Thanks for the update Rob, was wondering what ever happened with this. Best of luck to you in future endeavours.

Rob, thank you for the follow up. I am glad that this issue is resolved, although the agreement seems to be "agree to disagree", and at least the copyrighted file is no longer included with the Harrier. I wish there was some better form of agreement, especially with regards to you and the headaches you have endured through this quagmire. Yet, seeing as how DSB did remove and replace the offending file, I will hold no ill towards DSB. Indeed, I have several DSB aircraft on my computer, and 3 of which I cannot find elsewhere, so there they'll stay.I support the add-ons for FS, be they free or not, and that includes the fine works of one Mr. Rob Barendregt. I thank you for your contributions to our wonderfull community, and I hope that if you feel like making more in the future, you will continue to do so. I am sorry for your dissapointment, and all I can offer in that regard is that it possibly could have turned out worse. Again, I'm just glad it's resolved, and again I thank you for updating us.I wish you all the luck in the future, Rob, and I hope that this will serve as an example to all FS modders, of both Free- and Pay-ware, to always check, double check and triple check the source. If in doubt, make your own. Best wishes, Rob.-Jeremy BurchThe Ozark DogfighterHappy Flying!Pilot-The friction locks are causing the throttle levers to stick.Mechanic- Umm, that's what they're there for...

It is a forgotten sidebar in the rush to payware status that developers seem to be gravitating toward, that with corporate remuneration comes corporate responsibility and culpability. As a freeware author Mr Brice could have apologised to Rob and moved on quickly, but the fact that DSB Design existed as a corporate entity (whether implied or actual, Companies House has no listing for `DSB Design`) means that he has a legal corporate responsibility for his sub-contractors, whether he likes it or not. His subrogation rights against Chris Sanders may or may not be impacted by the failure of Mr Sanders to come forward, but they in no way preclude Rob exercising HIS rights under UK company law. In fact, if DSB Design is not a limited company, then ipso facto Mr Brice assumes full responsibility, with unlimited liability, for Mr Sanders' actions. So the fact that an agreement has NOT been reached is actually a cause for concern for Mr Brice only. Rob has EVERY right to pursue compensation through the courts if he so chooses. If I were in David Brices shoes I would seek to achieve an agreement without delay. Or else he might not have any shoes in a short while.An ex-colleague of mine in the music business has just removed a former company director from his house and taken his car over an issue of copyright theft and non-payment. It turns out the director of the company had moved assets out of the corporate body in order to show the court he had insufficient assets to meet the judgement. Unfortunately for him, he had failed to establish the company correctly and the court wasted little time in assigning the debt to him persoanlly. Assets were then seized by the court and the director now finds himself living in a caravan, and presumably commuting on the bus. It's unfortunate that situations like this should ever arise, but it's a salutary lesson for all of those who want to `sell stuff` that as soon as you do, you cross a line from which there is no retreat. It's a tough world, commerce.Allcott

I agree Allcott. Mr. Brice has the absolute responsibility for the actions taken by his company, and there could indeed be a more appropriate resolution than simply removing the copyrighted material and moving on. However, what I get from Robs post is that he has no wish to drag himself, nor Mr. Brice, through anymore fretting over this issue.Rob said "So, as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of this issue. Yes, I'm disappointed. But I can live with that..." I believe what we have here is a gentleman like my grandfather, a passing breed of man, who believes more in getting it done to the satisfaction of all parties with the least amount of stress and hardship possible than pursuing "..compensation through the courts..". It's a shame that more people do not feel this way; it would lessen the chances of unnecessary litigation. Don't take that to mean that I feel litigation is unnecessary in this instance. So the issue is closed, in a matter that leaves no glaring hole where anyone once stood. In this world of lawsuits and scandal, reading Rob's post was like a sigh of relief.-Jeremy BurchThe Ozark DogfighterHappy Flying!Pilot-The friction locks are causing the throttle levers to stick.Mechanic- Umm, that's what they're there for...

I agree with your views Rob.DSB infringed your rights - they were the publishers and published copyright material without your permission. The accusation you made was perfectly true.The fact that it was supplied by a 3rd party who assured DSB) that it was his own work is only mitigating factor. Was it a written warranty or just a verbal assurance? If damages had been awarded against DSB it might have had recourse against the 3rd party assuming that there was a proper warranty. As the 3rd party appears to have disappeared that wouldn't have been of much value to them. I doubt that a reputable 3rd party wouldn't have breached your copyright and then disappeared. It makes me wonder what checks (if any) DSB made on him and his warranty.BTW did you ever see the warranty or whatever that DSB relied on?

Hi mgh,I understand that someone still might have questions about this issue(so have I :-) )But please respect my decision NOT to go into further detail, as to not stirr things up again.Regards, Rob

Happens all the time. You select some open source project and later find out it contains a bunch of stolen code.Only thing you can do at that point is attempt damage control which is what DSB did.If you can't trust a 3rd party to work within the law there's no way you can trust anyone and the entire system of using third parties as suppliers breaks down leaving the industry (all industry, as the same thing goes for parts suppliers for car manufacturers to electronics factories) with no way to work.DSB trusted the wrong person, and replaced the work of that person with other work, end of story.The person responsible will probably find it hard to get employment for the foreseeable future, but that's not the concern of anyone except the companies involved.Openly publishing all his details would actually be against the law in many countries.

They gagged you quite effectively, didn't they, Rob? I'll file DSB in my little cabinet of "developers to avoid like the plague".Be well!Jaap Verduijn.

RobI quite understand. I'm also sure that those of us who have followed this saga know who we can believe ;)

I bought the original Harrier and also downloaded the "improved" Harrier. The "improved" Harrier's VTOL modeling is CRAP. Nuff said.....

Hi Jaap,No, there's no "gagging" at all :-)But I feel there's just no point in starting the public discussion again on their behaviour, or comment on their current solution.What good would that do ?Because it will continue to be my word/opinion against theirs.Cheers, Rob

Hi Rob!Well, gagging or not... considering the whole distasteful affair I will STILL keep DSB filed in my little cabinet with the red warning sign "Avoid like the plague, and NEVER do business with"!Ik kan vrij aardig "tussen de regels door" lezen, en ze hebben het bepaald niet netjes geregeld.Anyway, I understand you not wanting to get the whole hullabaloo fired up again. There are far better things to do!Keep up the good work, mate!Jaap.

Dear Flightsimmers,As you may remember, in July I accused DSB Design / Sigma Simulation (businesses owned by Mr. David Brice), of including pirated copies of some of my freeware gauges in their commercial Harrier package.A.o. XML code for VSTOL functionality.First of all, the reason for THIS post is simple: I promissed to post the outcome of this "issue". And since I keep getting reminders, at least several people still appear to be interrested in it.If it doesn't interrest you: simply stop reading here so as to not waste your time :-).Now,- Has this issue been solved ?? YES.- Did we come to an agreement ?? NO.I'll clarify this below.When confronted with my claim, Mr. Brice decided to remove the offending gauge code from his product and replaced it by code made by himself and Ed Walters (as can be read on the DSB Design website).I have seen this code and, although it's based on the same design principles, I can confirm that this new code is indeed different and I don't claim copyright on it. (I won't comment on it's performance here).Hence, I have no objections to it. After all, I didn't copyright the "design" or "solution", just the actual gauge "code".Moreover, during our negotiations, it was made plausible by Mr. Brice, that his claim that "he was supplied the code by a third party (a Chris Sanders) and he was assured that the code was original work by Mr. Sanders", is true.Now, since nobody (including Mr. Brice) denies that my original freeware gaugecode and the code supplied in the original version of this Harrier product, were plain copies, it means that either Me or this Chris Sanders is lying and is guilty of theft. So I challenge this Chris Sanders to come forward; but since he has conviniently "vanished", I strongly doubt that this guy will be heard of anymore in the flightsim community.Now, you may ask, why did Mr. Brice and I didn't come to an agreement with a common statement on this copyright issue ?Simply put: we just disagree too much for it.As an example: Was my public accusation against DSB Design / Sigma Simulations justifiable or not ?I feel that a business is responsible for the actions of it's (sub-)contractors (i.e. Chris Sanders), and should have acted accordingly. Which, IMO, Mr. Brice didn't. Like: not suspending sales of his product when confronted with my clear evidence that these gauges were indeed simple copies of eachother.Hence, I would never state, as part of a deal, that "I have falsely accussed his business". For whatever compensation.I still have my reservations, and a lot more could be said about this, but I decided that there's no point in discussing the details of this private communication between us in a public forum. Please respect that.It was a very difficult process with a lot of 'misunderstandings', not in the least caused by the initial hugh mis-trust between us.A.o. caused by their first reaction on my claim, but this was explained by Mrs. Karen Love in her post in July.Also, communicating via the Internet/Email (or a forum) doesn't help, since identities can easily be faked (you don't know who you're dealing with) and things like state-of-mind can easily be misinterpreted. So, as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of this issue.Yes, I'm disappointed. But I can live with that...Best regards, Rob BarendregtPS: Should you decide to react, please keep it civil !!And to prevent this thread to explode again in another freeware vs. payware discussion: PLEASE DON'T.It has no relation with the subject at hand. Although I am (and intend to remain) a designer of freeware, I firmly believe there is a "market" for both freeware and payware addons.In fact, a few of my freeware gauges are bundled with some payware aircraft, which I'll usully allow in exchange for a free end-user copy of the aircraft. Provided I'm asked nicely, in advance :-)