If you buy the "USB interlink upgrade' for G2, can you use that to put realflight on another computer, or is that against the rules or what? I ask because I am heading to college this year, and my brother and I shared cost for G2. I want it at college, and he wants it at home...
i am not trying to do any kind of ripping or piracy of any sort... thanks~ Dan

I don't have my paperwork in front of me, but am pretty sure the user agreement with RealFlight allows it to be installed on only one computer. You can check with RealFlight. The couple of times I have emailed them they have responded within 24 hours.

Eric

Your diving into a very grey area of software licensing. The vendors like to write in the End-User License Agreement that you can only install it on one machine. I think technically if you bought the G2 Upgrade yes it would work. That device is what Realflight is trying to use to control distribution of the software. Software EULA have been taken to court a enormous amount of times for questions just like this, and it's 50/50 on what happens. I treat my software like I treat my my music CD's, I own them and allowed to play them in any device that I own. Since I legally am allowed law to make copies of software and music for personal backups that I purchased, I don't see the issue if I want to put a piece of software on multiple machines, as long as it's for personal not corporate use. The exception to this being your Operating System, since it technically becomes a permanent part of your system and can't be removed or transported between machines. There are many of nights that the machine I normally run software on is in use by the wife and I'm not going out and purchasing another $200 software so I can sit for a hour playing on my laptop. So you just need to ask yourself if you can sleep at night walking that grey line. If you can then a bit of research will point you in the right direction of how to make a "backup" copy of G2. RCU isn't the place for that type of information though. I think in your case though, spending $80 for the controller should cover the cost of a "additional license" nicely.

Even thou you are going to put it on two computers how are you going to use it with only one controler??? I didnt think great planes sold spare controllers. I could be wrong thou.

That's a rather weak rationalization. The $80 covers the cost of the controller. I've got no problem with people who pirate software. If that's what they feel is right, I just pity them. I do have a problem with people that try to rationalize it so they don't believe they're doing anything wrong. It's an ethically bankrupt way to live.

For the original poster, call GP and find out what they can do for you, and what the limits of your license are. Generally speaking you can install software in more than one place, but only use it in one place at a time. That's changing, however. It really depends upon the company. You and your brother could always treat it like a physical piece of property--take turns having it with you.

I have to say I respect you for asking the question, and wanting to do the right thing. Many people don't take the time to worry about that, much less make the attempt to find the answer. That approach will always serve you well.

MikeL, while you make an interesting statement about the ever declining ethical standards in our society, you end by doing a sort of disservice to the original question by saying "Generally speaking..." There is no "generally speaking", the EULA spells out your rights, and as Griffin points out the court's interpretation changes case by case. You took a hard line ethical stance and then tell the guy more or less ignorance is bliss when it comes to licensing because "generally speaking" you can do <blank>. Read the EULA. If you are unsure contact the manufacturer. And yes, you should be commended for caring about the IP rights of the product owner.

The real question here is how legally binding is a EULA. This is the problem that the courts are fighting with in each of these cases. By installing a piece of software on various machines, technically does not violate any laws with regard to Intellectual Property or Copyright infringement. Now in some cases it does violate the EULA of the software, but the EULA's have been challenged in courts and most the cases the software manufacturer have lost. The EULA is just a bunch of jargon from the manufacturers lawyers of what they would like to have you follow. They make you click the little button and state you are agreeing to the EULA. This part of the problem, they can write whatever they want into the EULA. That doesn't mean it's actually right or even legally binding in some cases. If the software EULA stated that it is only allowed to run on a particular brand machine with a certain speed processor, is it illegal for you to install it on something other then what they want you to if it works? Probably not, they might not give you support for it, but you did purchase the software and legally you can attempt to install it on what ever you want regardless of the EULA. I know that's a bit extreme but the meaning is about the same. Just because they say in the EULA that you are only allowed to install this product on a single machine, doesn't mean that it is technically correct. I'm not promoting piracy in any form. He's obviously purchased the legally and has a right to use his software. So it is a very large ethical question on how binding you view the EULA and whether you agree with what the vendor has wrote in there.

I actually thought the $80 controller was a fairly good balance to this. Most software companies that I know allow you to purchase additional licences at a reduced cost if you already own the software. This is normally to show the difference in not having to purchase physical media again. Since GP has unofficially turned that silly controller into their software key since you can't run the software without, that seemed like a reasonable expenditure for an additional license.

PS: I have plenty of ethics. I've been doing Data Security for a international financial company for over 10 years and have done a good bit of research into EULA and Copyrights. In the corporate world there is a lot stricter area, since the software is distributed openly to 1000's of users. For personal use though there is alot of grey matter between legal and illegal with regrads to this. Everyone has to make up their own mind on what they think.

I agree Griffin, to MikeL's statement on ethics I just thought it was good to make a hardline statement on being ethical. There is reasonable personal interpretation and there is rationalization, but the EULA is still the basis that should give you direction as to the intention of the firm. I may be swayed somewhat by the corporate side, as you mentioned. I work for one of the largest law firms in the nation, and supervise the staff that coordinates all our licensing compliance. With a large IP and litigation department we bring in new software literally daily and have a HUGE incentive to comply.
And I have to apologize if I implied the $80 controller issue was a form of rationalization, you make a very good point that if the controller effectively acts as a key, it could be implied to be a license of it's own. I wouldn't decide that in a corporate environment, but personally I would almost certainly agree. (Having read more and not found anything to the contrary...)

Was it unclear that I was generalizing about EULAs? One can't speak in broad terms without generalizing. In no way was I suggesting that EULAs all say the same thing.