OZx returning to ORBX FTX

[spud]

Been watching the threads on FTX and OZx sites about the announcement that OZx development team will be placed under the FTX umbrella.  Still will develop freeware airports etc. like before but they will be able to use the ORBX development tools and more importantly the ORBX Scenery Library for their airports.  Other developers can still create and upload their work to the OZx site but will not be privy to the ORBX library just as before.  Had one outside developer already start on an airport and using the ORBX Library but was told that is still a No No unless you sign a ND agreement with ORBX placing you under the OZx/ORBX conditions required by their EULA.
I see it as a move to allow the Aussie folks at OZx to use the Library to develop software and not be in violation of ORBX EULA.
 

[Dexthom]

Yup, that will continue to keep some of us who do scenery for our personal use from sharing with our friends and may stop MM developers from using OZx libraries.     Life goes on...

[Doug]

I sometimes wonder how many of the folks who won't allow us to use "their" stuff" are FREELY and with NO RESTRICTIONS using ours.  hmmm.

d

[foggy-bottom]

I sometimes wonder how many of the folks who won't allow us to use "their" stuff" are FREELY and with NO RESTRICTIONS using ours.  hmmm.

A good point, Doug.

There is also this to consider, perhaps....:

I was pondering, for some time, getting PFJ really to link up with TongassX.  When I read about RTMM, that really convinced me to beat up persuade the funds holder to let me have some (funds) to buy PFJ.  I had bought the original MF for FS9 on the back of FSAddon's Orcas Island and enjoyed populating the area with some of the enhancements from the original MM team.

It is doubtful, considering current circumstances, that I would have purchased PFJ had I not come across RTMM - at least not for a while.  I've since also bought PNW and KORS - thanks to the recent special price offer - but I've cut back on a couple of other planned purchases to do so.

If "whoever" decides that their libraries cannot be used by scenery makers, such as those who do so for "clubs" like RTMM, it would only prevent open distribution from a site such as this one.  It would not stop the use of those libraries; they've been too widely available in the public domain.  It could also be a "PR" foobar for those involved in "whoever".  "Can't use your libraries that are/were freely in the public domain?  Fairy bunk-ups, mate, I ain't buying your next two seneries!"

"It" can work both ways.  My opinion.......  again. 

[spud]

This discussion has been on just about every FS site I visit and although 'the world' seems to think it should be OK to utilize the ORBX libraries for scenery design because they are available for free download on the ORBX site that is not the way the 'owners' of the libraries have stated they will allow there use.  They own them, they are copyrighted and not available for anything you want to distribute to anybody else.  You can make scenery for your own sim with them but can not give it to anybody else.  Might seem to be rather harsh but that is the rule and we must live with it.
 

[foggy-bottom]

Spud, thanks for that.  But is there not a difference between the ORBX and OZx libraries?  What you seem to be implying is that any scenery library, e.g., EZ, Rwy12, etc., unless otherwise stated, can only be used for ones own use, and any sceneries developed therefrom shall not be distributed by any means to any other entity.  Please note that I am not a scenery guy, or a re-painter; Ops and schedules is my forté, so I don't take much notice of limitations of use regarding scenery type offerings, especially free-ware.  I understand the issues of IPR in relation to the ORBX library - no problems there.  There is a potential issue with the future possible limitations on the use of OZx stuff that has been on their -OZx - site for free download.  The issue is that the RTMM library test file contains the OZx shack with the plant in the big blue pot on the porch.  Is the use of that shack going to be denied to "us" in the future?

And...  will FTX/ORBX then limit the posting of screen shots containing their scenery/scenery objects on any site other than their own sanctioned fora?  They prohibit the posting of images containing other scenery products on their sites; why not take it a stage further and say "You have a screen shot featuring our scenery?  You can only post it on our site."  That would work...

BTW, just looked at the OZx scenery download site; I guesstimate over 60,000 downloads of their various libraries and installers - and they seem to be still available.  And there is nothing that prevents the distribution of FREEWARE sceneries containing their FREEWARE scenery objects in their T's & C's.  The prohibition clauses refer only to "commercial use" of the objects, but interestinly do not mention compiled sceneries.

BTW2, what does "It is absolutely forbidden to repurpose any or part of these files or libraries for any other project or product without the express permission of the original authors" mean?  It's not English and sounds a bit like this piece of s***e from a FlightGlobal article yesterday: "The airline is making outreach to each customer onboard the flight to refund their roundtrip and issue them two complimentary roundtrip passes as a gesture of goodwill."

TTFN...

[Doug]

It is their rule, and as you can see, we are "respecting it" here at RTMM ... we had to change a bunch of scenery locations earlier because permission was not granted. For those that have granted us that permission, we've added their names to the "Friends" list on the "About" page for a "thank you!" (That is a "playing fair" as it can get!)

If I bought a melon at the market ... paid for it and took it home ... then cut it up to share FREELY with my friends ... could the melon vendor come after me for GIVING away the pieces that I've already paid for?  With payment, ownership transferred.  And what if I give you a melon as a gift?  Would I still be able to tell you that you could not share it with your friends?  Ownership is inherent with the "gift" being given ... look it up. As OZx decides to go back under the ORBX umbrella, the definition seems clearer. We are not "renting or leasing" the software, we PURCHASE it ... and when we do, ownership transfers.

To me it is an inane, circular argument. But we'll play by their rules.  I would think OZx going back into ORBX makes the line clearer to define ... with proof of purchase, you also innately have proof of ownership. I even had to show "proof of purchase" to be on the ORBX forum ... right?  I didn't "lease" this stuff, I bought it ... my AMEX card tells me so!

This part I respect: if we were using their objects and CHARGING our customers for them, then SHAME ON ME (legally and morally).  But all our stuff is "free."

In terms of the spirit of partnership, should we make a rule for whether or not an OZx team member can use or enjoy anything from RTMM if that member denies us access to their "free" stuff. Seems quid pro quo might come into play, huh?

My toys are my toys, your toys are your toys, if you won't let me play with yours, then you can't play with mine ... or as it is now, you can play with my toys but I can't play with yours?  Geez what's happening to this community?  Tends to make a guy want to spend more time fishing and less time volunteering for the community to make it a better place.  Sad.

D

PS ... and the fish are biting!

[MartinD]

Fully agree with you Doug, thank you, wish I could write a piece like this.
Sorry for my not so good English.

Martin.

[Dieter]

There had been hot discussions about this problem in the many online forums and they still go on.
Fact is, we, the many 10.000 customers brought ORBX up and now they are in a certain power position on the scenery software market. And they make their strict rules.
This is completely different to what we were used to with FSAddon sceneries. In the Tongass manual you read that designers are encouraged to use the object libraries for making and sharing enhancements to Tongass Fjords or nearby areas! That was the beginning of the old "Misty Moorings" in FS2004.

BTW, the difference between the melone we buy on the market  and any software we pay for, is very huge.
After buying the melone ownership really transfers.
But it's totally different with software. What we pay for is the permission of use, nothing else.
This is a general law regarding all payware software (EULA).

Dieter

[foggy-bottom]

Good morning all,

This is getting to be "a bit of a do."

Doug wrote: "I would think OZx going back into ORBX makes the line clearer to define ... with proof of purchase, you also innately have proof of ownership. I even had to show "proof of purchase" to be on the ORBX forum ... right?  I didn't "lease" this stuff, I bought it ... my AMEX card tells me so!" - my underline.

I've not checked the T's & C's of "purchase", but I think you may find, as with most software licenses, that you have not "purchased" "it", per se.  You will have purchased an agreement to use that specific combinations of "ones and zeros" but you will not be able to transfer it, either freely or for a consideration, unless specifically agreed by the vendor...  and such an agreement would unlikely to be given.

Dieter has it in one: "10.000, [plus] customers brought ORBX up and now they are in a certain power position on the scenery software market."

I could write more on this but life is too short  and it would probably get me in trouble with the politicised compliancy poliss.

Happy simming...... 

[Francois]

Dears,

I know I am being accused (by Orbuxks c.s., who else) of trolling and attacking them and having a beef with them. Which is all true... and rightly so I might add. 
BUT..... I won't let that stop me from continuing to support and enlighten the FS communities, so........

the entire discussion is 'mute' really, because many people keep revolving around the wrong issue.

To me (and my legal adviser, for that matter) the situation is really very clear and simple:

1)  NO - you may NOT include and (re)redistribute any object or texture from a vendor or creator without his permission.

2)  YES - you may distribute files that include a LOCATION and an indication of what object 'could' be seen there, provided you have YOURSELF obtained that object in a legal way. YOURSELF also means anyone using your location (bgl) file.

It really is like publishing a list of book titles, including possible item numbers from another company (like Amazon for instance).
You may NOT publish (copy) the books, nor excerpts of them even, but there is absolutely nothing to stop you from publishing a LIST with the exact titles, ISBN numbers, Amazon catalog numbers, prices etc.
An FS bgl is nothing more than a list of item numbers and locations.

So Venema c.s. may write their fingers blue and threaten the heck out of their customers - which, by the way, is an astounding way to behave with customers - , they can NOT stop anyone from making AND distributing  'position files' that happen to 'suggest' using their objects.
As long as you don't distribute anything that isn't yours, you're 100% in your right and legal.


At FSAddon we have specifically granted that right to our customers, just to make things clear. We're not trying to impose some sort of monopoly on our competitors and more importantly our customers.

We want this hobby to flourish and expand for everybody, not just for a happy and financially well off few, despite of MS's poor decision a few years ago.

[spud]

Francois,
I am in agreement with your position about having just the GUID numbers in scenery being perfectly OK.  The object itself is not used in what is given to the 'public' just a number that says to your computer here is where an object should go and this is the object, "IF you have it on YOUR computer", that goes there.

ORBX, in my opinion dropped its own ball when they made their object library a free download.  The are now trying to manage the damage by restricting the use of their objects.  Heaven forbid that Joe Schmoe from Kokomo should make an airport in East Bumfook, AK that used ORBX libraries and two years later the big guys decided to 'do an airport there as well.  Restrictions will prevent any competition and save the whole world for from non-ORBX scenery.

Making money from the library objects is a completely different matter  and I can fully agree that restrictions apply in that case.

This subject will be beaten to death for years to come I'm afraid and not solved one way or another.  Much like Train Simulator guru's that insist that no matter what an object developer has stated in his Readme or EULA, even if it says clearly 'You may do whatever you please with these objects without my permission except make money from them.'  You have to get his permission to use said object in a railroad you develop or it is piracy.  So sue me!

Oh and Foggy, I did not mention any other libraries other than ORBX in the post you refer to.  EZ, RW12 etc. are, and have been open to public use for years now.  The difference between OZx and ORBX libraries after the merge has not been made clear as far as I can tell at this time.  It is just such things as this, and basically because I'm lazy that I do not do scenery. 

I dabbled in a couple of things in FS9, put the Lake Pontchartrain on the lake instead of 5 miles north on the ground and one for my VA at Midway in Chicago that was never published.  Other than making modifications to my own installs I stay away from the pitfalls of development.
 

[foggy-bottom]

Spud, Francois, Doug, Dieter, et al,

Thanks for your views on the subject.  I believe the "revolving discussion" hinges around one of Spud's last points:  "The difference between OZx and ORBX libraries after the merge has not been made clear as far as I can tell at this time."  That is the crux of the matter and any competent IPR specialist would have a field-day, and make a lot of money, on the basis of that statement - possibly for/from both sides!

Enough of this, my friends, let's leave it to the trolls - I'm going (virtual) flying, and I may take some screen-shots that I may, or may not, post on an interweb site of my choosing for the entertainment of my fellow sim flyers....................... or not. 

[Bushpounder]

I totally agree with Francois and his lawyer. As long as someone elses textures or objects do not accompany a download, it is not an infringement. So many great things could happen within the community if they would become friendlier to the community. The communities of the late 1990's and early 2000's were so strong and so friendly, because this type of nonsense didn't exist back then. Once it started though, the communities that many of us knew, simply crumbled. It doesn't have to be that way again. On the other hand, do you really think anyone will ever be successfully sued because of a BGL that contains ZERO parts of theirs? 

Don

[Fred]

If one should follow this attitude to the fullest all repaints of payware aircrafts should be looked upon the same way.  (ORBX way) But here most of the industry encourage people to make repaints. And why? It benefits them in a positive manner.