[Deathwing]

Originally Posted by The purpose of this thread seems to be, why hasn't Aardwolf been banned when Medieva did the EXACT same thing (violated the INTENT of the license) and WAS banned.

I second the above poster's sentiment...Is there any reason why you had to post this again? It's already been made quite clear what the issue(s) are, and I assume the people that run TopMudSites know what's going on- if something's to be done with their site, they will do it.

It makes it seem like you're annoyed that Aard hasn't been banned yet, so you're just going to keep bringing the issue up until you get what you want.

And if that were to happen....I paraphrase Inigo Montoya- I do not think these rankings mean as much as you think they mean. Aard got along just fine without them for almost 7 years.

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by I paraphrase Inigo Montoya

Isn't that the guy from Princess Bride..? Sound similar anyway.....tho I haven't seen in in years

[solefly]

Originally Posted by (John @ Oct. 27 2003,22:50) Instances LIKE Aardwolf have cropped up in the past and the DIKU team has made the INTENT of their license clear and public (see previous quotes Kavir has posted in this thread).

Um.. I have read all the previous posts in this thread as well as (I believe I made clear in a previous post) at least four (4) other threads regarding the DIKU license on this site.  There was no such thread posted which leads me to alter my opinion as to the the legality of said license..  I fail to see how the license aims to restrict donations of any kind.  Futhermore I have failed to find a post in which there is a correlation between another mud that had been banned and Aardwolf.  Insofar as the what the INTENT of the license states I'm afraid that I cannot reply as I did not recieve a copy of the INTENT of the license with my DIKU source code..  If that should have been included I would urge the "mud community" and "the people that actively tries to enforce it" to contact sites which distribute this source code and inform them that they should also include a copy of this INTENT.  I am thankfull that I found this forum otherwise I would just have taken the license at face value. AKA do not "profit" and do not sell the source code.  

Originally Posted by Aardwolf is ADMITTING to violating this intent.

Aardwolf did no such thing.  And I would futhermore have to say that this would be a difficult thing to do in the first place as I would assume that the Aardwolf obtained the same package of source code and documents completely devoid of the "IMPLIED INTENT" documentation.  Again I would have to encourage that action be taken against these sites which are supplying the souce code distribution without this vital "license clarifying" documentation.

Thus i fail to see implications regarding my distribution to be anymore than assumptions.  I believe that we all know the quote "When you assume..."  Also you cannot interpret a license..  This is a fact..  Which is odd considering how many threads have been run regarding it's interpretation.. hmm..  A license will only mean what it says, nothing more and nothing less.. Sorry again..

Originally Posted by And to quote you quoting me..   I would have to assume by the initial post that someone has had a meeting with a representative of the DIKU team and someone with proper qualifications to determine that Aardwolf is indeed violating the license.

Or I guess any such meeting to determine what this vague license means.. (that would be helpfull too)

Until then please respond to sections which you quote in regards to the text you quote..

[John]

Originally Posted by (Deathwing @ Oct. 28 2003,00:24) Is there any reason why you had to post this again? It's already been made quite clear what the issue(s) are

Originally Posted by (solefly @ Oct. 27 2003,12:24) I'm not entirely sure what the focus of this thread was in it's conception, but it's quite clear that that focus has been lost.. Exactly what is it that we need be concerned with at this point?

Someone asked (again) so I answered. That's all

Originally Posted by (relic @ Oct. 28 2003,00[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]Medieva does not list the Diku credits when loading, breaking the letter of the contract.

Are people going to REALLY say that was the main reason it was banned?

Originally Posted by (Deathwing @ Oct. 28 2003,00:24) I do not think these rankings mean as much as you think they mean. Aard got along just fine without them for almost 7 years.

I don't really care about their ranking, what I find amusing is the possible favouritism going on and I really want to know the logic behind it. (I am also a mud PLAYER and even then my playing is fairly sporadic, so you can't say that I'm just after increasing the chance of my own mud <!--emo&).

People seem to not care that Aardwolf is breaking the intent, yet you mention Medieva and they spit all over the place in their haste to mention that Medieva became commercialized and thus broke the intent of the licence and how bad and evil they are. To me this is completely illogical.

Originally Posted by (relic @ Oct. 28 2003,00[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]stop spamming declaring aardwolf should be banned, doesn't belong here and is not up to us.

As far as I know we're allowed to say our opinion (and I am "spamming" as a result of people asking questions that cause me to rehash. Sorry if answering someone's answer upsets you terribly) and Kavir hasn't said that it is against the rules to debate whether or not a mud should be banned from the website. Because this is a private forum Kavir is able to whenever he wishes, but I personally think it would result in this place becomming even worse.

Also. Another thing I am extremely amused by is this:

Originally Posted by (Kavir @ Oct. 28 2003,00<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]My stance on this matter has always been that I defend the intentions of the author, whenever such intentions are known, at least until such time as a court determines a ruling to the contry.

Personally once Aardwolf has made the move to the new codebase then I see absolutely NO reason for it to continue have to be banned. But until then (based on Kavir's current opinion and past precedence) it should be banned (after all, things may happen preventing Aardwolf from moving over <!--emo&).

I had never actually heard of Aardwolf before this and didn't even realise it was number 1 (until several posts were made about popularity). I just like to see people treated equally and would absolutely hate to see a place that I enjoy coming to as much as this, not treat people equally.

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Oct. 26 2003,10:24) In my years as a small business owner, I've never seen any use of the term "gross profit." There is "gross revenue," and there is "profit." I think these two terms are being confused. Profit is whatever money you have left over after the expenses are paid. Gross revenue is whatever money comes in before the expenses are paid. By definition, profit is what you have AFTER expenses, not before.

Neither have I.  You are quite correct.  There is no such thing as gross profit.

[Kastagaar]

But I ask, does "profit without considering expenses" fall under the category of "profit in any possible way"?

I guess it depends on your take on "any possible", really. Remembering that "possible" and "probable" are distinct concepts.

[John]

gah!

Yes. We have established the intent of the liscencers and the liscence are two seperate things.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Neither have I. You are quite correct. There is no such thing as gross profit.

Then why does the Internal Revenue Service tell you how to calculate it?

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/page/0,...104035,00.html

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 30 2003,12:10) Then why does the Internal Revenue Service tell you how to calculate it?

I guess I'm wrong.   I've never seen the term on a P&L statement, only profit before taxes and profit after taxes. And the difference between the two according to the IRS is that gross profit is revenue minus expenses, and net profit is revenue minus expenses minus taxes.  

Which leaves one to ponder just where does one get the notion that gross profit is revenue without taking into account expenses as has been floated on these threads?

[Darrik]

I asked my boss, who is the CFO of NuGenesis Technologies Corporation ( No, you haven't heard of it... unless you are an in a pharmaceutical company )... gross profit is unquestionably revenue minus cost of sales... which is material cost, not payroll ( outside of services... payroll for system engineers ( installation, validation, training, consulting ) , for example, counts as cost of sales, plus any cost taken for resale... CD cases, hardware. ), etc...  Not 'expenses'.  Lots of other expenses are taken into account for net profit that are not cost of sales... pre-sales, advertising, corporate expenses ( finance, adminsitration ), R&D, quality engineering... do I need to go on?

DV

Is this thread for real ?

Get a life people - No one is getting rich on Aardwolf by getting donations to cover the bandwidth and relative expenses of running a popular MUD GAME

Yes that's right it is a game.. that people get to enjoy for FREE.  

We are not talking Bill Gates here making million and millions of dollars.

Is the problem that they are on top of this website ranking?

Is the problem that people are given a SMALL thank you in return?

Or is the problem trying to work out the difference between Gross Profit and Net Profit ?

You can have a revenue of $1,000,000 but if your expenses are $1,000,000 there is NO PROFIT

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Which leaves one to ponder just where does one get the notion that gross profit is revenue without taking into account expenses as has been floated on these threads?

Perhaps from the part in my link which says "You must determine gross profit before you can deduct any business expenses"? Or, as is clarified in even more simple terms here:

"Net Profit = Gross Profit - Expenses"

And in response to eclaboussure: The "problem" is that people who violate licenses discourage others from releasing back into the community - and I'm not just talking about the Diku team.

[Deathwing]

Originally Posted by The "problem" is that people who violate licenses discourage others from releasing back into the community - and I'm not just talking about the Diku team.

If anyone lets what Aardwolf is doing - giving a tiny reward in return for help with server costs - stop them from releasing anything, then I think, frankly, that they shouldn't be in the "community" in the first place. They are not charging to play, they are not blatantly selling powerful items in-game, they are not forcing players to pay to keep powerful items- Only a simple gift that does not affect game balance and which could probably be earned faster without donating is given.

If you can truly say that Aardwolf's activities are on the same scale as those of Vryce, which were pretty much the last nail in the coffin for the Diku team's contributions, then maybe you have a case. But I don't think that can be said.

Maybe if the Diku team hadn't basically vanished from the face of the Earth, things would be different, I don't know. And yes, we could try to email them (again), but is it really our responsibility to force creators to defend their own license?

Maybe we should be debating that instead.

[Chansee]

Sorry, I haven't read the latest replies written in here, but some people don't seem to understad why Aardwolf is recieving donations.

The reason for this, is to keep the MUD online, without the donators, Aardwolf wouldn't exist as a mud anymore, at least not as good as it is now, with several hundred people online and no lagging for example. Ok, the license seems to say that money must not be made in any possible way on the codebase.... But does it still apply if money is needed to keep the MUD alive and people playing on it wants to be able to continue doing that? Ok, Aardwolf's donator are given an in-game reward for donating, but that's nothing that non-donators can't get, as Lasher pointed out. And I don't think that the DIKU people even could imagine that something they made could, with some modification, grow so big, as to be forced to recieve money from it's voulenteer players to stay alive.

So please, leave us (Aardwolf) alone! I don't know if the person who started this did it because of jelaousy because somone else has a mud that is much more loved than its own, or whatever, but please don't **** up our loved MUD, AARDWOLF!!

//An addicted and patriotic player of Aarwolf

[John]

Mud #1> oh we're only going against the DIKU team a "little" bit. And only for a short time.

Mud #2> We're only going against the DIKU team a "little" bit more then Mud #1. If what they do is alright what we're doing is fine.

Mud #3> We're only going against the DIKU team a "little" bit more then Mud #2......etc, etc, etc.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by If you can truly say that Aardwolf's activities are on the same scale as those of Vryce, which were pretty much the last nail in the coffin for the Diku team's contributions, then maybe you have a case. But I don't think that can be said.

The poor man who only steals enough to feed his family is not on the same scale as the professional burgler, but that doesn't mean the poor man should just be ignored.

[Deathwing]

Originally Posted by The poor man who only steals enough to feed his family is not on the same scale as the professional burgler, but that doesn't mean the poor man should just be ignored.

Where did I say anything about ignoring anyone, exactly?

All i'm saying is that what Aardwolf is doing is not anywhere near the scale of Medievia/Vryce's transgressions, and should not be held up as something that would cause people to stop contributing, such as what Vryce did to the Diku team.

Try not to twist my words too much, please.

John:

Again, where exactly did I say that violating the license is a good thing to do? All i'm trying to do is establish a sense of scale here, nothing more. Whether you like it or not, not everything is of the same severity.


I will say yet again, too, that I wonder where the Diku team is in all of this. They haven't spoken out on Aard's donation issue, they don't even seem to be going after Medievia anymore, and as far as I can tell, they haven't spoken out on any donation/license issues in at least 2 or 3 years, if not more. If the license is so important, why are they, the creators, not defending it?

[Stilton]

KaVir:

Originally Posted by "Net Profit = Gross Profit - Expenses"

More properly, Net profit = Gross profit - Expenses not included when calculating Gross Profit.

(your link in the other thread was actually more clear: gross profit = revenue - cost of goods sold)

Otherwise the calculations you see on the same web page as the definition you quote wouldn't make sense: taken the way you want it to be, the gross profit margin for any business would always be defined to be 100%. It isn't :)

Stilton

[Stroh]

I've been lurking and listening to this discussion for a while and wanted to throw in my 2 cents..

just to give a perspective on the 'rewards' that are give to players for donating.. in one hour last night on Aardwolf, I earned 67 quest points.. to get this many qp's from donating, I'd have to send in over 30 dollars..

I'm just trying to point out that any in game reward is really more of a token thank you than anything else.. When I donate to Aardwolf, I do it because I love the game and although I play rather sporadically, I'd hate to come back one day and find it missing, which is what happened last time I found a community I enjoyed.. As a player, I feel that if someone wants to send Aardwolf 100 bucks to get a reward that I can earn in about 3 hours of questing.. then thank god somebody's got that much money to burn.. their donation benefits the mud more than it does their character.

Originally Posted by Mud #1> oh we're only going against the DIKU team a "little" bit. And only for a short time. Mud #2> We're only going against the DIKU team a "little" bit more then Mud #1. If what they do is alright what we're doing is fine. Mud #3> We're only going against the DIKU team a "little" bit more then Mud #2......etc, etc, etc.

I understand your argument.. but by the time you get to MUD #3 or even MUD #2 in your argument, it'll be pretty obvious that it letter of the license is being broken rather than just the intent.

Garrodyn of Aardwolf

[Jazuela]

Yes, violating the rule just a little bit, a teeny tiny little bit, because it isn't the intent to violate the rule, is all fine and dandy.

Just like being just a little pregnant is..wait. There's no such thing as just a little pregnant. Either you are, or you're not.

Just like you're either breaking a rule, or you're not.

It doesn't matter what the intent is. If a rule says "don't do this," then don't do it. If you do it anyway, then you are breaking a rule.

[Stroh]

Originally Posted by It doesn't matter what the intent is. If a rule says "don't do this," then don't do it. If you do it anyway, then you are breaking a rule.

It seems to me that you're saying Aardwolf's intent doesn't matter but the DIKU license's intent does.. there is no explicit definition of what the license means by 'profit' within the wording of the license itself.. so you are using the writer's intent as the basis of your argument..

you can't have it both ways..

Originally Posted by (Stroh @ Oct. 31 2003,13:42) I'm just trying to point out that any in game reward is really more of a token thank you than anything else.. When I donate to Aardwolf, I do it because I love the game and although I play rather sporadically, I'd hate to come back one day and find it missing, which is what happened last time I found a community I enjoyed.. Garrodyn of Aardwolf

I take it that Aardwolf players aren't willing to donate to keep the game alive without in-game rewards.   I would suggest that using the donations to pay for advertising goes beyond keeping the game alive, that they are being used to promote the game.

[Jazuela]

Originally Posted by (Stroh @ Oct. 31 2003,16:42) Originally Posted by It doesn't matter what the intent is. If a rule says "don't do this," then don't do it. If you do it anyway, then you are breaking a rule. It seems to me that you're saying Aardwolf's intent doesn't matter but the DIKU license's intent does.. there is no explicit definition of what the license means by 'profit' within the wording of the license itself.. so you are using the writer's intent as the basis of your argument.. you can't have it both ways..

I'd say "in any possible way" is about explicit as anyone can possibly be.

Profiting in any possible way would, by definition of the phrase "any possible way," include gross profit, net profit, yo mama's profit, stupid profit, cheesy profit, and profit with hot fudge sauce on top.

That isn't even the point I was making, and had nothing to do with my post. My post was regarding in-game rewards for out of game coin. THAT is not allowed. Even if they're not making any profit, in any possible way. I don't see how they're even breaking THAT rule. They are, however, breaking the rule of giving in-game rewards for out of game payment. And that is against the rules.

Not just a little against them, because you can't only "slightly" break a rule. You either are breaking it, or you're not.

[John]

If the reward makes people donate when they weren't going to originally donate, then it's more then just a "little itty bitty reward". If it's so small, why is it necessary to get people to donate?

[Ilysia]

Well I do not donate to Aardwolf to get the reward but now it is htere I migh as well take it.
I would donate nomatter if I get it or not, if I got the money to donate.
I do not belive it is nessesary. I am sure a rew donates to get it but I would not be suprised if we could do it without.

I do not know if it breaks the license but I doubt it breaks the spirit as the reward is so little that I in 1-1½ hour I get what is donated for 1 dollar and this is just qp/tp not lvs and gold. It is exstremly rare people buy the qp to ge strong.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I do not know if it breaks the license but I doubt it breaks the spirit

It does.

[arkanes]

Originally Posted by My post was regarding in-game rewards for out of game coin. THAT is not allowed. Even if they're not making any profit, in any possible way. I don't see how they're even breaking THAT rule. They are, however, breaking the rule of giving in-game rewards for out of game payment. And that is against the rules.

To be clear: There is no such rule. The "rule" is an interpertation of the "no profit allowed" clause in the license.

[Jazuela]

Originally Posted by (arkanes @ Nov. 01 2003,10:46) Originally Posted by My post was regarding in-game rewards for out of game coin. THAT is not allowed. Even if they're not making any profit, in any possible way. I don't see how they're even breaking THAT rule. They are, however, breaking the rule of giving in-game rewards for out of game payment. And that is against the rules. To be clear: There is no such rule. The "rule" is an interpertation of the "no profit allowed" clause in the license.

The rule is defined by the creator of the code and distributor and co-writer of the license, as follows:

Originally Posted by "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." -- Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt (29th August 2000) _ "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." -- Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt (1st September 2000)

Now, prior to August 2000, anyone who didn't know of Staerfeldt's intent, might have gotten away with breaking the intent, because it hadn't been discussed until then (to my knowledge). But this information has been around for over three years, and anyone who is currently offering in-game services for out-of-game money is breaking the license. I don't know about other countries, but in the USA, "ignorance of the law" is not an excusable justification for violating it. It is the game-creator's responsibility to find out what the intent is, prior to even thinking about teetering on any line within it.

The intent has been made clear, as of August and September 2000 (respectively), and Aardwolf should stop offering in-game rewards -of any sort- for out of game money, whether they want to call it a donation or a "thank you present" or a corned beef sandwich. The fact that they've only been giving in-game benefits as of a relatively recent timeframe indicates to me, that they probably knew it wasn't a good idea in the first place.

You can't justify it by saying "well it isn't much" or "anyone can get this benefit by just playing," because it doesn't matter. The point, is that if anyone can get it by just playing, then anyone SHOULD get it by just playing, without the added option of paying cash. That option - the option of paying cash to receive in-game ANYTHING - even if it's just a one-time hair color change for your character, is against the rules, as defined by the person who wrote the rules.

[Favonius]

there's so much quoting going on in this thread, it makes my eyes want to bleed. i kind of sit back on this forum and watch discussions, but i wanted to point something out.

Originally Posted by Is our real crime here being popular?

Whether you like it or not, if you are popular you have to take on a few responsibilites if you want to be seen well in the public eye. Because you are popular, you are a role model for the community. You should be proud of that. Other MUDs want to be like you. That's why its an outrage to the community that you break a rule even it it is only "a tiny teeny weeny little bit".

That's why the public freaked out at Kobe Bryant. All the little boys want to be Kobe Bryant, a great basketball player. But he raped (supposedly) a woman... does this mean its alright for the little boys to rape women in the future? If there is no public outcry then it may seem that way. Same thing with Martha Stewart. Same thing with every single celebrity that commits a crime.

So no, your crime isn't being popular. Your crime is you are a horrible role model in the community.

You've lost one fan.

[Delerak]

You all are still posting in this thread? Whoever continues posting on this pointless subject should have their balls ripped off so they can't contaminate the rest of the human gene pool. Wait a minute...