Installation, updates, general problem solving and assistance.
rloew

2014-06-18 11:29 »

Non Hic wrote:
rloew wrote:...Even if Copyright law allows reverse engineering, contract law would not since it is prohibited by the License...

You cannot, from USA, license away something which is fully legal in Europe. On top of that, your "license" doesn't apply to someone who never had a contract with you in the first place. RFMaster never agreed to your license and has no contract with you.

In short... idiot. :wink:

The license applies to lamp222 since he obtained the Demo.

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3323
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2014-06-18 11:31 »

Then go sue "lamp222", whatever the hell that is and stop wasting people's time.

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3323
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2014-06-18 11:38 »

I'm just speculating now but you are just making people angry with your factless ramblings in my humble opinion. Who knows, maybe someone gets really pissed off. Enough to start putting up Web sites and torrents all over the place with your "product", just to fuck with you. You don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. :think:

Guest

2014-06-18 11:50 »

RFMaster wrote:WTF are you talking about?

Lamp222 publish his patched files in a year 2008!

Your demo patch v7.1 is from year 2012

patchm71.PNG


So you claim that he used old version of your patch!

Now you say it should be checked with your latest version!

So if you now sell your work from year 2012 that is similar to someones work form year 2008

You sould think about who stole who's work!

If you look better in Lamp222's patched files you 'll see that files are modified in a year 2002

So. Stop wasting my fuckin time!

I said he used an older version, probably 5.0, not one so old as the one you have.
I have no idea of where you got a copy that is so old. You could try to find the 5.0 version if you want.

If you read the History file, 5.0 is the first with the newer code. Since lamp222 removed the Signature there is no way to distinguish the exact version as the subsequent changes were made to the Patcher rather the Patches themselves.
I just extracted the files I got from freora two years ago.
Both files have the exact same timestamp down to the second. This shows that he tampered with the timestamps.

It would be pretty hard for me to steal his work since my Patcher can handle a much greater range of OSes and Versions. A full understanding of the reasons for each code segment is required to adapt the code. Neither you nor he has that knowledge.

@Not Hic: Your remark is totally inappropriate as I presenting my proof of these facts.

RFMaster

2014-06-18 11:52 »

I'm NOT someone's lawyer but, but rloew claim some wery weird things!

Hi claim that: Lamp222 stole his patch from year 2012 and then "jumed" to year 2002 and then patched
his files in a year 2002 whith rloew patcher from year 2012 and then "jumped" to year 2008 and publish patches.


Is this just to me sounds insane?

He (rloew) must prove many unprovable things!

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3323
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2014-06-18 11:54 »

rloew,

This little thread has had 3000+ views from random anonymous people. Here we sit, recommending your product and telling people to buy it. Even one of our members bought one from you. Hell, even RFMaster said that your product is better and recommendeds it!

Still, you keep coming back with your factless accusations and hearsay, attacking the very same people who support you. What the hell is wrong with you?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all this situation needs is just one random anonymous angry person to start disliking you, really give you a bad day and start warzing your product on torrent and file sharing Web sites until the cows come home. :problem:

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3323
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2014-06-18 11:58 »

RFMaster wrote:...Hi claim that: Lamp222 stole his patch from year 2012 and then "jumed" to year 2002 and then patched
his files in a year 2002 whith rloew patcher from year 2012 and then "jumped" to year 2008 and publish patches...

Indeed, "rloew" needs to explain that part as well. :???:

RFMaster

2014-06-18 12:01 »

Guest wrote:Since lamp222 removed the Signature there is no way to distinguish the exact version as the subsequent changes were made to the Patcher.

It is not about signatures!

The whole patch is different! different offsets, different sequences, different bytes! Everyting is different!

But he still claim it is his work! That is totally insane.

Is i have to repeat again? All old demo versions of his patcher can be found on the web and checked!
Nothing of rloew work can be found it lamp222 patch

rloew

2014-06-18 12:17 »

My handle got dropped off my last post.

Now you are spewing nonsense.

lamp222 obtained a copy of my Demo Patch in 2008, presumably Version 5.0.
He reverse-engineered the modifications it made to the Windows Kernel in violation of my Demo's License.
He changed the datestamp on both files to the same exact time in 2002.
My current Patcher, version 7.1 was released in 2012.

Since you seem to have a problem with my instructions do the following:

1. Extract a VMM32.VXD Version 2222 from a Windows 98SE CD.
2. Make a copy called VMM.VXD
3. Run your first Patcher G-VMM32 to Patch VMM.VXD
4. Run Version 5.0 or above of my Demo Patcher as follows:
PATCHM - VMM32.VXD -
Make sure to include the two dashes.
5. Compare VMM.VXD and VMM32.VXD


@"!": I'm not concerned about your opinion of my accusations against lamp222 as there is no way to prove events six years ago. I'm not making factless accusations or using hearsay against RFMaster.
I'm only saying that he is wrong about where the code segments he is using originated from. He chose to respond angrily about it.

A little self-help will take care of the warez and torrent sites "until the cows come home".

User avatar
!
30%
Posts: 3323
Joined: 2013-02-25 18:36

2014-06-18 12:23 »

rloew wrote:...@"!": I'm not concerned about your opinion of my accusations against lamp222 as there is no way to prove events six years ago....

Well, there you go. You got not proof. Admitting what you are saying is hearsay yourself!

rloew wrote:...I'm not making factless accusations or using hearsay against RFMaster...

If you don't have any facts and you, yourself, say that there is no way to prove what you claim against someone... that is, indeed a factless accusation!

rloew wrote:...I'm only saying that he is wrong about where the code segments he is using originated from. He chose to respond angrily about it.

And here it is again, your factless accusation against RFMaster.

rloew wrote:...A little self-help will take care of the warez and torrent sites "until the cows come home".

Is that a threat toward me, this Web site, RFMaster or all of it?

You don't scare me motherfucker.

Post Reply