[Crystal]

Ask Kavir, he's who I got it from. I'm sure he knows.

[relic]

Dude. I read it a few days ago but forgot, happens at the end of 13-hour graveyard shifts. Give me a break and respond to the hundred words plus I've put some thought into, not give a mocking reply to a single word("Link?")

Those quotes don't mean anything to me, legally or otherwise...these guys aren't articulate enough in English to be exact w/o an interactive dialogue. That reply didn't even mention "profit", the defining word of the license...Assuming the quotes are really from Hans I'd bet the questions were leading away from "profit" and towards the very ambiguous "commercialization". Can't think of any other reason the license would be explained without mentioning profit, when profit is the crux of the legal license.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Oct. 26 2003,03:42) Apr 03 2003  Sueing Medievia May 30 2003 Shadows of Isildur, Ip thieves should be banned Oct 12 2003  Diku Licence Oct 22 2003  Pros, Priests and Zealots 4 threads, all initiated by the same person. You should all go back and read them. They make an interesting pattern.

Article 1: Medievia IS violating the DIKU license. It's not including the proper credits to the DIKU authors.

Article 2: SoL doesn't even have -any- license from the Tolkien people.

Article 3: The DIKU license prohibits profit. It does not prohibit commercialization.

Article 4: There are a number of people on this site who have little interest in reality and more interest in promoting an almost religious-style agenda.

None of these facts are really in question.
--matt

[Molly]

the_logos

Originally Posted by Article 3: The DIKU license prohibits profit. It does not prohibit commercialization. Article 4: There are a number of people on this site who have little interest in reality and more interest in promoting an almost religious-style agenda. None of these facts are really in question.

I still suggest that people should go back and read those threads again. They make such enlightening reading.

Below are some assorted examples of the_logos wisdom from the Diku thread:

the_logos:

Originally Posted by -- On the other hand, since profit is so ill-defined it is easy to simply not make a profit if you treat your mud as a genuine commercial enterprise. -- There are a thousand ways to not show a profit for the enterprise while ensuring the individuals who work for the enterprise get money. -- These are easy, essentially rock-solid ways to avoid violating the license. There's very little room to quibble here too since wiping out profit in this manner is both completely legal and quite common. -- I'm sure the inevitable argument is going to be that my solutions violate the spirit of the license and in fact that's probably true, though that's purely speculation on my part. I'm not a mindreader. Either way though, it's irrelevant. --- I don't care about the spirit of the license as it's not relevant, particularly in a discussion of contract and IP law. -- No one is suggesting that a profit be made from DIKU. That's the entire point of this thread: It's quite possible to take money and simply not show a profit.

and one from the Priests and Zealots thread:

the_logos

Originally Posted by This board (and other text mud boards) just frustrate the #### out of me due to some of the Zealots and Priests that inhabit it. They make it next-to-impossible to have a worthwhile discussion on mud development.

I guess part of the problem might be that some of the "religious-style" people don't quite agree about the definition of what is a "worthwhile discussion on mud development".

[Delerak]

You guys have nothing better to do but talk about this **** over and over again. Heh.

[John]

So it's obvious that Aardwolf is violating the intent of the Diku licence as stated by the Diku team. So will they be banned?

I could care less but I just love the inconsistencies here.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by That reply didn't even mention "profit", the defining word of the license...Assuming the quotes are really from Hans I'd bet the questions were leading away from "profit" and towards the very ambiguous "commercialization".

The topic was pretty much identical to the Aardwolf situation. Here's how the conversation went (quoted):

On 29 Aug 2000, I wrote:

A ROM mud by the name of "Dark and Shattered Lands" has started taking donations from the players in exchange for houses/taverns/land ownership within the game. In short:

$10 or more = 2 bedroom house for a character
$20 or more = 4 bedroom house for a character
$30 or more = A dsl-mud.org email alias
$100 or more = All shops but Taverns
$200 or more = A Tavern
$500 or more = Land Ownership to build a Kingdom

The real problem is that the mud owner (Tony Allen) is claiming that you (the Diku team) support this idea. If that's so, it makes it very hard to do anything about Medievia's (or any other muds) donation system - can you please confirm or deny whether he has your support on this issue?

On 29 Aug 2000 Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt replied:

Well, he is clearly using the game for generating profit.

I feel it is important that i make clear how i see the limits of the licence; You should know i am not against donations as such, and he may sell his merchandise as he pleases, but he may not use the game directly for this. The way i usually define this is if the players get some tangible modification within the game for their donations. Then it becomes commercialized. They pay for a service that is within the game.

I have no wish, nor any legal background for stopping donations made from commercials on the website, that offer no compensation game-wise. Nor have i any wish for preventing people selling merchandise on their website, that is related to the game (titled tshirts, mousepads etc..) .. in fact i recommend that you get your money this way.

On 30 Aug 2000, Michael Seifert wrote:

I regret to tell you that Richard is right. It is the intention of the license agreement that you should not receive for donations.

On 30 Aug 2000, Scorn (owner of DSL) wrote:

Would it be safe to assume some of the founders of DikuMud disagree on the license? Also, why is the intent of the license different than the license? The license states you can not make profit. It does not state you may not accept donations such as books, hardware or allowing someone else to pay your co-location fees.

I am not arguing, but I am severly confused at this point why I am being told I am violating an agreement that does not state anything against such activity. Also realzie that I will comply with the wishes of the Diku Team whether it is in writing or not. I have already removed the donation page on my web site but I ask for a fair and reasonable answer to my conerns on this matter.

On 1 Sep 2000 Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt replied:

I do not believe that we disagree on the license.

I am sorry, if my answers have been confusing. I just want to make clear where exactly the licence applies. And that is of course where using the sourcecode we have supplied, or sourcecode derived from our work.

If you give people any in-game benefits for their donations, you are in fact giving a service for the money you have rescieved. That is a commercial transaction, and thus you are commercializing our work. This we object to.

What i wanted to make clear, is that legally and morally we have no control of what you do, that you do not use our work for. Thus, if you want to sell mousepads and whatever from your website, we will not object.

If people want to donate money to you, personally, without having any services rendered using our software, we will not object to this. But if you use our software to render services for money or goods you rescieve, this we object to, as you are then commercializing our software. That we object to.

[Valg]

From everything I've read, here and elsewhere, it seems Aardwolf is violating the spirit of the license. The word "donation" shouldn't even be in this thread- they're selling in-game merchandise (points). There is also a precedent for removing MUDs from this site for doing exactly what they are doing.

Whether or not their system would hold up in a court of law, the staff of a privately run website like TMS can exclude them if they wish. In the past, other MUDs have been excluded for selling in-game rewards.

It seems like people are having the wrong debate.

[Aardwolf]

I guess that depends on whether or not this is a site for people to vote on 'top muds' and discuss them, or a vehicle for approval of various usage/interpretations of MUD licenses.

The DIKU license has always been a very inflamed discussion area. I have never understood why much fewer people care about the various LPMud and other licenses, but if the administration of this site wants to get into clearing MUD license usage before allowing a site to be listed, they sure have a lot of work ahead. Or, are we only going to look at MUDs once they get near the top of the list? Is our real crime here being popular?

There is one very fundamental flaw to this whole thread anyway that I'm amazed no-one has picked up on yet....

In the meantime, taken directly from http://www.artofbuilding.net/docs/legal.txt:

"Hephos says 'you should let the diku defend their own licence  if they don't bother, whey should anyone"

Quite an interesting statement in light of how this thread started.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by In the meantime, taken directly from http://www.artofbuilding.net/docs/legal.txt: "Hephos says 'you should let the diku defend their own licence if they don't bother, whey should anyone"

And my own response, three lines later:

"KaVir says 'Because if people violate licenses, we all lose out'"

(followed by numerous nods of agreement).

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by (Aardwolf @ Oct. 27 2003,06:50) I guess that depends on whether or not this is a site for people to vote on 'top muds' and discuss them, or a vehicle for approval of various usage/interpretations of MUD licenses. The DIKU license has always been a very inflamed discussion area. I have never understood why much fewer people care about the various LPMud and other licenses, but if the administration of this site wants to get into clearing MUD license usage before allowing a site to be listed, they sure have a lot of work ahead. Or, are we only going to look at MUDs once they get near the top of the list? Is our real crime here being popular? There is one very fundamental flaw to this whole thread anyway that I'm amazed no-one has picked up on yet.... In the meantime, taken directly from http://www.artofbuilding.net/docs/legal.txt: "Hephos says 'you should let the diku defend their own licence  if they don't bother, whey should anyone" Quite an interesting statement in light of how this thread started.

Hehe, well i don't know why you get so personal you have to look me up on the internet, but im flattered.

Anyways, I do believe they should fight for their own licence. Did i mention anywhere that i think it was bad aardwolf accepts donations? I'm not blaming aardwolf here, since i don't even know if it is really against the licence (and not some spirit of a licence, which is crap) to accept donations commercially without ending up on a profit.

This has nothing to do with my opinion on things. I has to do with the mud community and what games they "accept" violating the licence, and what they don't accept.

I think it is ironic that one of the largest games run banners and is ranked in the top of one of the largest mud community sites, and also is violating the licence (according to the people that actively try to enforce it).

Also, you have to understand that the heat goes for the large games, that stand out among the rest, and are exposing themselves on the top of rank lists. Of course there is drawbacks with getting famous if you aren't running a legitimate business (or mud). Nobody probably notice a smaller game doing the same.

It's not a crime to be popular, but it's easier to get cought for a crime you commit.

[Deathwing]

It should be noted that a total rewrite of Aardwolf's codebase is beginning/in progress, so as to replace the Diku code with all-custom work.

I don't really agree with one side or the other here, but it would seem that, unlike with Medeivia's alleged violations, this is going to all be a moot point at some time in the relatively near future.

[Crystal]

It would be interesting to see this as a topic at the next MUD Con.  That is, if the majority of us can stay sane, unlike the last two *peers in Iluvatars direction*

Thanks for the information on the quote from Hans, Kavir.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by It should be noted that a total rewrite of Aardwolf's codebase is beginning/in progress, so as to replace the Diku code with all-custom work.

It should also be noted that a piecewise reimplementation does not underive your work.

[Deathwing]

Please, Kavir, give me at least a little credit. From what has been told to the players, Lasher is going to start the mud over completely from scratch, based on bare-bones code that has nothing whatsoever to do with Diku, and with full CVS logs to prove this. Hence, as I tried to say, not just a reimplementation.

Assuming Lasher himself won't pipe in here at some point, just log into the mud and type 'help v3'.

[Aardwolf]

I have started with a blank piece of paper (well actually, a public domain outline of socket drivers). The whole mechanics of the new mud behind the scenes is completely different. In fact, in Aardwolf as it is today that is already true, but as it is today is does still have some pieces of Diku code in it and clearly a derivative.

However, the end result is going to look a lot like Aardwolf does today and, taking the article KaVir posted literally, nothing can ever change the fact that I have seen the Diku source code. Now we're getting into a whole new area - if implementing a feature you see on another MUD into your own code is a breach of copyright then a heck of a lot of muds have a good case against a heck of a lot of other muds.

Where do you draw the line? Diku has prompts, Aardwolf will have prompts. Diku uses sockets to connect to the MUD, Aardwolf will use sockets to connect to the mud. Diku has a skill called 'kick', Aardwolf will have a skill called 'kick' - however differently they are implemented, they will even both do damage!

I would imagine there are very few custom MUDs out there where the authors have never seen the diku source code. Some of them actually used to be Diku and still look a heck of a lot like Diku. Some of them aren't too far behind us in the polls either. Are they also piecemeal derivatives?

The comparison to converting a book to another language is a good one, and would apply if I were doing an exact mapping of Diku to Java and claming it was original. What we are doing is more a case of reading Tolkien's works and going and writing any of the dozens of other sets of fantasy novels that are essentially the same story but 'implemented differently'.

It is clear that no matter what we do this debate will continue and we are doomed to become the 'next Medievia' with or without a genuine effort to start over with a fresh codebase, which is not just for licensing reasons btw, there are many good technical reasons to do so. I will forge ahead with the new code regardless.

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by Now we're getting into a whole new area - if implementing a feature you see on another MUD into your own code is a breach of copyright then a heck of a lot of muds have a good case against a heck of a lot of other muds.

There's a rather large difference here.  If you implement something you see on another MUD, there's no real or obvious truth that shows it derived from THAT MUD.  At least not one the MUD community is aware of.

However everyone already knows Diku as being........Diku.

Also, I am not debating the quality or potential quality of your MUD. But I don't see how you can think what you're doing doesn't go against what the creators want. Whether they can do something about it or not. Do you really just not see that?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Please, Kavir, give me at least a little credit.  From what has been told to the playe