[Fizban]

ideas and characteristics of other codes, like Smaug, NiMUD 4.0

That does not state it is derived from NiMUD, only that it borrowed idea from NiMUD (ideas can not be copyrighted, only the actual implementation, so borrowing ideas does not mean derivation).

A copy of Lyonesse is available on mudbytes and has the following caption:

Description: A hybrid codebase of Circle and Smaug. Language: Italian === The very first time LyonesseMUD will be executed, it will take 2 minutes circa to come up, because it have to parse the graphical map and write 10.000 ascii map files. Following executions, with map files already in place, should take 5 seconds circa to load the mud. These times refer to a Pentium IV with 384Mb of ram, and could be different depending on your hardware configuration. Fabrizio Baldi (aka Mithrandir)

It includes Oasis OLC, and not any OLC that is derived from NiMUD.

[locke]

Originally Posted by Fizban That does not state it is derived from NiMUD, only that it borrowed idea from NiMUD (ideas can not be copyrighted, only the actual implementation, so borrowing ideas does not mean derivation). It includes Oasis OLC, and not any OLC that is derived from NiMUD.

Well, a previous version which is no longer available used NiMUD 4.0 as its starting point. I am searching through my archives of mudolc.org where I hosted a copy (but I don't really feel like digging around for that).

mudOLC.org

I know this because that is around the time I started mentioning it in NiMUD-related descriptions.

Originally Posted by From LyonesseMUD Credits: Money code Locke ( from NiMUD codebase )

It looks like it was most active during 2002: Internet Archive Wayback Machine

It uses my numberize() function, as well as all of the objective money code from NiMUD 4.0

Originally Posted by LyonesseMUD/objects.c /* ************************************************** ************** */ /* Money Objects */ /* ************************************************** ************** */ const char *ones_numerals[10] = { "zero", "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", "eight", "nine" }; const char *tens_numerals[10] = { "-", "-", "twenty", "thirty", "forty", "fifty", "sixty", "seventy", "eighty", "ninety" }; const char *meta_numerals[4] = { "hundred", "thousand", "million", "billion" }; const char *special_numbers[10] = { "ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen", "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen" }; /* ================================================== ============== */ /* Take a number like 43 and make it forty-three */ char *numberize(int n) /* ================================================== ============== */ void update_money(OBJ_DATA *obj) OBJ_DATA *make_money(int amount) /* * Create a set of 'money' objects. */ void create_amount(int amount, CHAR_DATA *pMob, ROOM_DATA *pRoom,

[locke]

LOL CLASSIC NIMUD WEB GRAPHICS!
nimud.org :: a multi-dimensional adventure

[prof1515]

Would one of the site moderators please delete this spamming thief's account? It's tiresome to see his delusional lies about some ****-poor codebase that no one uses constantly posted about on the forums.

[locke]

Originally Posted by prof1515 Would one of the site moderators please delete this spamming thief's account? It's tiresome to see his delusional lies about some ****-poor codebase that no one uses constantly posted about on the forums.

I have to say that even Hans doesn't stoop low enough to call me a "thief"


YouTube - Tupac - Hit Em Up(Uncensored)

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Locke Evidence: 1) You know that the ROMolc, EnvyOLC and ILAB/OLCs all come with my name on it. 2) The US Copyright office reviewed this and approved it. (notice the period)

1. We know how you go about getting people to erroneously credit you though, so #1 means all of jack ****. Harrassing honest MUD operators into adding your credits when the code isn't even yours doesn't mean much to those of us with brains who know better.

2. Registering the NiMUD OLC does not provide proof that you own the copyright to anything else you keep claiming is derived from it. You have yet to provide such evidence, therefore nobody in their right mind has any reason to take your word for it.

Originally Posted by locke I have to say that even Hans doesn't stoop low enough to call me a "thief"

Then perhaps he needs to be informed that you in fact are one, because everything I know about him would suggest you haven't spoken to him at all.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by prof1515 Would one of the site moderators please delete this spamming thief's account? It's tiresome to see his delusional lies about some ****-poor codebase that no one uses constantly posted about on the forums.

That would be nice. Delete the thread and ban the code thief. Or is piracy endorsed?

[locke]

Originally Posted by Samson 1. We know how you go about getting people to erroneously credit you though, so #1 means all of jack ****. Harrassing honest MUD operators into adding your credits when the code isn't even yours doesn't mean much to those of us with brains who know better. 2. Registering the NiMUD OLC does not provide proof that you own the copyright to anything else you keep claiming is derived from it. You have yet to provide such evidence, therefore nobody in their right mind has any reason to take your word for it. Then perhaps he needs to be informed that you in fact are one, because everything I know about him would suggest you haven't spoken to him at all.

I think that no matter what I say, Samson, you'll insult me and refute it. Goodbye, troll.

[Milawe]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if you didn't create 5 different threads about NiMUD and the OLC stuff, Samson would be craftily contained to one single thread. So if he were indeed a troll, you're feeding him big fat billy goats over and over.

Baaaa!

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by locke The US Copyright office reviewed this and approved it. (notice the period)

The US Copyright office does not review or approve copyright filings. They just handle the paperwork and file it for later reference. They do not verify the veracity of any claim for copyright. It is glorified document storage. It is worth doing (and is extremely easy, fast, and cheap), but it does not constitute ratification of copyright ownership by the US Government.

I could send in a copyright filing right now that said I owned the copyright to Harry Potter, and it would most likely be accepted and filed. But when I tried to enforce the copyright, I'd get owned.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by locke I think that no matter what I say, Samson, you'll insult me and refute it. Goodbye, troll.

When you insist on making such clearly outlandish claims and making it clear you're going to break the law, you shouldn't expect to be treated with fairness and respect. That's reserved for people who actually follow the licenses they've agreed to and don't run around trying to pass other people's works off as their own.

[Fizban]

Originally Posted by locke I have to say that even Hans doesn't stoop low enough to call me a "thief" YouTube - Tupac - Hit Em Up(Uncensored)

You are a thief. Period. Arguing it with us is futile.

EDIT: I am curious though what a Tupac song has to do with your thieving actions.

[locke]

Originally Posted by Fizban You are a thief. Period. Arguing it with us is futile.

Why don't you and Samson and "prof1515" create a bot that just says "Thief" every time I write a message. Might save you some time, you know.

Legends of Zork - Home

[Fizban]

Originally Posted by locke Why don't you and Samson and "prof1515" create a bot that just says "Thief" every time I write a message. Might save you some time, you know. Legends of Zork - Home

I'd only use that bot here and TMC, because if you posted on any of the three MUD sites I moderate the "bot's" response would ban you.

[locke]

Originally Posted by Threshold The US Copyright office does not review or approve copyright filings. They just handle the paperwork and file it for later reference.

No, they perform an investigation which requires research which is why it takes up to a year to actually get listed.

To the haters:
The one thing I haven't ever seen you self-indulging prideful, lying ignorant bigots do is apologize for being such pudding-for-brain morons, dolts and trolls.

[Fizban]

Originally Posted by locke No, they perform an investigation which requires research which is why it takes up to a year to actually get listed. To the haters: The one thing I haven't ever seen you self-indulging prideful, lying ignorant bigots do is apologize for being such pudding-for-brain morons, dolts and trolls.

I am not in the habit of apologizing when I have done nothing wrong. Nor am I ignorant or a liar, though both of those adjectives describe you rather accurately.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by locke Why don't you and Samson and "prof1515" create a bot that just says "Thief" every time I write a message. Might save you some time, you know.

We'd prefer to see the administration revoke your privileges to post about your thievery here, but it seems they're not going to do that.

There's a reason we banned you from MudBytes, you're demonstrating it right now.

Originally Posted by locke No, they perform an investigation which requires research which is why it takes up to a year to actually get listed.

Guess again. I've filed for 3 copyright registrations for MUD code and each time spent $30 to get the certificates and they all arrived in my hands within 4 weeks each time. If they did any research at all, it was very VERY quick. Given that it's a government agency, I can't credit them with that kind of efficiency or accuracy. I could have been registering for copyright on Windows and given them chapters from War and Peace without any trouble

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by locke No, they perform an investigation which requires research which is why it takes up to a year to actually get listed.

No they don't. They do not verify anything. They are just a record keeping organization. In the event of legal action, all the US Copyright office will do is present a legally valid submission date to the courts. They do not verify whether or not the submitter is the legitimate owner of the copyright. That is a matter for courts, and it would be exceptionally onerous and expensive for the US Copyright office to attempt such a thing. They sure as heck couldn't afford to do it for the $35 electronic filing fee.

Furthermore, it does not take up to a year to get listed.

U.S. Copyright Office - Registering a Work (FAQ)

"Ninety percent of online filers should receive a certificate of registration within six months of submission. One-third should receive a certificate within ten weeks of submission."

So 2-6 months approximately. I've filed tons of them, and I don't remember a single one taking more than 1-3 months.

Filing a copyright is one of the simplest and most straight forward processes in the entire realm of the federal government. It is not proof of anything beyond the fact that you sent them a copy of a copyrighted work you claim to own.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by locke No, they perform an investigation which requires research which is why it takes up to a year to actually get listed.

No, that sounds more like the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). Verification of a trademark can take that long but that's completely different than registering copyright.

To the haters: The one thing I haven't ever seen you self-indulging prideful, lying ignorant bigots do is apologize for being such pudding-for-brain morons, dolts and trolls.

We're not being any of the things you described. You are describing yourself. Self-indulgent? I'd call posting repeatedly in thread after thread year after year the same bull**** pretty self-indulgent. Prideful? Being unable to acknowledge your ignorance of U.S. copyright law, the facts about the origin of your code and even the source of the reaction against you is pretty prideful. Lying? Claiming to have invented YouTube, OLC and any of the other things you had no involvement with is dishonest. Ignorant? Just look at your arguments regarding U.S. copyright law. Bigoted? Just look at your refusal to acknowledge reality when it doesn't agree with your opinion. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear someone speak up and say you're correct. *crickets continue to chirp* Morons? Again, look at your arguments regarding copyright law. Only a moron or a self-indulgent, prideful, lying, ignorant bigot would continue to argue your opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Same applies for dolt. Troll? You're the one going on TMS and TMC stirring up trouble with your baseless opinions and demands. Sounds like a troll to me!

One of the signs of narcissism is blaming others for your own weaknesses and failures. Your inability to acknowledge your errors and inacurrate opinions demonstrates that quite effectively. Additionally, your boasts of your clearly-exagerrated IQ and abilities are also a sign of a narcissist mind. I'm not sure what, if any, treatment is available for such tendencies but my heartfelt suggestion is that you seek it immediately lest the remainder of your life be as pathetic as your life thus far.

On a related note, I am introducing a motion to the RPMUD Operating Committee to prohibit the listing of any game using stolen code unless the games themselves reinsert the proper credits. By default, any game using Nimud would therefore be banned from the listings due to the nature of Locke's crimes. I would like to also suggest TMS and TMC adopt such a policy and remove any such games from their listings.

[Delerak]

I would hate to see these threads deleted, for one reason. Debate can never be bad. I don't care who is "right" in these cases, any thread where people are passionately debating their side of something that is obviously a complex issue of legality deserves to be forever used as as reference for any further problems.

Some of the threads are definitely winding down to being 'spam' so those I wouldn't mind seeing gone. But any of the threads that have a detailed length of information between users personal beliefs should remain for archival usage.

[Delerak]

Also if we delete these threads we have no evidence to ban Locke if he continues posting more threads on his NiMud thing or whatever it is.

[locke]

None of these responses warrant a reply.

[Baram]

Originally Posted by locke None of these responses warrant a reply.

And yet you just replied to them...

[locke]

Originally Posted by Baram And yet you just replied to them...

Yes, I wrote that, in a nutshell, I do not value their input and don't really feel a need to repeat myself further since they just keep attacking from the same position no matter what I do or say.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by locke Yes, I wrote that, in a nutshell, I do not value their input and don't really feel a need to repeat myself further since they just keep attacking from the same position no matter what I do or say.

That's called consistency. Our position has not changed, yet apparently we still need to repeat it because you're willfully ignoring it. You're a thief, a liar, and a worthless paranoid human being. One day you'll get the justice you deserve and my only regret would be not being there to see it happen.

[locke]

Originally Posted by Samson That's called consistency. Our position has not changed, yet apparently we still need to repeat it because you're willfully ignoring it. You're a thief, a liar, and a worthless paranoid human being. One day you'll get the justice you deserve and my only regret would be not being there to see it happen.

"Our" -- speaking in the third person? It might be appropriate to note that the FBI lie detection field manual discusses liars as those who "have difficulty speaking in the first person", using plural pronouns instead of singular when referring to thyself.

It's basically irrational behavior; you refuse to accept any evidence I give you and, at the same time, accept only the evidence that you provide. This is why it is best to be tried by an unbiased jury, and not the biased ones such as yourself and your "crew".

[drakkos]

Originally Posted by locke "Our" -- speaking in the third person? It might be appropriate to note that the FBI lie detection field manual discusses liars as those who "have difficulty speaking in the first person", using plural pronouns instead of singular when referring to thyself.

Man, you give Good Crazy. :-D

Seriously, you'd think by now I would be full to bursting with it, but it's just so delicious I... I just can't stop!

Drakkos

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Baram And yet you just replied to them...

Originally Posted by locke Yes, I wrote that, in a nutshell, I do not value their input and don't really feel a need to repeat myself further since they just keep attacking from the same position no matter what I do or say.

Originally Posted by Samson That's called consistency. Our position has not changed, yet apparently we still need to repeat it because you're willfully ignoring it.

Originally Posted by locke "Our" -- speaking in the third person?

You do realise that you've been addressing multiple people, by using the plural form, right?

[Samson]

Originally Posted by locke "Our" -- speaking in the third person?

Yes. "Our". Because there are at least 3 of us who have openly taken the position that you're a liar and a code thief. So it would be appropriate to refer to that in the 3rd person.

[Fizban]

Originally Posted by locke "Our" -- speaking in the third person? It might be appropriate to note that the FBI lie detection field manual discusses liars as those who "have difficulty speaking in the first person", using plural pronouns instead of singular when referring to thyself. It's basically irrational behavior; you refuse to accept any evidence I give you and, at the same time, accept only the evidence that you provide. This is why it is best to be tried by an unbiased jury, and not the biased ones such as yourself and your "crew".

Our seems rather accurate to me. Samson, prof1515, Delerak, KaVir and I seem to all have very similar positions. Collectively that would make it our position.

PS:

Splitting hairs? It might be appropriate to note that Fizban considers those who comment on another's word choice when losing a debate are usually pathological liars and thieves trying to change the topic.