebody downloading it included with a scenario. Yes, I know, if everything worked properly, the same files end up on the computer from the same place, but one way around the author's wishes were not violated, but the other has.

Paul

[Ricardo]

Thanks for the link Rik

I also found the 5Plankwagon download at the same site

no missing stock now

Cheers

Would you like to add a link? I really still can't find it, and RWTools won't list any of the stock in the scenario.
Fairly frustrated.