waiting for resolution RAZBAM Situation Post Archive (will be deleted)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Nightdare said:

 

Then RB was only on borrowed time until they had their own 'Hawk-Debacle'

Let's say this whole dispute didn't happen, but RB and one of their programmers had a falling out halfway through the F-15 Early acces?

Then what? There would be an unusable module in EA, until either the issue with the developer was solved or the 'locked' code was replaced

This 100%.  If it's true that RB does not have the source code, then frankly I care a LOT less if the RB/ED negotiations work out.  Because if each developer keeps their own code, the whole project is untenable and will die sooner or later.  
 

EDIT: also, if true, it means that any RB denials about infringing ED IP would be unverifiable.  All they would have is the word of the individual developer that he didn’t, but with no way to back check it what good is that?  Seriously, if true, the idea that RB doesn’t have the source code completely changes my view of this whole situation. 

Edited August 26, 2024 by wombat778

[Esac_mirmidon]

ED doesnt have any code except his own work. 

Open your eyes.

[bfr]

16 minutes ago, wombat778 said:

This 100%.  If it's true that RB does not have the source code, then frankly I care a LOT less if the RB/ED negotiations work out.  Because if each developer keeps their own code, the whole project is untenable and will die sooner or later.  

You can have escrow arrangements (a place I used to code for had it as part of the contract with a major customer) where a copy of any code is uploaded to a third-party repository and only actually handed over to the other party in very specific circumstances (e.g. the vendor goes bust).

As others have mentioned though, having the source code only solves part of the problem.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, bfr said:

You can have escrow arrangements (a place I used to code for had it as part of the contract with a major customer) where a copy of any code is uploaded to a third-party repository and only actually handed over to the other party in very specific circumstances (e.g. the vendor goes bust).

Certainly, and in a company context that makes total sense.  But here we are talking about an individual developer -- a single person.  A single person doesn't really "go bust" so unless the only escrow release condition is payment it doesn't help much.  Also, if literally no one but that one person has seen or understands the code, if that person gets angry, hit by a bus, etc, your whole business may fall apart.

[bfr]

Just now, wombat778 said:

Certainly, and in a company context that makes total sense.  But here we are talking about an individual developer -- a single person.  A single person doesn't really "go bust" so unless the only escrow release condition is payment it doesn't help much.  Also, if literally no one but that one person has seen or understands the code, if that person gets angry, hit by a bus, etc, your whole business may fall apart.

Is there any actual confirmation that RB doesn't have the source code? It seems like complete conjecture to me, not to mention utterly illogical from RB's standpoint.  The existence of the time bomb certainly doesn't automatically imply that RB didn't have possession of all or at least most of the underlying source code.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, bfr said:

Is there any actual confirmation that RB doesn't have the source code? It seems like complete conjecture to me, not to mention utterly illogical from RB's standpoint.  The existence of the time bomb certainly doesn't automatically imply that RB didn't have possession of all or at least most of the underlying source code.

Not that I am aware of, and I agree 100% with you.  Someone mentioned that this has been stated on the RB Discord, but it seems so illogical to me that I’m inclined not to believe it either. 

[Glide]

1 hour ago, wombat778 said:

Err, how is that possible?  I mean, I had (and still have) access to the full Falcon 4.0 source code on my hard drive.  If the developers all "kept their code" then how do I have it?

This topic needs to go away.

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, wombat778 said:

Err, how is that possible?  I mean, I had (and still have) access to the full Falcon 4.0 source code on my hard drive.  If the developers all "kept their code" then how do I have it?

I meant they kept their code when Micro Prose shut down, at which time the developers decided to leak the code to the latest complete build they had.
Which is the only reason you have it.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

I meant they kept their code when Micro Prose shut down, at which time the developers decided to leak the code to the latest complete build they had.
Which is the only reason you have it.

I think we may be speaking about different things — I am referring to developers not sharing their code with anyone else (which is what would be happening if RB does not have the code). If every F4 developer “kept” their own code and didn’t share it with anyone, then no one would have had a complete copy to leak.

Unless of course they all only combined their code at the very end when Microprose shut down — which not only seems unlikely and would be very visible in the code since style would be all over the place — but it’s also inconsistent with what the leaker Kevin Klemmick said “I downloaded it all before leaving and saved it off, and when it became vaporware I was the one that leaked it”. 
 

EDIT: I of course agree that it is normal for developers to keep a copy of their code after the end of a project (even if legally they probably shouldn’t).  But that’s a totally different issue than not sharing source code between developers or the company during a large scale development project…

Edited August 26, 2024 by wombat778

[SkateZilla]

2 hours ago, wombat778 said:

I think we may be speaking about different things — I am referring to developers not sharing their code with anyone else (which is what would be happening if RB does not have the code). If every F4 developer “kept” their own code and didn’t share it with anyone, then no one would have had a complete copy to leak.

Unless of course they all only combined their code at the very end when Microprose shut down — which not only seems unlikely and would be very visible in the code since style would be all over the place — but it’s also inconsistent with what the leaker Kevin Klemmick said “I downloaded it all before leaving and saved it off, and when it became vaporware I was the one that leaked it”. 
 

EDIT: I of course agree that it is normal for developers to keep a copy of their code after the end of a project (even if legally they probably shouldn’t).  But that’s a totally different issue than not sharing source code between developers or the company during a large scale development project…

 

I can go down a nice rabbit hole in regards to the entire M.P. Falcon 4 IP and Claims etc, but it's off topic.

I keep copies of everything I've developed on a encrypted drive, that way if the client encounters issues down the road, I can pull it back to the main system and do debugging / updates to the code.

Writers keep copies of their book after the publisher takes control.

Code is the same thing, the coders are the authors, RB is the Publisher, ED is the Storefront.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

I keep copies of everything I've developed on a encrypted drive, that way if the client encounters issues down the road, I can pull it back to the main system and do debugging / updates to the code.

 

That's fine and I don't disagree with that but that's not what we were talking about - the specific issue we are talking about (that you raised) is whether RB has the code NOT whether the developers also have the code.  They are two completely separate issues.  Using your book analogy it would be like the writer not sharing a copy of the book (or only sharing a non-editable PDF) with the publisher, which is clearly absurd.  

Similarly, in F4 development the original developers clearly shared their code with Microprose -- hence why there was a repository to download and leak.  It's silly to think that the F4 developers only shared precompiled binaries and that Microprose just packaged and published those pieces. Again, the part I take issue with is not the developers having their code its about RB NOT having that code.

Edited August 26, 2024 by wombat778

[Nightdare]

17 hours ago, some1 said:

They are a store front in the context of 3rd party modules. ED barely has the manpower to support their own modules, without inheriting somebody else's messy code.

As an analogy, Valve also can make their own games, does not mean they are responsible for fixing every other game they sell on Steam.

 

Difference is that whereas the games on Valve are stand alone, i.e. they work without Valve Software (all that is done is a license check)

For DCS module, DCS is absolutely required to run a module, there is no transfer of license possible to make it work any other way

 

17 hours ago, some1 said:

3rd party modules come with additional risk for us customers, something that wasn't loudly mentioned before, but the current situation shows quite plainly. 

 

Uhm, no, that the current situation makes it appear we are at risk, shouldn't be the case

I see no stipulation in the ED EULA of the F-15 shopping page that even mentions Razbam or that we're doing this acquisition with a 3rd party

All we know is that this 'product' has been developed by a 3rd party, which in business is a totally normal thing

(Sidenote: there's no EULA or ToS on the Razbam site, neither on that of, to give another example, Heatblur)

 

All business we have is with ED and ED alone

 

 

 

[some1]

Problem is, ED has different opinion on this subject than you, and they're running the show. You can go argue with Chizh

 

[Beirut]

17 hours ago, Glide said:

This topic needs to go away.

 

Why?

 

If you don't enjoy the thread, don't participate the thread. 

 

[Nightdare]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

Problem is, ED has different opinion on this subject than you, and they're running the show. You can go argue with Chizh

 

 

Sure, if you want to translate those 49 pages for me, since google translate is making neither heads nor tails of it

[some1]

37 minutes ago, Nightdare said:

google translate is making neither heads nor tails of it

Weird, works for me just fine.

[Nightdare]

2 hours ago, some1 said:

Weird, works for me just fine.

 

 

Ok

....so where's the 3rd party EULA?

 

Because a quick search on steam shows me this:

Requires agreement to a 3rd-party EULA

 

As is, I'm only reading a EULA where I'm doing business with ED and ED alone

Edited August 27, 2024 by Nightdare

[Mizzy]

On 8/26/2024 at 9:57 PM, SkateZilla said:

the coders are the authors, RB is the Publisher, ED is the Storefront.

This is pretty much how I understand the situation, apart from ED being a store front. By far ED has developed the most modules inhouse (Belsimtek) with over 30 modules, so it's a mix that includes 3rd Party development addons and all sold in one place. Maybe ED needs to separate inhouse modules from 3rd Party ones, just a thought.

Anyway, what's brought me to this thread again is the story that RB doesn't have (own) the source code for the F-15E, so ostensibly RB only hold the the publishing rights of the F15E because the base model that RB used was ED's original model in DCS and tinkered around by Mash 2 Mesh person. So, if ED wanted to take on the development of the F15E, it may only be a process of negotiating with the F15E Source Code owners (the authors of the F15E code) and then negotiate with RB to sell their publishing rights to ED. The end of RB being involved in DCS, an outcome I believe others would like to see as a successful outcome. 

This is obviously nothing to do with the ED/RB IP legal dispute, but it appears to be what I thought may be the case, in that RB did not have overall control over their modules, including the SA map, they merely acted as a publisher for their modules, (the same as the 'Book' analogy stated above) and the reason why the F15E is still on sale is because of RBs publishing rights over the sale of the module. If people want the F15E pulled from EDs Store page, they should direct their complaints to RB who apparently own the publishing rights of the F15E on EDs Store page.

If ED did remove the F15E from their Store Page without permission from RB, then RB will have legal recourse against ED breaking their mutual Contract, that's the only thing that makes sense to me and the only reason it's still on sale on EDs Store. If this is the case, which I suspect it is, then complain to RB.

I personally believe RB is in a lot of trouble with their Business Model.

My understanding is it's only the F15E affected in DCS, the others are safe because development ended when they were taken out if EA and I believe this has been confirmed many times. My understanding is pure speculation, like all of us here, however it is based on the information available but I may well be misinterpreting the story so far.

Mizzy

 

 

Edited August 28, 2024 by Mizzy
Additional ramblings and a tightening up of my opinion

[scommander2]

Hi @Mizzy, thanks for the explanation... 

[Mizzy]

1 hour ago, scommander2 said:

Hi @Mizzy, thanks for the explanation... 

Oh thank you but please remember, it's an explanation but totally based on speculation. Greetings

Mizzy

[toilet2000]

On 8/27/2024 at 10:49 AM, Mizzy said:

This is pretty much how I understand the situation, apart from ED being a store front. By far ED has developed the most modules inhouse (Belsimtek) with over 30 modules, so it's a mix that includes 3rd Party development addons and all sold in one place. Maybe ED needs to separate inhouse modules from 3rd Party ones, just a thought.

Anyway, what's brought me to this thread again is the story that RB doesn't have (own) the source code for the F-15E, so ostensibly RB only hold the the publishing rights of the F15E because the base model that RB used was ED's original model in DCS and tinkered around by Mash 2 Mesh person. So, if ED wanted to take on the development of the F15E, it may only be a process of negotiating with the F15E Source Code owners (the authors of the F15E code) and then negotiate with RB to sell their publishing rights to ED. The end of RB being involved in DCS, an outcome I believe others would like to see as a successful outcome. 

This is obviously nothing to do with the ED/RB IP legal dispute, but it appears to be what I thought may be the case, in that RB did not have overall control over their modules, including the SA map, they merely acted as a publisher for their modules, (the same as the 'Book' analogy stated above) and the reason why the F15E is still on sale is because of RBs publishing rights over the sale of the module. If people want the F15E pulled from EDs Store page, they should direct their complaints to RB who apparently own the publishing rights of the F15E on EDs Store page.

If ED did remove the F15E from their Store Page without permission from RB, then RB will have legal recourse against ED breaking their mutual Contract, that's the only thing that makes sense to me and the only reason it's still on sale on EDs Store. If this is the case, which I suspect it is, then complain to RB.

I personally believe RB is in a lot of trouble with their Business Model.

My understanding is it's only the F15E affected in DCS, the others are safe because development ended when they were taken out if EA and I believe this has been confirmed many times. My understanding is pure speculation, like all of us here, however it is based on the information available but I may well be misinterpreting the story so far.

Mizzy

 

 

 

Razbam has said over and over again in their Discord that they asked for the F-15E to be removed from sale, so your “theory” is completely invalid.

[MAXsenna]

Razbam has said over and over again in their Discord that they asked for the F-15E to be removed from sale, so your “theory” is completely invalid.

Did Ron say so?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Dallenbach]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb toilet2000:

Razbam has said over and over again in their Discord that they asked for the F-15E to be removed from sale, so your “theory” is completely invalid.

It's just an assertion from you without any evidence. Stop writing such rubbish already. You don't change anything with claims like that.
Although I own all the mods, I wouldn't be unhappy if this company finally disappeared from the market.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Dallenbach said:

Although I own all the mods, I wouldn't be unhappy if this company finally disappeared from the market.

I'd prefer them to stay as they do great modules, they should update their current ones and develop more, like MiG-23.

[Mizzy]

5 hours ago, Dallenbach said:

It's just an assertion from you without any evidence. Stop writing such rubbish already. 

Of course it's just an assertion, the person never gives any evidence to anything, just gossip so don't expect anything else, I don't.

Mizzy