FSUIPC Payware, I Support it.

[Guest]

Sadly, I must say that I am opposed to Peter's move to commercialize FSUIPC. The flightsim community generally operates on the reverse principle... when something is released as payware... it often becomes freeware a year or so later. FSFlightMax is one example.

Well here is the rub - if the payware that becomes freeware has an FSUIPC license attached - guess what - you will be able to use with a free copy of FSUIPC that will make the software work.

I fear that FS2004 is being used as an excuse to start charging for something that was always free beforehand. Just think if in FS2004, Microsoft announced that downloadable weather would only be available to users who paid for it. What a ludicrous idea!

I suppose it never crossed your petty mind that the reason FSFlightMax became a freebie was because a higher power bought the code to get them out of the market place and that is why it's now free. Anyway I think you are in dreamworld when you make a wide assertion that payware often becomes freeware.

Sure, I want people to make a profit from their hard work, but make it payware from the onset. It's really unpopular to start charging for something that was once free.

Don't like it - don't buy it. The community and more specifically the payware developers have sponged on the generosity of Pete Dowson for a long time. Now we and they will have to pay - so what.

[Guest Gosta]

Hi Pete,

>What's the GPL? <

It's a pseudo-legal concept that allows you to share the source code of your software, and allow alterations, while still retaining the copyright to your work (in altered or unaltered state, apparently).

There's more on it here:

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

BTW, if you would like some free legal advice regarding the relevant licence agreements, feel free to contact me at gosta@shaw.ca

In case you're wondering what my motivation is - I simply want to be the first lawyer to draw up a watertight, internationally enforceable EULA for a commercial software product (until now, all the licence agreements I have seen fell considerably short of those requirements).

Cheers,

Gosta.

[jwenting]

In other words Gosta, you want Pete to hand you the source so you can take his work and run with it?

Because that's what frequently happens with GPL code, as I've experienced myself.

I've become quite disgusted with most of you people here screaming bloody murder when someone whose work you've used for years and years asks you to put a value to that work and you say that value is NIL, then complaining when that work is removed from your free use.

If you think it so useless that it's not worth the money, don't use it.

If you think it is, help with your money to keep it alive.

I think most if not all of you will be working overtime to find a means to crack FSUIPC once it's commercial so you can use it without paying.

[Guest John]

I don't have a credit card and because of that no payware addons. I hope you will accept other payment methods so I can keep using freeware addons in FS2004. :cry:

[Pete Dowson]

I don't have a credit card and because of that no payware addons. I hope you will accept other payment methods so I can keep using freeware addons in FS2004. :cry:

As I've said several times already, Freeware addons will work without you paying anything at all once there developers have applied for and received a free access key. There is no way I am going to try to extract money for use of free add-ons. you shouldn't think so little of my efforts.

Personally I could accept cash and cheques, but in the latter case only in UK pounds for such small amounts. The main payment method will, however, have to be set up to work in the same way as the donation system was. I cannot run such an operation and find time to program at the same time!

Pete

[Nortie]

I undertsand for various reasons why someone would take a freeware product and go pay with it.. for some its just economics.. others its a buisness venture, free society was born on free enterprise. We as consumers have several choices if your not intersted in paying for something you have always gotten for free then there are options. Develope something similar yourself and make it free ( that will happen in this case I'm sure) pay for it and respect the hard work that someone has put into something , again some will do that in this case. Wait a cpl weeks..someone else will develope a similar project for free. This is the internet after all I would assume that Pete will make some $$ off this but in the long run someone will develope another similar addon or addon's and then it will be free again. Is Pete cutting his own throat by going pay...only time and the receipts will tell.

[Pete Dowson]

in the long run someone will develope another similar addon or addon's and then it will be free again. Is Pete cutting his own throat by going pay...only time and the receipts will tell.

I win either way. If it pays for my time I can and will continue, gladly. If it doesn't and sometime else takes over, I can do something else AND maybe even get some spare time too! I am not short of ways of earning money, believe me, I turn away folks. It is just that I wanted to be able to continue FSUIPC and the other things and it has proven to be a full time job for three years already, so I really don't see that changing.

By all means encourage someone else to do it all, I'll gladly withdraw. Perhaps if I withdraw now and don't release FSUIPC 3 this will encourage such an alternative development more quickly. Is this what every one wants?

It is starting to make me very sad that I appear to have wasted three years of my life already. Perhaps no more?

Pete

[mike UK]

Id like to put this into some sort of common sense context please.

If you read all of Pete's info on this subject then its a lot clearer and answers all of the questions put forward.

For a lot of people FS just isnt FS without FSUIPC, like life isnt life without an Internet connection, or work dosnt get done without a Coffee supply.

You pay for Coffeee and an ISP account why not FSUIPC.

Pete, in my view, is talking about a minimul amount of money in real terms.

Pete has also talked about freeware products and his continued support for FSUIPC in freeware... So dont get your nickers in a twist..

I have to be honest and say, like alot of people, I have paid £20, £30 or more for some real rubish software in my time. A similar figure for FSUIPC & Wide is damn good value for money.

I also have to be honest and say that the donation scheme was doomed to failure, but Pete did give it a try before going down the payware route..

Like many others I always intended on making a donation but never actuall found the time to do it. Another PAYE or VAT form to fill in etc...

On the moral issue..... Pete has freely, without strings attached, dedicated years to us and now he is asking for our support.

YOU HAVE IT......... All the way......

[Guest phrgflyer]

Pete,

:? Will there be a way that people that do not have or use credit cards can purchase FSUIPC?

If so, will it be made public so we can get it also?

:lol: :P

Thanks

[Guest phrgflyer]

Pete,

BTW, I whole heartedly support your right to make your work pay for itself.

Again, Thanks for all the time that you have put into this sport and hobby.

[Pete Dowson]

:? Will there be a way that people that do not have or use credit cards can purchase FSUIPC?

I'm not sure if there is any way that the agencies which I will have to appoint to deal with this can accept other mehods. Did you check whether PayPal has methods other than credit cards?

Certainly I could accept cash (in note form) to the equivalent value, as I can probably get it exchanged at normal bureaux de change. For such small amounts I think this is probably the best way, even if a little risky. Non-sterling cheques for small amounts just are not worth it, they cost far too much to process and will be wasted completely. I think the same might go for international money orders.

In Europe it is a great pity that the "Eurocheque" system died, as it was by far the easiest for postal purchases. Maybe Britain will one day enter the Euro domain and it will be easier again.

If so, will it be made public so we can get it also?

I'm ready to take advice here, and do what I can, but I don't think I should publish anything like that generally, at least until it is VERY clear how to do what. There's no panic yet, do not fret please.

Regards,

Pete

[Guest crashing_pilot]

hi Pete,

just wanted to say i'm behind you on this one,

i hope you can harvest the fruits of your hard labour mate!!

kind regards

Tom van der Elst.

[Guest]

Sadly, I must say that I am opposed to Peter's move to commercialize FSUIPC. The flightsim community generally operates on the reverse principle... when something is released as payware... it often becomes freeware a year or so later. FSFlightMax is one example.

I fear that FS2004 is being used as an excuse to start charging for something that was always free beforehand. Just think if in FS2004, Microsoft announced that downloadable weather would only be available to users who paid for it. What a ludicrous idea!

Sure, I want people to make a profit from their hard work, but make it payware from the onset. It's really unpopular to start charging for something that was once free.

Ahh the intellectual minds that infest these forums.

I want to be there when you announce to your manager at McDonald’s that he’s paid you long enough for packing Happy Meals and cooking fries. You’re now going to work there for free, because you’ve proven that you can do a great job and customers have been so impressed with your talent that they’ll continue to come in and buy Happy Meals and fries even though you are not being paid anymore.

Sadly, I must say that I am opposed to our society’s tolerance to let people like you post your narrow-minded opinions on these forums. If you read what you typed, and understood its “ludicrous” meaning, you would have already posted an apology for sounding like a kid who can’t get access to his parent’s credit card.

...” Sure, I want people to make a profit from their hard work, but make it payware from the onset. It's really unpopular to start charging for something that was once free. "... Spoken like a true economics major. Read up on the popularity of the “Try before you buy” concept.

Do you think payware companies spend a hefty portion of their operating budget producing playable demos out of the goodness of their hearts, just to give people something to play with while they are coding the actual game? Nevermind....you probably do.

Peter, credit card standing by.

Regards,

Steve Dra

[Guest Tim Mandeville]

FSUIPC should have been payware years ago!

Get to work Peter. FS9 is Gold! :)

Tim

[Pete Dowson]

Get to work Peter. FS9 is Gold! :)

Need the actual CDs first, unfortunately. Then my wife, who's birthday it is very soon, is dragging me off the Cornwall for a few days, to visit the "Eden Project" down there. It'll be a break, for which I'm thankful, but it looks like coming slap bang just as the CDs might arrive! Ah well ...

Best regards,

Pete

[etanin]

OK for all the people that say they do not need Fsuipc or will not pay I have just one request, REMOVE IT for a week, if you can handle it that long!

Get my point?

I think you have all just forgot what Fsuipc brings to FS.

I paid a donation as soon as I saw that and I will pay again!

You are the man Pete!!!!!

[Mike_KNT5506]

Hi Peter.I have used Fsuipc in FS for as long as I can remember. A lot of developers should be paying you for the info Fsuipc gives there software!. I will gladly pay for it, if the links are not published in the SDI -------???????-----

[fdx1356]

Hi Peter,

First off let me say that I use both FSUIPC and WideFS, and have found them to be both stable and effective; both of which is very hard to find in the 'freeware' category,as well as in a lot of the commercial and 'payware' software out there. A professional job, well done.

As a software engineer myself, I am supportive of your desire to charge for your products. I think it is totally appropriate. Some will grouse about having to pay for something they've gotten for free, but that is just normal.

I am curious about how payment will be made for your products? From my perspective, both FSUIPC and WideFS are development centric products, and not targeted for the und-user of the products in which FSUIPC is a key component. FSUIPC and WideFS have no use for the pilot as a standlone package. This is loosly akin to the VB runtime, libraries for developing graphics/network access/etc., and the end user doesn't pay for these directly. The costs are embedded in the products in which they provide functionality. And the pricing models and practices for this are already well established in practice, and allows for quite a bit of flexibility in how to price products.

Consider the scenario where a pilot has purchased three products, all of which integrate FSUIPC. but each implement different functionality of FSUIPC. Would the pilot have to buy 3 different licenses, one for each product/fucntion set? Or if a pilot purchased one license that exposed all the functionality in FSUIPC, then would that cause problems for the vendors of the products that have chosen to expose a smaller percentage of FSUIPC in their products and perhaps wanted to charge an extra 'Pro' fee to expose that functionality. It can get rather complex in implementation.

I would encourage you to not focus on whether to charge, but on how to charge.

[Guest Gosta]

>In other words Gosta, you want Pete to hand you the source so you can take his work and run with it?

Because that's what frequently happens with GPL code, as I've experienced myself.<

Why would I need the source code? I was offering legal advice regarding the writing of licence agreements. For that I don't even need to see FSUIPC - in fact, I only need to know what the product is called.

A GPL appears inappropriate, considering Pete's intentions, i.e. to get some financial reward for all his hard work. It looks like he will have to draw up three licence agreements - one for end users who buy the product on its own, one for freeware developers, and one for commercial developers. In order to do that, the only information I need is freely available: The product is called 'FSUIPC', and it's a piece of add-on software to work with Microsoft Flight Simulator. I don't need to know what it does or how it works, and I certainly don't need any source code.

>I've become quite disgusted with most of you people here screaming bloody murder when someone whose work you've used for years and years asks you to put a value to that work and you say that value is NIL, then complaining when that work is removed from your free use.<

I am not complaining - I think that Mr. Dowson deserves to be compensated for his hard work.

>I think most if not all of you will be working overtime to find a means to crack FSUIPC once it's commercial so you can use it without paying.<

Why would I do that? The time it would take me to crack it would outweigh the cost of just buying it - the cost of the average add-on equates to about 10 minutes worth of work. It appears somewhat offensive of you to assume that everyone is a pirate.

Cheers,

Gosta.

[Pete Dowson]

Sorry, I'm missing something I think. What's the SDI, and what links should it have?

Best regards,

Pete

[Pete Dowson]

FSUIPC and WideFS have no use for the pilot as a standlone package.

Okay, so should I remove the user facilities from both so that they become just FS interfaces for applications and nothing more?

Most of the facilities have been added through USER demand or request, certainly not from developer requets. Developers want control over things in FS, or information from FS. That is not really wahat users ask for, that is invisible to them. Nowadays, in FSUIPC, much more code is devoted to user facilities than to the interface, and judging by requests outstanding this is set to grow further.

Consider the scenario where a pilot has purchased three products, all of which integrate FSUIPC. but each implement different functionality of FSUIPC. Would the pilot have to buy 3 different licenses, one for each product/fucntion set?

No, he needs none at all. You evidently have not read much of what I've written, or not understood it. If this is my fault for poor explanation I apologise. But please look back. Each accredited add-on application is either freeware or is payware and has an agreement with me of some sort. That's its license. The user (pilot) only has to pay if he want the facilities I offer to users, he only has to purchase accedited add-ons if he want accredited add-ons to work.

Or if a pilot purchased one license that exposed all the functionality in FSUIPC, then would that cause problems for the vendors of the products that have chosen to expose a smaller percentage of FSUIPC in their products and perhaps wanted to charge an extra 'Pro' fee to expose that functionality.

There is no way FSUIPC controls any functionality in application programs. It either offers an interface to them into FS or it doesn't. You seem to be completely misunderstanding the function of FSUIPC.

Regards,

Pete

[Guest Mark]

If you think about it FSUIPC is servicing 2 needs. One being add-on wanting data from FS and second allowing users to tweak various bits. Both excellent by the way (and I was one of the ones who paid some money).

It seems to me that there maybe a case of splitting the code into 2 seperate pieces of SW. Both of course could still be payware. Add-on developers would pay (or not if accredited freeware) and distribute the IPC part. And the user app could be sold directly (via flightsim etc) to users.

I realise this might actually need to more work for you Pete. Just and idea.

Cheers

Mark.

[Erik Haaland]

I think everyone here including Pete is forgetting a major party in the payware world. Minors. ALOT of fs users are under the age of 18 or 21, and most do not have credit cards. When FSUIPC goes payware will I and hundreds if not thousands of minors be hung out to dry because of this? Sure minors can buy FS2004, you just walk down to your nearest best buy and pay cash for it. But can you do the same with FSUIPC? No sir you cannot. Sadly I think MSFS is coming to an end for many minors, I am now seriously considering not buying FS2004, because most of my addons will not work with it without FSUIPC :cry: If Pete could somehow be able to sell in the box form, at Best Buy or EB Games or other electronics stores I'm sure you will...

1. Get more purchases.

and 2. Allow everyone who owns FS2004 to purchase it.

lastly 3. Everyone can enjoy FS, because if it goes the way its going now, I see a 30-40% drop in FS websites because most addons now need FSUIPC, and simmers because they can't afford to buy FSUIPC online. Sorry Pete about this last thing but it just came to mind. One word, Monopoly

[Pete Dowson]

I am now seriously considering not buying FS2004, because most of my addons will not work with it without FSUIPC

You really do need to go back and read my announcement and most of the other times I have to repeat the same thing.

FSUIPC will still be available to all and will work with all accredited add-ons. The end user doesn't have to pay for FSUIPC in order to make add-ons work, provided those add-ons have an access key. In many cases the add-on will install FSUIPC and it will just work, no different form what happens now. You just won't have so many options to deal with in FSUIPC so installed, that's all.

How many more times do I have to say the same thing?

:-(

Regards,

Pete

[Guest]

I doubt very much if there is a software developer alive who has offered more support to the users of his product than Pete has.

About a year ago, our VA was having some problems making flight files with FS Meteo after a new version of FSUIPC appeared. I contacted Pete about this and for 10 days he was mailing me new updated versions to test until the problem was finally solved.

This is just one example of the dedication that Pete brings to help us simmers out. I will be more than happy to pay for the use of FSUIPC in whatever way I need to. Without FSUIPC, FS200X just would not be what it is today.

Thanks Pete, and I hope you don't let the negative posts put you off continuing this great product that you provide for us all.

Jack