The Flightsim.to’s terms of services section that’s making heads turn

HeliSimmer.com article comments
1

Disclaimer and introductory note: I am not a lawyer nor do I have any kind of knowledge about laws. This article is based on my own interpretation of the rules and terms that are public on the Flightsim.to website. I have discussed these with other people that share the same perspective that I do. Do not take my opinions on this matter as legal advice. These are just my thoughts – and doubts – on the matter.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.helisimmer.com/articles/flightsim-to-terms-of-service-turning-heads/
2

Thank you for covering this at all in the first place, I want to see it on every sim news site today. I think a mention of GAIST and We Love VFR might’ve been warranted, nothing against Emerald Designs. I hope the community as a whole can manage to sit representatives of the relevant parties down at a negotiating table, because they both have valid concerns that don’t even seem to be technically incompatible, just complicated.

It’s important to work it out publicly in clear terms to both sides’ satisfaction for the sake of the entire future of freeware in general, not just the sim community. The communication so far has not risen to the level befitting of a community this active in the current year, which is to be expected of sim developers, but not really acceptable on flightsim.to’s end considering the role they’ve expanded into. The alleged sneakiness I can forgive, seen as their path of least resistance, but ultimately they’d better make the developers happy and keep it from fracturing.

1 Like
3
4

Thank you for reading and for stepping into the discussion. You are 100% right and what’s needed is for everyone to talk with each other and come up with a better solution on a problem that, you are right once again, is not simple to solve.

I do have hope that things will get solved. Fligthsim.to already shown they are willing to take some steps towards a less aggressive ToS and changed section 4.3 meanwhile. But I believe they need to go a bit further and safeguard authors’ rights, not just users’.