[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Also, generic words or terms cannot be trademarked. This is why you see Windows® instead of Windows™. Microsoft was denied a trademark on the word Windows due to the fact that it is a single, generic word (though the ® serves as a notice that they will probably vigorously defend their exclusive use of the word in the relevant industry anyway)

Actually the "®" means it's a federally registered trademark, under U.S. trademark law. The "™" however can be used used freely, without having to register your mark.

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ July 04 2003,15:57)  What they've not done is actually take legal action - against anyone (no, not even EverQuest).

Which is hardly surprising, given that the situation was resolved to Michael Seifert's entire satisfaction before it ever came to that.


I can't help but note, however, that while the EQ dispute was very public _and_ publicized by Michael Seifert himself on the Diku website, the Medieva affair remains completely out of the spotlight, the same Diku team apparently content to relying on AxL and yourself to fight their cause in their stead.

Worse, the EQ allegations were based on hearsay from an uninformed person making a bad PR line which backfired, while there is plenty of documentary evidence against Medieva.

Now don't take this wrongly, but I think that at any stage, the Diku folks making a public statement directly would lend a lot more weight especially to the Med situation. And speaking of the community, the situation of a Vryce stealing your code and running a healthy profit on it is quite a bit more replicable (and occurs a lot more often) than the next EverQuest.

What I mean by that is not that the fight against Med should be stopped. Or that it is meaningless. Or that we shouldn't care. Or that _you_ should care less.
What I mean is that at some point, it would be very much appreciated that the Diku team, having had other people devote themselves to defend them in public, ought to pay that effort back by being more present themselves on the issue.

Originally Posted by Correct, but that doesn't mean it's not my business.

If you feel I implied that in any way, my English must be getting a lot worse lately.

EDIT - First quote was too long and my reply didn't make any sense...

[JilesDM]

Originally Posted by Actually the "®" means it's a federally registered trademark, under U.S. trademark law. The "™" however can be used used freely, without having to register your mark.

Ahh right, I misread my notes from an IP seminar. MS has registered, but the mark is (or was, at the time of the seminar) on the supplemental register rather than the principle one due to the fact that Windows is classified as a descriptive mark (the least legally defensible classification). What this does is simply allow them to sue in federal court, and have minor benefits if attempting to register the mark overseas. It does not provide the other benefits of a mark on the principle register--most importantly it does not serve as prima facie evidence of the validity of the mark. In fact, the fact that the mark is on the supplemental register is, in and of itself, a strong indication that the USPTO doubts the validity of the mark.

*edit*

Btw, Alastair, I seem to remember the members of the DIKU team releasing some very strong public statements re: Vryce/Medivia, up to and including something along the lines of "I left the MUD community because of him".

The reason you don't see any more of those is probably because it all happened what.. the better part of a decade ago?

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by (JilesDM @ July 04 2003,23:44) Btw, Alastair, I seem to remember the members of the DIKU team releasing some very strong public statements re: Vryce/Medivia, up to and including something along the lines of "I left the MUD community because of him". The reason you don't see any more of those is probably because it all happened what.. the better part of a decade ago?

I see them - private e-mails reposted on KaVir's site. Not public statements on the Diku site.

What point is there in fighting for someone who, to the vast majority, doesn't seem to care at all (anymore)? At some point or another, Diku has to take an open and public stance. At least an endorsement of those of their most vocal advocates.

If the story of Matt contacting them and offering money for them to conduct a legal action is true, the sad part here is not whether they accepted or refused, but whether they bothered to even reply with Thanks but No.

I'd go even further - yes, the overall positive support the community has given the Diku team in helping protect their IP is certainly both deserved and owed (both to the Diku team and the community itself).

However, I think that the case of _any_ single derivative (starting with Merc and Godwars) which has been ripped off would be immensely helped by Diku deciding to speak up themselves. And on a certain level, the moral obligation the dikurative community has to also defend Diku's own IP also creates, in my eyes, a reciprocal moral obligation towards all of those who have spent countless years defending them.

And if nowadays they can't be bothered anymore, it would be at least decent of them to donate the original Diku code to public domain, so that the derivative coders who still feel enough motivation may finally efficiently defend their own copyrights, and not remain with tied hands because the original copyright isn't being defended by the IP holders.

'Nuff said.

[JilesDM]

Originally Posted by And if nowadays they can't be bothered anymore, it would be at least decent of them to donate the original Diku code to public domain, so that the derivative coders who still feel enough motivation may finally efficiently defend their own copyrights, and not remain with tied hands because the original copyright isn't being defended by the IP holders.

That would have absolutely zero impact on the legal implications of violating the license of a DIKU derivative. Either way, the creators of the derivative only own the modifications they made. Placing DIKU in the public domain would, if anything, actually weaken the overall case that can be made against Medivia.

[Stilton]

Since I commented on the Achaea area that sounded a lot like a Wheel of Time phrase ("Aran'rhiod" or similar):

"Arianrhod" (note the movement of the "i") is a British isles goddess (moon/stars/night).

Stilton

[Xorith]

This comment is somewhat on topic.

I used to play the game Legends of Terris. (http://www.legendsofterris.com - since I'm using their name). I remember during my gameplay that an update was done that changed the previously named 'Hobbits' to 'Halflings'. Terris had called these short creatures with hairy feet 'Hobbits' for several years until this update changed that. The reason for the update was due to TE owning the right to 'Hobbits'. I remember this well, actually. I had a friend who was quite ****ed about having her race's name suddenly changed.

Now I thought about this in terms of 'Elves' and 'Dwarves'. In reality, the only place I ever found the word 'Hobbit' used was in The Lord of the Rings. Elves can be found in all sorts of pieces of fiction. I call to memory the mention of 'Santa Claus' having little 'elves' make toys for him. I'm also not entirely sure on the exact dates when The Lord of the Rings was released oppose to the tale of 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves'.

Just wanted to say a bit on that. The more i think about it, the more difficult it is to find where i really stand in this 25-page debate. I think that in the case of a free MUD, where there's no profit being generated nor any damages to the TE reputation or name, that this topic is a little much as those who run the MUD have attempted to satisfy those who hold the rights to the name. My view would be different if the MUD was pay to play, or if it were some other profit-generating work that blatently used a protected name without first having written confirmation.

Ah well. Cheers on the free advertising, Shadows of Isildur

[Xorith]

Erm.. one more thing...

So long as you're not intending on violating the rather lax DIKU license, why would it matter to you for them to donate it to public domain?

This just confused me as I was finishing reading something. See, I have no issues with that license. Let's take a look...

Originally Posted by Rules: !! DikuMud is NOT Public Domain, shareware, careware or the like !! You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc. By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the University, and hence will be sued.

I refuse to charge for a MUD. Text requires little bandwidth, and I do what I do out of a passion for the game. My views are not shared, but such as life. Thus I won't be paying ANY profit off of using a DIKU MUD.

Originally Posted by You may not remove any copyright notices from any of the documents or sources given to you.

Again, I have no issues with this. A block of commented text isn't going to kill me.

Originally Posted by This license must *always* be included "as is" if you copy or give away any part of DikuMud (which is to be done as described in this document).

Again, not an issue. A license file isn't going to throw me over quota on my server. (If it does, I'm pretty cheap, eh?)

Originally Posted by If you publish *any* part of dikumud, we as creators must appear in the article, and the article must be clearly copyrighted subject to this license. Before publishing you must first send us a message, by snail-mail or e-mail, and inform us what, where and when you are publishing (remember to include your address, name etc.)

Now this one... I'm not a media-fan. I won't be writing articles, but what if I paste a snippet of code to a forum in hopes of helping someone with a code issue? I hope that doesn't fall under publishing a part of dikumud...

Originally Posted by If you wish to setup a version of DikuMud on any computer system, you must send us a message , by snail-mail or e-mail, and inform us where and when you are running the game. (remember to include your address, name etc.)

I still have the mail from the only DIKU Team member I could find a contact e-mail for. Only I can't seem to find it now... hrm. Ah well.

Originally Posted by Any running version of DikuMud must include our names in the login sequence. Furthermore the "credits" command shall always cointain our name, addresses, and a notice which states we have created DikuMud.

Pride. Putting this in my welcome screen gives me a bit of pride these days. I'm a DIKU-based MUD Admin! Not a silly LPC'er! *ducks the flames*. Why shouldn't we include their names? Look what they've done for us... Perhaps if they didn't make DIKU, we'd all have a little less to bitch about?

Originally Posted by You are allowed to alter DikuMud, source and documentation as long as you do not violate any of the above stated rules. Regards,

As it stands, I see nothing that would urge me to want this public domain. I see why you made the comment, but I feel it's completely beside any and all points. The DIKU license is not all that hard to abide by. It's just a simple case of respect for the work of another. They clearly state what they consider respectful and ask for you to abide by it. Putting DIKU on public domain... I don't know about anyone else, but I'd find that very insulting Those of us who respect licenses (either by choice, or because we were finally THWAK'd hard enough by people like KaVir) shouldn't see our respect tossed into the public domain.

People like Vryce have no respect. People like him will soon find that what goes around comes around.

-- X