[Hephos]

Originally Posted by This is the verb form of profit. If you mean to say that this is the word the DikuTeam intended to use, then every single mud derived form their source code is in violation. If their mud is listed in TMS or any other site, they are profiting from such sites because they are GAINING new players. Gain = Profit.

Maybe it should have said "monetary profit"

[John]

Originally Posted by (Aardwolf @ Nov. 04 2003,12:43) It has nothing to do with 'getting caught'. The new codebase was planned and in development long before Aardwolf was listed on TMS. Many people can confirm this (of course, they're all Aardwolf players, so you won't believe a word they say anyway right?).

Believe it or not, I could care less if Aardwolf was banned. I kept saying "either ban the mud or unban other muds". I really didn't expect Aardwolf to get banned and was fine with that. I just wanted to understand the logic for Aardwolf not being banned

As for my hypothetical. It was that. A hypothetical. That would be a bad-mud™ breaking the licence in the exact same way Aardowlf is The intentions would be different of course, but I was just saying "by breaking the DIKU licence in way X I would be doing the exact same thing as Aardwolf"

The way I saw the situation was this:
* Medieva claims it is no longer a DIKU mud so therefore no longer operates under the strictures of the licence.
* People say Medieva is a DIKU mud and that it's such a bad mud™ because it's breaking the intent (I'm sure the credits thing was merely an extra and wouldn't have annoyed everyone like breaking the intent did)
* Medieva claims it's not breaking the DIKU mud license's intent.

* Aardwolf claims it's not legally breaking the DIKU licence
* Aardwolf concedes it's breaking the intent
* Aardwolf admits to being a DIKU mud.

Which mud do people get really riled up by? Medieva of course, which to me was illogical. It was extremely similar to the Iraq issue.

* Iraq claims it no longer has WMDs
* Iraq claims it's not breaking the treaty because it doesn't have the WMDs.

* North Korea announces it wants to make WMDs
* North Korea admits it's breaking the treaty

Which country does Bush go after? Iraq. Again, illogical if the above reasons are the only reasons. And I don't think TMS has any alterior motives like many people claim Bush does

I just saw an illogical gap in Kavir's logic. He claimed to support intents but didn't ban Aardwolf. Now that I realise Kavir can't ban Aardwolf, but would have to put a petition to Synozeer, I see the logic. Now if I really cared about Aardwolf I'd go to Synozeer and say "Aardwolf is breaking the intent of the DIKU licence". I could care less.

Synozeer hasn't said he'll always support the intent of a licence. So yeah, he'll ban someone if enough people ask him and give him enough evidence, but he isn't going to do the work himself, which IMO is fair enough.

So for me this whole discussion becomes a "Should people have to follow the intent of a licence or merely follow the licence in a legal manner?"

I don't know myself. Legally Aardwolf isn't doing anything wrong, but morally? Well the DIKU team could have always changed their licence, but they didn't.

[Kastagaar]

Originally Posted by (FyreSturm @ Nov. 04 2003,19:40) Originally Posted by Main Entry: 2profit Date: 14th century intransitive senses 1 : to be of service or advantage : AVAIL 2 : to derive benefit : GAIN 3 : to make a profit transitive senses : to be of service to : BENEFIT This is the verb form of profit.

From which we can see that the compound verb "to make (a) profit" is a subset of those meanings from the verb "to profit".

I can profit from setting up a business.
I can make a profit from setting up a business.

I can profit from having a medical checkup.
I cannot make a profit from having a medical checkup.

[Alastair]

This is really getting ludicrous.

Every single MUD admin with an ounce of ethics knows that DIKU is not for commercial use.

Every single MUD admin with an ounce of ethics knows that this extends to using _any_ part of DIKU in exchange for money.

The only people I've seen arguing and splitting hairs about the meaning of every single word in the license are those intent on breaking it.

You can twist it every way you want, the fact remains: you _know_ what the DIKU team meant. If you want to make money off the MUD, stop using a DIKUrative.

Have you no honour? No decency? If you're proud of being the scourge of the mudding community, good for you, but spare us your pathetic legalese hair-splitting, wriggling and distorting and endless discussions of what "making any profit" means.

If you can't get your players to donate without exchanging in-game benefits, that certainly doesn't speak well of the quality of your MUD and your administration.

[Sinuhe]

Originally Posted by Quote Fiendish I took the liberty of asking a lawyer. I know, a crazy idea. Why bother asking a real lawyer when we can all just vomit unqualified opinions?

Originally Posted by Quote (KaVir @ Nov. 03 2003,04:26) Fair enough - except that not only did you ask him an extremely misleading question, you've also taken your own interpretation of his answer and started citing it as a legal opinion! Quote Relic Misleading questions?  Your quote from one of the diku authors is meaningless unless it can be corroborated and presented in a complete manner.  Even then we'd probably see the questions were misleading, as the crucial term of the contract, "profit", was not mentioned in your quotes.

Is that so?

Who is this new poster, Fiendish, with the trollish name?
What credibility does an anonymous poster like this have?
Why did he jump into the discussion at this late stage?
What are his motives for posting?
What is his 'normal' identity on the boards and why doesn't he use that?

See, I too have made myself a mew identity. Just so I can ask these questions.
What is my credibility?
None.
What is his credibility?
None.
Anonymous posts are not even worth the toilet paper they are written on.
But there is a difference between me and Fiendish. He made his identity so he could post anonymously. I made mine to prove a point about anonymous posts.

Why should we believe an anonymous troll over a wellknown and longtime respected poster like KaVir? Especially since not even the most loudmouthed advocates of violating the licence have even tried to question his integrity?

And why did Fiendish present the question to that lawyer in such a twisted and biased way? Talk about leading questions.
He might just as well have angled it as follows:

Question: If a software licence for a product has been used by a large community of people for a period of over 10 years, and there has been a general concensus between the copyright holders and this community about the intent and interpretation of the licence during that entire time period, and all abusers of the licence have been shunned by this same community during that same period, what rule should the user follow? Should they follow the intent of the copyright holders, who on single attempts to break the agreement in the past have confirmed and clarified this interpretation? Or should they follow the lead of a few greedy customers, who want to abuse the intent of a licence that most of their competitors respect, for their own personal gain and to get an edge in the competition?

I didn't think Aardwolf should be banned from the list when this thread started. After seeing the deterioration of the general moral on this board that this and the Diku thread started by the_logost already has lead to, I've changed my mind. Aardwolf may not be quite as blatantly violating the Diku licence as Medievia, but the facts are that they are violating it, that they keep doing it even after it was pointed out to them, and that they show absolutely no remorse for doing it. They should be banned as an example, and to keep the the moral of the community from deteriorating completely.

And also because using 'donation money' to pay for an advertising banner hardly could be defined as necessary costs to keep the mud up and running.
If there is a 'thin line' as Lasher calls it, they crossed it with that action.

If and when they ever launch that new code, they can be admitted back on the list.

So I am posing a straight question to Synozeer: Is Aardwolf going to be banned from the list or not? There are a few of us that would like to know.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by So I am posing a straight question to Synozeer: Is Aardwolf going to be banned from the list or not? There are a few of us that would like to know.

Not likely any admin is reading this thread... If you really wanna know, send an e-mail to them, but IMO the one with most responsibility to do so is KaVir since he is also a moderator (or perhaps not on these boards... hmm), and has been actively trying to enforce the licence all over the net. Not taking any actions in this CLEAR case of licence violation where the mud admins even admit it and still give a **** about it, would be plain humor.

Though, why don't some rich guy go and pay a real laywer to look over this case, or even drag them into court? Some fella reading these boards or have any connections to muds ought to be driving around in a ferrari and have enough money to spend on an issue that has been nagging the muds for a decade. But i guess it all comes down to the dikumud team, having totally no interest whatsoever to enforce their own licence. Matt even offered them money to drag medievia into court, and as far as i know, they didnt even respond to him...

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by (Hephos @ Nov. 05 2003,17:31) Matt even offered them money to drag medievia into court, and as far as i know, they didnt even respond to him...

Yeah, sure.

When Matt has, ever since joining this board, done nothing but try to weaken the license at all costs, in any possible way. When Matt, running a commercial operation, isn't even supposed to have a stake in DIKU at all.

What some of us do wonder is what Matt's real motives are.

It certainly isn't altruism, if it were, he'd actually try to strengthen the license rather than water it down ("Hey, just incorporate yourselves, it's cheap and I'll help you do it").

Which begs the question, what could be the potential benefit to one commercial MUD if the DIKU license is further watered down.

I can obviously only speculate. The only rational explanation which comes to mind being that for some reason, a strong DIKU license is a direct threat to his own operation... And, call me paranoid all you want, the only reason in my book that DIKU could threaten Matt's codebases would be that if those weren't after all, really completely coded from scratch.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by Which begs the question, what could be the potential benefit to one commercial MUD if the DIKU license is further watered down.

If all the "highly modified" STOCK GAMES, *cough* godwars, *cough* smaug, *cough* rom were going commercial people would rather pay for a well developed game, like for example achaea.

Commercial games would benifit if the diku licence didn't apply. So would all the non-commercial games. So would all mud admins, so would everyone in the mud community. With money in the picture there would be better code and better quality overall.

The only people that maybe would not benifit from a commercial industry are those fame-greedy credits seekers that make snippets and "codebases" and demand their names in the login screens All they want is their names poluting the mud community, they don't look at the quality of the games, rather the availability of noob code snippets. Though as i see it even those should not be bothered about a more commercial view. I cannot see why they wouldn't want a more commercialized mud industry, it wouldn't harm their visions. People would still release free code, under non-commercial licences, with the addition of maybe commercialize their code for some royalties or similar. There are lots of commercial products you can use right now free, and when you are going commercial with it you must buy a registration of the product.

Dikumud team could just change their licence so that muds could buy it out, and get legal rights to use it commercial. They would benifit from it, money wise. Any crap about their university preventing students to use their own material is imo CRAP until I can see a document that actually strengthens this. As I said before, a university with this policy does not encourage research in technology and I fail to see how DIKU would want to do that.

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by (Hephos @ Nov. 05 2003,18:56) If all the "highly modified" STOCK GAMES, *cough* godwars, *cough* smaug, *cough* rom were going commercial people would rather pay for a well developed game, like for example achaea.

Pardon my French, Hephos, but you're raving. You're rehashing exactly the same arguments Microsoft spews against Linux. And it's a huge load of tosh.

Want to go commercial? Go ahead. With enough money, you can do a LOT better than dikuratives. Only problem, you'll have to do the legwork yourself.

You can actually buy the Valhalla Mud Engine (Diku II) and use it for commercial purposes. Oh wait, no, what you want is a free DIKU you can use to make money with.

What you don't realize is that most people contribute without caring for money, but simply for recognition among their peers. What you don't realize either is that while there's enough players to feed a 3000+ free MUDs, there's not enough among them who would pay for the same thing.

Originally Posted by Commercial games would benifit if the diku licence didn't apply.

Obivously they would. Easy money has always been very attractive to certain type of people.

Originally Posted by So would all the non-commercial games.

Yeah, right. Because whenever a nifty snippet will appear among the not-for-profit world, there won't be a commercial MUD with similar features who'll threaten lawsuits, right?

Originally Posted by So would all mud admins, so would everyone in the mud community. With money in the picture there would be better code and better quality overall.

How? Tell me, how will any free mud benefit from commercial code? Hey, in the LP world, there's one pretty successful commercial venture. It's called Threshold. Funny that I've never seen any code contributed by Aristotle to the free community since he went for-pay, huh? And where are those nifty snippets donated by Matt? Where are the public code contributions from Medievia?

Originally Posted by Though as i see it even those should not be bothered about a more commercial view. I cannot see why they wouldn't want a more commercialized mud industry, it wouldn't harm their visions.

Hey, I have good news for you, Hephos: All those contributors have nothing against a more commercialized mud industry. Indeed, most of us couldn't care less. The only thing we are against is commercial people making money off our work. Nobody is stopping you from creating your own commercial MUD, you know. Nobody's even stopping you from commercializing your MUD client. As long as you commercialize your own work, it's fine and dandy. The rest of us seem to believe in the virtues of freeware.

Originally Posted by There are lots of commercial products you can use right now free, and when you are going commercial with it you must buy a registration of the product.

Most of it being adware nowadays. Thank you, but no thanks.

Originally Posted by Dikumud team could just change their licence so that muds could buy it out, and get legal rights to use it commercial.

Actually, they probably can't because they're still bound to university rules about IP made during their student days, and because they actually have an ounce of ethics.
What they _could_ do, however, is just change their license so that every aspiring Vryce and even the slightly more begnin Aardwolf won't have the slightest doubt that they can't make money off DIKU, even if it's only to pay for their banner, pardon server costs.

Originally Posted by As I said before, a university with this policy does not encourage research in technology and I fail to see how DIKU would want to do that.

There used to be a time, in socialist Europe, where universitieswere relatively free from market pressure, and it was considered normal that student work made on university equipement could not be sold to commercial interests. Fancy that idea, for some reason most commercial enterprises tend to be quite averse to the notion that stuff their employees produce on the company's equipment can be commercialized by their employees either. Oddly enough, they don't seem to think this discourages their R&D efforts...


Do us all a favour and stop trying to take us for a ride. We're actually not stupid enough to fall for such arguments.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by Want to go commercial? Go ahead. With enough money, you can do a LOT better than dikuratives. Only problem, you'll have to do the legwork yourself.

We are already deveoping our own game engine. www.mythicscape.com for more info.

Originally Posted by Oh wait, no, what you want is a free DIKU you can use to make money with.

No, I don't personally want that. DIKUmud is a pile of horsedung.

Originally Posted by Nobody is stopping you from creating your own commercial MUD, you know.

Of course I know that, and we're already developing our own game engine, and have been for a long time.

[Hodor]

For the record, Fiendish is an extremely well known player on Aardwolf, among other things a clanleader. Allthough i don't really know him, i can imagine why he joined the forums now. Since Lasher asked us to check this site and vote we have taken an enormous amount of heat (and defense), the discussion taking up a large portion of the total posts of this forum. So he asks a lawyer about it, and posts the response. That you argue about the response, his opinions etcet. is fine, but attacking someone's credibility without asking about it first seems a like a shortcut to me. I'm not going to be dragged into the trenchwar you guys have going on other then look at the new posts after i voted, but attacking someone just because he's new to the forums really ticked me off.

cast flameproof self,

Hodor

The above was a PERSONAL statement, attack me on it if you feel i deserve it, i have nothing to with Aardwolf other then spending way too much time there as a player.

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by (Hephos @ Nov. 05 2003,20:19) We are already deveoping our own game engine. www.mythicscape.com for more info. [snip] Of course I know that, and we're already developing our own game engine, and have been for a long time.

So what's your reason for weakening the DIKU license, then? Why would you care about Aardwolf in the first place?

And moreover, what has _your_ own independent codebase to gain if the most widespread freebie's license is shred apart? You should be fighting nails and teeth to uphold DIKU's IP rights just to make sure there isn't a precedent on MUD IP which could end up most defavorably for your own codebase.

It goes even further: with your will to go commercial, a strong DIKU license presents a higher barrier of entry for potential competitors of yours - because nobody can start a legit MUD business by merely downloading a DIKUrative, slapping a few snippets on it, recompiling it and running it within one day.

Your two last posts, however, lead to the exact same suspiscions than those concerning Achea. The only way you can gain anything from a weakened or commercial DIKU license is if you have some horrible DIKU code left in your own supposedly original game engine.

Oh, and your web site is down.

[John]

Umm... wow

On the whole "why weaken the DIKU licence?" issue. Why make the DIKU licence stronger? What do you gain from it? Maybe your mud is a DIKU mud and you want commercial opportunities to be harder so they can't merely download "a DIKUrative, slapping a few snippets on it, recompiling it and running it within one day." So maybe they'll become discouraged by making a mud and will give up.

Maybe you want to question why people want to weaken the DIKU licence to give them bad publicity and so maybe some people will avoid them. Maybe you want to strengthen the DIKU licence to discourage people from going to DIKU muds that break the intent and will go to your mud.

Notice how attacks can go both ways.

Maybe you want to strengthen the DIKU licence because you think it's the moral thing to do.

Maybe people want to weaken it because they think this sense of morality is misplaced and have an opinion on the issue and wish to discuss it.

Naaaaawh. Couldn't be that. It must be people who want to stregthen the licence want to lessen the appeal of the DIKU codebase to new Mud creators and people who want to weaken the licence are hiding the fact they use DIKU code.

Yup. Must be that. No realistic alternatives.

[Alastair]

Nice strawman arguments here, John.

Originally Posted by (John @ Nov. 06 2003,11:20) Why make the DIKU licence stronger? What do you gain from it? Maybe your mud is a DIKU mud and you want commercial opportunities to be harder so they can't merely download "a DIKUrative, slapping a few snippets on it, recompiling it and running it within one day." So maybe they'll become discouraged by making a mud and will give up.

A strong DIKU license doesn't change anything about how long it takes people to open a free MUD. It doesn't make it more difficult for them. However, it forces those with commercial ambition to invest something in their own work - an almost mandatory effort should I think, considering how all those pro-commercial folks are quick to point out just how bad the DIKU code is.

You're trying to make it sound like a harder commercialization of a DIKUrative gets, the harder it gets to set up a free MUD. This is obviously a complete falsehood.

Oh, and for the record, I'm coding an LPC mud, it's not open to the public, and given my progress rate, is unlikely to open within quite a few months.

Originally Posted by Maybe you want to strengthen the DIKU licence because you think it's the moral thing to do.

Strong IP for MUDs benefits everyone, including the commercial ventures.

Originally Posted by It must be people who want to stregthen the licence want to lessen the appeal of the DIKU codebase to new Mud creators and people who want to weaken the licence are hiding the fact they use DIKU code. Yup. Must be that. No realistic alternatives.

Funny you'd say that. Since the only people obviously weakening it are those intent on breaking it.

And they're not discussing morals either, they're trying to bend the license terms to suit their needs - then, when questionned about their motives, they still don't talk values or ideals, but quick, quick, come with the "hey, we're recoding from scratch, so we're the good guys, right?". And then there's Hephos with "commercial is good, giving credit where credit is due is bad".

I'm a very stupid person, with a very limited imagination and a rampant paranoia, you know. There's certainly a very reasonable, rational and simple explanation for all this, but I just can't figure it out. I'm perfectly willing to hear it, however.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by And then there's Hephos with "commercial is good, giving credit where credit is due is bad".

Uhmm. Sharpen up. I've never said it is bad to give credits where it is due.

I said some people were, imo, only hunting for getting their names in games credits, without actually bothering about the quality of games. They want their names stamped in stock games, and they believe it is good for the overall game quality? bah. Muds would have been so much more fun without all silly snippets and sucky code, and games would actually maybe be different from each others.