The end of Rock Patch

[FS-21]

Since his poll is "Choose which you like" the value is "orientative", nothing more...

[Renegade]

As far as I understood, the poll is for the engine, not a YR patch.

@Renegade: as a sidenote, I think I already have an account on these forums with the same email address as this one. If you can find it, could you please delete or ban it? I forgot the password to it.

The account is Nikola_Tesla...are you sure you don't want me to merge stuff or something?

[Professor_Tesla]

you could merge stuff if you want to, but i would prefer it if it was deleted.

[Renegade]

k, consider it done.

[MadHQ]

Lame!

[TX1138]

What's lame? Is it the fact that we have to wait until the 1st July for the first version of EYR? If so, then I fully agree with you

[Professor_Tesla]

@VK: VK, you have still not answered my question. Why are we not allowed to use Rock Patch 1.10? Please give me a good reason.

[VK]

However this need a lot of work:
1)A new Swizzle Creator™ from Marshall (for installers).
2)Code update
2)A new ModEnc pages about Swizzle Patch™.
3)A new FTP account for Swizzle Patch™
4)A new Forum about Swizzle Patch™
The last items is true, if King Ren will host a Swizzle Patch™ in his kingdom.

[Bobingabout]

given that he already hosts rockpatch, and the fact that section is the most active, he will probably host it.

[~Guest~]

However this need a lot of work:
1)A new Swizzle Creator™ from Marshall (for installers).
2)Code update
2)A new ModEnc pages about Swizzle Patch™.
3)A new FTP account for Swizzle Patch™
4)A new Forum about Swizzle Patch™
The last items is true, if King Ren will host a Swizzle Patch™ in his kingdom.

@VK: If I were you, I would move your work to a new website where you could be your own King.  I'm not saying this against you or Ren, but the fact that you're still calling him "King Ren" tells me that you don't like him.  Why not go somewhere else where you'll be happy?

Either way, I hope things work out well.

[Bachsau]

Yeah, just add some more â„¢s and don't forget to add a copyright message to every corner of the game.

Oh, and some more ®s and ©s can't be wrong, as well as a "CnCVK is the best"-Logo in the start sequence of the game.

[Nighthawk]

Well said.
P.S. That's why I still stick to one of the versions that didn't have a big © everywhere

[Blade]

hmmmm, still technically comes under hacked, or wares beacuse of the eula violation, and therefore can't be copyright.

Dude. Wrong. Plain and simple.
VK's code is owned by VK, and he has the copyright to it. Period. His code may be useless without the copyrighted code of a third party, but that does not change the fact that the code he wrote is under his copyright.

True, but because it is derivative of EA copyrighted material, he has no right to distribute it without explicit permission from EA (permission he would never get). Further more, in some cases of copyright infringement (which VK would be committing by distributing a derivative work of EA's copyrighted material) a court has awarded ownership of copyright of the derivative product to the original copyright owner as part of the settlement. VK doesn't even have permission to make the patch, creating it itself is a violation of the EULA terms and thus a copyright violation. It would depend on jurisdiction as to exactly what rights the creator of the derivative work has but right to distribute isn't one of them. As I have said elsewhere, this is a very grey area AFAIK and I doubt the law would favour VK in any attempt to assert his rights over a derivative work of EA's copyright.

[Renegade]

Actually, I'm not quite sure it is a "derivative work" - that depends on how it is distributed (been some time since I installed RP); if it's really just a patcher, then he's only distributing code he himself wrote (and some of pd's). He's got the right to do that. He's violating the EULA by reverse engineering the game, and the installing users are violating the EULA by modifying the engine - but his code in itself is not a derivative work of EA's copyrighted material. The entire exe, patched, is one. His code alone is just additional code, that is not executable without EA's code. That makes the code he owns worthless without EA's, but it doesn't change the fact that it's his worthless code, under his control.

And while it may be possible that VK's ownership gets taken away from him in some jurisdictions after a court decision, that decision doesn't exist so far. So he's still owner of his code.

[Blade]

He creates the patches by directly hex editing an EA binary though and creates the patch file using some kind of difference algorithm against the unmodified exe, so it could be argued that even the patch file is a derivative work. All moot though as there is little that VK can do to assert any rights he has over the code anyway.