NZ255 wrote:Even though I didn't say, the question was really addressed to you Rob
Ok, good question then.
You can't consider ownership of software the same way as anything physical -- if you buy a car, for example, you could dismantle it the very next day and use it for parts in other vehicles. Lots of people do that. With software, though, 'dismantling' has a different meaning, in that the bits can be endlessly duplicated, without losing any quality. With software, the only physical component may be the CD or DVD is is supplied on, and whereas it is easy to visualise ownership of this, the data on the disc needs to be a lot further protected, hence the 'EULA', or license, which spells out your rights. The problems start when people start interpreting their rights in different ways, to get around the fact that the EULA doesn't really allow them to do what they want to do. Sure, you could do whatever you like in the privacy of your own home, but you will be in breach of the EULA. Of course this may not have any effect on me -- but you'd be surprised how many people re-interpret their rights so that they can give away or sell copies of my scenery, or dismantle it and use the bits for their own products.
So any developer would spell out your rights if they are selling their work. Basically, you can use my scenery in the way it was intended- one person, on one computer, within the confines of the simulator -- and no more. One of the EULA conditions is that you cannot 'dismantle' the scenery in any way. There are a lot of ways I could word the EULA, and I could in fact give the user a lot more rights, but it would cost more. You could in fact negotiate a new EULA which removes all restrictions, but it would cost you thousands of dollars.
That's why there are no 'implied' rights, and anything outside the EULA needs to be explicitly okayed by me.