[Lindsayts]

There appear to be two great fears for MSTS developers, the first is that someone will "steal" there work, the second being someone will make a "profit" from it. I will take the second one first.

Now I am not advocating the GPL here just how it has put up some sort of solution. In the case of the profit problem the GPL states no one can restrict the distribution of the program/source in any way. This means one cannot stop someone for selling it, but such a seller CANNOT stop someone making any number of copies of the sold item and giving it away (Note 1). Certainly in the case of the Linux there is no wide spread selling of items, as in fact almost everything is readily avaible from multiple sites on the internet.

How valid the "stealing" issue is I do not really know, one problem to consider here is the Linux world and the Windows world are not really alike. The Windows world already having a major piracy problem. In the Linux world though NO developer that I have talked to over the past 18 years as a developer in Linux would ever consider taking someone elses work and misrepresenting it. I could give MANY examples here, I will just give one. I use a Window Manager called FVWM (this provides the graphical inteface for the user). The original writer was Terry Nation, he is STILL given a major headline as a developer inspite of the fact he has not been involved for over 10 years. This is typical of any other Linux software.
Incedently, the GPL specificly prohibits the removal of a developers name (including the original writers name, even if you are that person) from any software covered by the licence.

Although it is not enshrined in the GPL itself it is considered just plain good manners to contact a developer if one wishes to do a split of a project. If a developer has become uncontactable it is not uncommon to write an entirely new program, an exception to this is some of the very complex mathematical and graphical software where the original knowledge is VERY difficult to come by. I can though only put my finger on three of these latter cases (two invloved with cartography, the third noise removal within an audio stream) in the thousands of Linux programs.

Note 1: Allowing software to be sold can be an advantage, for folk such as I that do not have a decent internet connection. Over the years have gladly purchased much Linux and some MSTS (The Scotish central highlands route for example) software from central agencies as this has been vastly cheaper than any downloads. The original developer not being in any kind of position to set up such transactions.

Lindsay

[captain_bazza]

Due to the strong emotions aroused in proponants, both for, and against, EULA in our hobby, this has certainly been a vexatious topic to discuss in the past. As a long time TS assets author, I'm inclined to flip-flop into either camp, because I can relate to both sides of the arguement.

However, the situation regarding Open Rails, as an 'open' programming project, is different to that of the contributing asset author, so let's disregard that side at the moment.

Let me pose one question:

Is it possible to have a solid core program for Open Rails, where any development is done by consensus, yet design it so third-party plug-in modules can be added that do not impact on the core?

Cheers Bazza

[James Ross]

captain_bazza, on 22 January 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

Is it possible to have a solid core program for Open Rails, where any development is done by consensus, yet design it so third-party plug-in modules can be added that do not impact on the core?

It should certainly be possible (and there was/is an attempt at some start of this in OR which will try to load custom wagon/engine DLLs) but we're probably still a fair away from being stable enough at the code-design level to want to put real effort in to designing such plug-in systems IMHO.

[eric from trainsim]

Genma Saotome, on 22 January 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Where it starts to become problematic, I think, is what happens some years down the road... when the author drops out of the hobby (or worse, has died). Most everyone continues to respect the original license, something I do encourage, but what if the person doesn't care anymore -- or in terms of being dead, can't care anymore? His work is forever tied up by the original terms. Perhaps that's right and proper -- it is what the author originally wanted and absent alternative instructions, it's what we should be guided by.

Heck, we're already facing this. There was a note yesterday on "the other forum" asking how to contact Todd Jones, who has been missing since 2005. I sent a note off to Dick Cowen four weeks ago asking to release a reskin with no response so far. Technically, I need his permission before I release it.

The concept of abandon-ware is one that the MSTS community needs to consider, especially considering the age of some of our contributors.

[CGW121]

eolesen, on 24 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Heck, we're already facing this. There was a note yesterday on "the other forum" asking how to contact Todd Jones, who has been missing since 2005. I sent a note off to Dick Cowen four weeks ago asking to release a reskin with no response so far. Technically, I need his permission before I release it.

The concept of abandon-ware is one that the MSTS community needs to consider, especially considering the age of some of our contributors.

In my opinion it is silly to put freeware up on the net, and not expect people to use it and "abuse" it. We need reasonable expectations of use.

[captain_bazza]

Quote

The concept of abandon-ware is one that the MSTS community needs to consider, especially considering the age of some of our contributors.

...as I was saying to Noah, just the other day.

Cheers Bazza

[captain_bazza]

Quote

In my opinion it is silly to put freeware up on the net, and not expect people to use it and "abuse" it. We need reasonable expectations of use.

That is, indeed, the reality of the matter. B)

Cheers Bazza