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.

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.

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.

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

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'.

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.

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?

I wouldn't know, not being a player.  All I can go by is the statements made by the Aardwolf administration on this forum, and what they said was:

"The next major update of Aardwolf is a rewrite on top of the  skeleton 'SocketMud' handler with pieces of Aardwolf build on to it. In code terms, we will be heavily influenced by the Diku look and feel but will not have a single line of original Diku code. At that time I'll be more than happy to make our CVS logs available publicly (without code) and to make full code available to a qualified third party under non-disclosure. I guess we'll still be in somewhat of a grey area for having a few stock areas when the new version opens, but they'll be gone over time."

Those "pieces of Aardwolf" could be scratch-written modules which had been slotted onto the original Diku derivative, but more likely they represent modifications to the Diku code - making it a piecewise reimplementation, as described in the link I provided.

And "CVS logs" without code doesn't really prove anything I'm afraid.  Example:

Revision 1.2
Oct 28 00:00:00 2003 UTC by some_bloke
All the old Diku code removed!

Revision 1.1
Oct 27 00:00:00 2003 UTC by some_bloke
Lots of cool stuff added.

Revision 1.0
Oct 25 00:00:00 2003 UTC by some_bloke
Initial version - stock Diku.

And in response to Aardwolf's "Where do you draw the line?", the answer is fairly straightforward.  If you start out with Diku, and change it, you get a Diku derivative.  If you wish to create a new mud, you have to start from nothing.  In your latest post, it seems that that's exactly what you've done - but if you start inserting chunks of Diku derived code back into it, you'll end up with a Diku derivative again.

Please remove all the MUDs that get lots of votes on the list, or more specifically, the ones that rank higher than mine. That way my game will soar to the top and I will be the ruler of topmudsites and all will bow before me!@ Bwah Ha ha ha ha!@

Seriously, though, I'm with Molly on this one.

You seem to be taking a very guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude here....You're not the only one that considers problems like that, and i'm pretty sure most people can read the copyright law just as well as you can.

Errm...Did you actually read the part you quoted? Making the full code available to a third-party under an NDA along with the CVS logs seems pretty reasonable to me, since the project won't be open-source. If that's not good enough, then what would you suggest, exactly?

I'm simply giving my view on the situation, based on the information available. I have not seen the current Aardwolf code, so I cannot tell you how it has been developed, but for the vast majority of muds the changes are simply tacked on (the "ball of mud" approach to development). In such a case, you end up with one big messy chunk of Diku derived code, which cannot then simply be moved to another socket layer and claimed as original.

Now, it is possible to develop a mud in a modular fashion whereby the changes based on scratch-written modules could be shifted across to the new code base. However when you start with a Diku derivative, the majority of your changes aren't going to be like that. And when moving any non-derived stuff you do have, you're certainly unlikely to retain enough of the original to end up with a result that "looks a lot like" the original Diku derivative, unless you've very specifically gone out of your way to create something with the same look-and-feel.

I'm not making any statements about guilt or innocence, as I've not seen the Aardwolf code, nor (to my knowledge) have they even transferred any of the old mud over to the new codebase yet. I am simply pointing out the possible scenarios.

Yes. But my remark was in response to your statement "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". And my point was that the logs would not prove anything.

Yes, getting one of the Diku team, or perhaps Russ Taylor, to look over the code would certainly be a good way to clear the situation.

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?  

Are we debating whether or not Aardwolf should be listed on TMS?
If so 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.  If this is not the case we are open to speculate all day as to what the intents of the authors are/were, what the license allows/disallows and furthermore whether or not Aardwolf has/hasn’t violated a license..  Also I do find it necessary to question your convictions due to the fact that YOU are posting that Aardwolf IS violating the license, yet in a following post you say,  So what are we to assume the point of the original post is?  Why did you start this thread?

Are we to debate regarding the legalities of accepting donations?  Are we debating in game rewards? Or are we discussing the inconsistencies and loopholes within the text of the license itself?  If so I would assume that these questions have already been clearly answered in a number of other threads pertaining to the license.  I know that I’ve read through at least four of them on this site and came to the conclusion that NO ONE knows what the license means..  I hate to have to put that right out in the open and it may mean a little less forum activity on the legal board, but you, I, Lasher, or Hephos do not have an answer for the above questions..  And it’s my understanding that the DIKU team apparently just does not care to take it up with the licensee’s and proper legal council..

Or finally are we now talking about Lashers new codebase?  If so I would suggest that we move the topic from legal..  I would assume that that would be much better suited on a dev board..

These guys are MUDders. Copious free time is pretty much implied ;)

*blink* People have anything else to do other than pick the muds that are nearest to the top of the list and insult them? Why not go pick on all he muds equally? Or do you have some new aardbashing fetish? :P The fact that this SAME information has been discussed in at least two threads should keep people from starting new threads in desparate attempts to keep this issue alive. yet even bad press is at least publicity. ;) I wonder how many people upon reading all these posts that say 'aard sux, tehy r no rox' constantly have gone and checked aard out. ;) I know that I went and checked out the other mud with lots of votes that I can never remember how to spell... :P They were bashed a lot in some other thread concerning giving out rewards for votes. But remember how defensive they got when their 'baby' was attacked, and don't be suprised if aard reacts in the same way.

I guess things depend on your opinion and views of them really. :) Each person will see things differently and until there is an 'official' ruling on things, things will never end. :)

"Clearly?" - I hope that you're being sarcastic..  It should be quite clear to everyone on these boards that there is absolutly nothing thats 'clear' about the DIKU license.  Not to bash the authors, but if this even qualfies as a license (a fact of which I have not yet even been convinced) then it is by far the worst worded "license" that I have ever seen.  If it was meant to do anything in regards to keep people from accepting donations I guess that I must be an implied infrence as it certainly does not state anywhere within the 64 words that pertain to money that this is not acceptable..

*shrug, who? how? and what makes their opinion on the matter more valid than mine?

*Just a note: Aardwolf has been accepting donations since 2001.  May there also be an implied clause of the license which allows for donations so long as the mud does not have a banner ad? If not I'd have to say the response of the "people that actively tries to enforce it" is slow.. And their timing regarding a response to the alleged violation is questionable..

Have we done this? Do you have a conclusive legal ruling? If not we could do this all day..

Medieva does not list the Diku credits when loading, breaking the letter of the contract.

In any case everything's been rehashed already, say something new or stop spamming the board.  And especially stop spamming declaring aardwolf should be banned, doesn't belong here and is not up to us.