Jon, as someone who has spent a large part of his business life licensing intellectual property rights, I'd like to offer the following comments.
Every modern, user-oriented, application software license agreement/EULA contains words to the effect "you are not permitted to dis-assemble, decompile or reverse engineer this software product" and limits copying and further distribution of the software. Every software vendor knows someone will do those things anyway. Yet they still release their products and, generally, nobody gets sued. While notionally prohibiting the noted acts, those words in the EULA are primarily for the protection of the vendors and allow them to take action should they suffer harm (in the legal sense) as a consequence of users' acts. And, further down in the EULA is usually a much more wordy provision entitled (Limitation of) Liability, where licensors absolve themselves of any and all responsibility for (use and) misuse of the software.
Most major utilities directed at expanding the capabilities of FlightSim could not exist without some technical breach of the usage terms of the Flightsim EULA, whether by the developer him/herself or the (prohibited) reverse-engineering efforts of others. These include Lee Swordy's AFCAD and TTools, your ADE, many of Arno's tools, my AIFP, SAMM and AFLT, and so on. Also, users of our utilities are, perhaps unknowingly, breaching the terms of their Flightsim EULAs, since the execution our utilities involves prohibited acts. But has Microsoft objected? No! Instead, it's helped us, both directly and with the SDKs. Why? Because not objecting to these technical violations has allowed them to avoid the costs of developing similar functionality themselves and, at the same time, have made their products more attractive. Far from being harmed, they have benefited from our efforts. Why would they "shoot the Golden Goose" (or geese)?
In addition to the terms discussed above, Lockheed Martin's P3D EULAs expressly limit use of the Professional version to "purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment" and of the Academic version to "Academic Education", a defined term that does not include personal/consumer entertainment. Do you think most P3D users are fooling anyone? LM even hosts large user forums on its website!
As noted above, software EULAs are primarily for the protection of vendors. However, no vendor is going to take action against a user unless it has suffered real harm and expects to recover damages in excess of its costs for the action. Lawsuits are expensive and damages must be proven. We haven't caused, and are not causing, any harm. Quite the opposite! Microsoft and LM know what we're doing/have done and tacitly condone it. (Should someone breach the EULAs in a manner that harms Microsoft or Lockheed Martin - which is what the EULAs are intended to address - I'm sure you'd see a different reaction.)
I'm not suggesting license terms be flagrantly disregarded. Far from it! However, pro forma license terms sometimes have unintended, adverse effects for both parties. When that happens, common sense usually prevails - as would seem to be the case here. So, let's not worry about this and, instead, continue to enjoy our hobby. The alternative is to discard virtually every add-on (sceneries, aircraft and utilities) we have ever acquired and use Flightsim just as it was delivered by Microsoft, or, in the case of P3D, send it back and ask for a refund. How would that benefit Microsoft or Lockheed Martin?
Don
Don't feed the tr...
