Yes, because they can´t make anything in the future. But old stuff that has been out for years, should not be affected. At least that how I read Matts post.
Untill you need a fresh install. Then you might be forced to “downgrade” to the latest version. That certainly goes for the Christrain stuff.
Chris of ChrisTrains posted this today "Well - I actually have some good news on this topic. SBB have been quietly working with me over the last couple of weeks to accommodate the peculiarity of my situation - in that this is an old product and the Thurbo GTW is also not the primary focus of the update (the primary focus is of course all the Dutch versions). I have been granted a one-time exception, specifically to ChrisTrains, very specifically to the GTW update. This means that I can leave the functionality as it was. We have made a couple of compromises on both sides (a couple of changes that most players will not notice or care about), but I'm pleased that they have afforded me the same courtesy they did to other developers for older products, in terms of not having to retroactively alter the GTW. Note that the terms of the modified license agreement still apply to anything new that I would build for SBB. I was surprised and very pleased when I opened my email this morning as I honestly did not think that I was going to get any flexibility on this issue, but this compromise is a great lifeline for me."
The answer to these issues lies with copyrite law and any commercial regulatory law inevitably becomes incredibly convoluted. However, trains are not designed or built by railroad operators and I would have thought that SBB would have no direct say in representations of, say a Flirt. There may be variations in detail of cabin setup to suit individual operators, but basic system functions would be the same, so a representation of the cab of any model, if complying with the builders (and the various government requirements) basic specifications, and not featuring operator mods, should not be under the influence of a rail operator. By the way, the OP saying flight simulators do not reproduce airline logos, cabins, or paint schemes is wrong. Just to take XPlane, there are literally thousands of accurate reproductions of aircraft (including flight deck and interior cabin) as operated by airlines - most developers include a paint kit to facilitate production of logos and paint schemes.
Where does the OP mention Flight Sims? And if you read the first post the problem is nothing to do with Liveries but the actual operation of the on board systems. And back to Flight Sims - I presume a Boing 737 does not have a different cabin depending on the operator?
Aircraft will have different instrument and equipment packages, depending on operator and major technical differences, such as engine type. Sure, the pilot's seat will be in the same place regardless of operator, but that's true of locos also.
Are there major technical differences between two standard 737's? - What "instrument and equipment packages" are different?
There's really no such thing as a standard 737. Every operator will tend to order (or possible fit if second-hand) something different. Obvious differences are engine manufacturer and cabin configuration. Military operators will have significantly different instrument and equipment fits from civilian operators. Civilian operators will have different standards for instrument type and manufacturer, which to an extent will be determined by plane age, role and territory of registration. Equipment differences will cover everything from seats, to emergency equipment, to winglets to cockpit windows. For example, the eyebrow windows of the earlier models are no longer provided as standard, but can still be installed if requested, and the military version has a sextant port the civilian models lack. And then Boeing have made close on 15 different variants of the 737 for different markets and as technology has changed.
You can reconfigure the free Zibo 737 in XPlane on the fly, choosing different instruments (Honeywell or Collins, analogue or digital, plaques, winglets and a myriad of other things.)
AFAIK see the Oriignal Text by Chris Longhurst (ChrisTrains) does not mention Flight Sims and is irrelevant to the post.
Then why did you start mentioning flight sims a few posts back? Spikee1975 is using the way the 737 is represented in flight sims to show that the idea that operators have some kind of IP control over how their cabin configuration is represented in simulations isn't valid. And there aren't many companies that are more protective of their IP than Boeing!
