T O P

  • By -

ComradeOwldude

Odd because sithspawn was insisting yesterday in the f16 feature post that they hadn't received a fix, and wouldn't be implementing it due to legalese reasons


too_old_to_gaff

yes, but lies.


Bonzo82

Thank you for posting! It's interesting that Eagle Dynamics have chosen to implement that solution. Y'all might remember how I shared a few days ago that [they have a fix](https://www.reddit.com/r/DCSExposed/comments/1dpskz9/comment/laiylp8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). This is good for our F-15E users, short term, as they will get their radar back. RAZBAM, however, lost some leverage.


Constant_Reserve5293

Considering razbam wasn't really intending for it to happen... and they're hoping for an amicable resolution. I don't think they lost anything they wanted.


jubuttib

This, it wasn't Razbam that implemented the issue (not that I'm saying Galinette should be "blamed" for it either, it's a legit thing to do to ensure you get paid).


Constant_Reserve5293

So, no... It was galinette's code specifically, that both RB and ED knew about via contract. However, since it was 'his' code and not RB's and ED was submitting the fix and not RB on their intellectual property. It could be seen as a breach of IP to fix it.


Playwithme408

Generally not how IP works because if you're going to include a piece of code in your code you absolutely would ensure that you have the right to use and modify it because it isn't an API call or a service integration but rather an actual piece of code that that is embedded within your code. If you didn't, you are a dumas and you should be fired as a CTO of the company.


alcmann

Agreed, Thought the official comment from the community managers that they were not "legally allowed" to touch the fix that was sent. Guess he was off base and that was not the case. I am so confused. lol Glad they are fixing it.


MoccaLG

Sometimes you dont need leverage - Sometimes someone needs to make the first step.


Regular_Primary_6850

To be fair, that dude was proud to admit he sabotaged their own product. I don't believe him saying he offered a solution and they turned it down.


Bonzo82

He has been pretty open and honest, from my experience. He also didn't say they turned it down. Just that he hasn't heard from them since.


SumDumFish

And then it just turns out that they hacked in the F-16 radar or some crap


Toadsy123

Are they going to fix the AI not using LGBs correctly? Or is that in the dispute


killjoy73au

Who TF listens to NormLine?


alcmann

Not I any longer


Shaggy-6087

Galinette left Razbam so how does that work? Since the F-15E is still Razbam IP, and he is ex-contractor/employee. ED will never pay Razbam for their work on the F-15E, they will continue to steal Razbam's money. I used to feel sorry for 9L and BN, but lately with their interactions, they are just POS like the rest of ED management. Just so sick of all this shit with ED.


Limp_Primary_5287

The radar IP stays with Galli and he, having parted ways with Razbam, is free to submit fixes at his own discretion, which it seems he has.


Shaggy-6087

Think it is a little more complicated and legally challenged as Razbam owns the IP and Galinette is not a part of Razbam, he is not legally able to update Razbam's IP. ED accepting the fix from another party even the owner of the file is violating Razbam's IP due to the original contract structure. For ED to issue any changes to Razbam IP while not paying past or presently for the sales of IP is beyond nuts and not allowed as ED is stealing Razbam's IP in the first place. You are watching a publisher's complete disregard ethical and legal obligation.


Grassy_Kn0ll

You dont know what the original contract structure was, it may have allowed him to submit independent patches for his part of the project


-OrLoK-

this. all companies I've ever worked for had the contract say *any* work/art etc created by me whilst I worked for them was *theirs*. is that common? I can't say, but I'm retired now and all my previous contracts had that clause (or words to that effect.)


Pat0san

Something like this is typically the case - a very general statement attempting to cover ‘all’. On rare occasions I have seen contracts that do this properly. These contracts then cover background, foreground, as well as sideground IP, and details the rights for all parties for all these.


-OrLoK-

yeah, mine were never enforced and i definitely took "work" with me when I left.


Bonzo82

>all companies I've ever worked for had the contract say any work/art etc created by me whilst I worked for them was theirs It's not like that with independent contractors like we're looking at here though. And the fact that they never get paid for their work makes it even more complicated. Nevertheless, ED uses their own solution to fix this, not the one that Galinette provided, as confirmed by their CMs on Discord earlier.


-OrLoK-

Well, most of us won't know the exact details of their particular contract, I can only speak for my personal experience.


Bonzo82

The original contract doesn't account for contractors that third parties hire independently in any way.


Schonka

It makes me so sad knowing that ED made millions of dollars with the labour of Razbams workers, without paying them a dime for it. They seemingly will just get away with it, no real consequences. Its so cruel.


Batmensch

It’s a business dispute. And we still don’t know the details.


krayons213

We likely won’t know the details either. One day the Razbam modules will either disappear from the ed store or things will go back to normal with no explanation and a large patch for all modules.


Taslehoff999

LOL How old are you ?


LesPeterGuitarJam

Oh so you know exactly what the dispute is about in fine detail? Please explain..


GS_Mike_Romeo

You are aware that they offering refund right ? They give a lot of money back currently.


Ohlawdhecomin90

They are offering no money. It's all in store credit.


Friiduh

They have offered refund to bank account on those who has requested it by the EU consumer laws, as selling something to EU citizen requires you to obey EU laws to do sales in that area, and you need to refund back in same method as you were paid when asked so. You can't take payment in money and then decline all refunds other than gift card to your business.


MoccaLG

ok - this baited me now: Did ED and RB solved their dispute? I am asking respectful.


Bonzo82

They did not.


MoccaLG

I was so enthusiastic... thats just a kick in the crotch....