It's also worth noting that the bulk of his license that he printed claiming that it somehow forbade a payware route builder from referencing his work on the DLS was the following:
"The AGREEMENT grants you permission to use the PRODUCT for your own personal private use, but NO permission is granted to modify, distribute, sell or re-sell the PRODUCT, in part or in full, unless written permission has been obtained from THE AUTHOR."
Now what's worth noting is that if someone references a kuid to an asset that he has on the DLS, they're not modifying, DISTRIBUTING, selling or reselling the product. The product IS being used for the end-users own personal private use.
That's just a fact and while yes it may not be fair, it's a fact. I'm really not sure how he thinks that license is going to stop somebody from referencing a kuid in a payware route. I know John has to be a bright individual, I'm pretty bright (believe it or not) and I put 3ds Max back on last night and messed around with it a little bit, and I'm absolutely lost, he has to have some modicum of intelligence to make his brain think in three dimensions.
But for the life of me I can't understand on this issue how he thinks that license as it is worded forbids someone referencing one of his kuids of an asset on the DLS in a payware route. Because his asset is being used actually to the letter not just the spirit but to the letter of that license.
Because the route builder is not modifying, distributing, selling or reselling the product, when he placed it in the route initially he was doing so for his own personal private use, once he sells that route to the end-user, the asset isn't in the CDP, just the kuid and the asset is on the DLS where it's always been, when the end-user puts the map in his machine, and downloads that asset from the DLS, the end-user is using that asset for his own personal private use.
Because unless the route builder downloads and includes that asset in the route CDP (which I have always said is wrong, and the unscrupulous route builder that does that should be hunted down and hung) merely referencing it's kuid doesn't violate any license old or new because it is exactly how Auran/N3V designed the DLS to work.
Now I'm not gonna get sucked back into this other than what I just said above. It's hard not to get engaged in such conversation. And for the record I have not built a payware route, I hadn't planned on making a payware route, I am considering it now because I've turned down plenty of offers to do it. There is a market for it I really believe that's why this subject came up, but if I were to adhere to that license above strictly to the letter, it would be referencing the kuid in a CDP file, exactly the opposite effect that John hopes to achieve.
but we really should not turn this in to a continuation of a closed thread.