Finally!

.

I can see the first sticking point. Quoting the new rules:

There are some fundamental requirements that you need to fulfill in order to publish your add-on as managed content.

Rights.

In order to ensure that add-ons continue to be available forever, you must (unless you release your add-on into the public domain anyway) grant everyone irrevocable permission to make verbatim copies of your add-ons under no terms or conditions.

Madam is saying that she doesn't care who agrees what elsewhere, in order to qualify as "Managed Software" it has to be done her way.

.

.

Yes, Jeff, but the host won't let anyone from the "outside" to access my files, so I guess I am out from that for now...

.

There we gonna go, copyright issues once again, I guess. We'll see how it turns out

I haven't reached any conclusions yet, not being 100% clear on how this works. From first impression it seems that I'm expected to change my delivery system to serve the files at my expense for the program. As I have gone to considerable trouble to set up a satisfactory user friendly system I am presently reluctant to change that.
If it was a matter of Michelle's organisation having copies of my route and train files to distribute from their own server by their own method, I would not have any difficulty with that.
I also want clarity on the licensing issues. In the documentation I saw no reference to CC licensing, which I have implemented. I'm not going to change that anytime soon, so if CC Licensing is incompatible for OBVE managed content Ballyfeckin will not become OBVE managed content.
I shall need to see how this works before I come to a decision whether I wish to implement it fully. At present I have a top ranking on Google and a very large number of downloads, so being found and recognised isn't a problem for me as it might be for some others, as Michelle points out in the reasons for implementing the managed content system.
The jury is still out.

As a user rather than a developer I fail to see the purpose of being able to browse and install add-ons from within the game, links to which are well documented on the Bve Routes Wiki Database.

Derryck wrote:

Well, my host disallows direct acces to the stored files and therefore it is preventing me from participating. But it is an interesting idea.
By the way, I also think that the proposed policy only applies to unlimited downloading.

My C751A train's up, and I can tell you that Dropbox works, both for descriptor and downloadable files.

Misfit wrote:As a user rather than a developer I fail to see the purpose of being able to browse and install add-ons from within the game, links to which are well documented on the Bve Routes Wiki Database.

It does makes life easier by allowing installing within a program. No more worrying about incorrect folder structure inside the zipped folder. It's like installing programs like Office via an installation program rather than by copying files directly.

graymac wrote:I also want clarity on the licensing issues. In the documentation I saw no reference to CC licensing, which I have implemented. I'm not going to change that anytime soon, so if CC Licensing is incompatible for OBVE managed content Ballyfeckin will not become OBVE managed content.

All CC license automatically allows verbatim copies to be made available. However, CC's SA and NC might not work, as to share-alike and the need to be non-commercial are conditions, and openBVE's license states "There are no terms and no conditions".I'll try to bring this up at the openBVE forum.

joeyfjj wrote:

Derryck wrote:

Well, my host disallows direct acces to the stored files and therefore it is preventing me from participating. But it is an interesting idea.
By the way, I also think that the proposed policy only applies to unlimited downloading.

My C751A train's up, and I can tell you that Dropbox works, both for descriptor and downloadable files.

Would that C751A be the new version 2? or Version 1.0.0.1?

viccylinefan

One.

joeyfjj wrote:One.

Ok, wasnt sure, thanks

viccylinefan