NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

A new copy of NiMUD is now available at that has been released under the Artistic License 2.0/GPL. Content is distributed under CCA 2.0 BY-SA


[Moderator Note: Users are strongly recommended to read this whole thread and draw your own conclusions before using this software]

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

I can't say I'm surprised you'd choose to take such a clearly illegal step. Any fleeting hope you might have had for redemption in this community just vanished with such a brazen theft of other peoples' work.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Thanks, Judge. Oh wait, you're not a representative of the law. I guess it doesn't matter what you or anyone else who posts who is not a judge thinks. Goodbye, troll.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

It's the duty of any responsible citizen not to ignore a crime when they see it. You, sir, are an idiot and a thief.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

These irrational, unfounded claims will not be responded to. Goodbye, troll.

If I haven't made it clear:

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

I have an honest question. In the license you stated it has this clause
But in the diku license it explicitly states

Can you explain how these conflictions are resolved?

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Sure. The Diku license deals with DikuMUD. NiMUD is not DikuMUD. I've chosen this license because it is similar in that:

So, it will protect the credits and is basically free. It also stipulates that artists who use the software will be able to sell their areas. This was the justification for the sale of ROP's Emlen -- that they were charging for the 'game' as an artistic expression which included many, many area files. This makes sense since areas are not part of the source code and it really is the work of other people. Regarding sale of areas: it doesn't mean that they have to, or that anyone has the right to charge for someone else's area. Since the stock NiMUD areas are released under CCA-3 BY-SA, you can't license them in a derivative under a different license than CCA-3 BY-SA.

Also, the issue with duplication -- well, we live in a time when duplication is not really an issue. We all have the net now (who speak English). At the time of the writing of the Diku license, there was no gaurantee that people didn't use floppy disks. Also, Diku is pointing out "unreasonable fees" like $5 which was a hefty profit back in 1989 -- I've needed to copy things for clients and I've charged them like $2 sometimes to pay a reasonable fee for the duplication effort. I don't have a problem with you doing that if you are selling a copy of NiMUD on disc, since that is a reasonable fee and does not provide any substantial profit for NiMUD itself. That doesn't mean you can sell copies at $5 because that sort of fee scale would be unreasonable. I highly doubt anyone will take advantage of this clause, anyway.

Side note: What's it like being dead?

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

They're not resolved. He is a liar and a thief who is violating the Diku license because he hasn't the intelligence to understand or the morals to care.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Locke touches your head and you feel energized.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

I just wanted to make sure that he is actually claiming that NiMUD is no longer a derivative of DikuMUD and no longer is required to abide by any license other than he sees fit.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Quoted from his Google project page:
That transformative work language is a crock of **** as there's not a single thing I've been able to find that indicates it's even a valid concept in copyright law, US or otherwise. Google search comes up with nothing but proposals from some wackjobs who want to allow fan-fic writers to steal income from the franchises they derive their works from and deprive the original authors of their rights. there's not a single viable link into a law reference or court prescedent anywhere I can find that would qualify what he's done as "fair use" under any interpretation.

However, it appears as though nobody gives a **** and I'm merely wasting my time even raising objection to this. The signal is being sent loud and clear - apparently Vryce style code theft is endorsed widely because that's precisely what we have here.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

I imagine your Texas accent "Da signawl is bein' sent lawd and cler" -- this is not at all like the case of Medievia and Vryce. Medievia was "60% original", NiMUD is probably around 90% original. Also, you forget that Diku did borrow its ideas from TSR and Infocom, and the Bartle MUD. There was a rumor that it was built from talker, but that was just a rumor. No one lives in true isolation. Also, NiMUD is not being charged for. So, it's not at all the same or similar.

Also, I have never seen a single court document requiring Vryce to do anything. Does anyone know where that is? All I've seen is anecdotal evidence that there even was a problem. Granted, I know it curled some toes, but, years later, does that perspective really hold true today? At the time, though, I had heard there was a court case. Was that a rumor or is there really an official judgement about that?

Regardless, if it happened or not (and I tend to believe it did) it's not exactly relevant. That case occurred a long time ago and would have happened on a lower level, so there is little doubt it is not in the current "zeitgeist" of caselaw. Anyway, it certainly wasn't something that I felt I was repeating.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Sorry. Your fancy doublespeak got garbled up and came out as "blah blah blah I stole it and you can all go to hell" blah blah blah.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

The situation is somewhat different, in that Vryce claimed his mud wasn't a derivative because it no longer contained any Diku code - therefore the arguments in that case primarily revolved around similarites, and my comparison was intended to draw attention to the large quantities of identical code.

However there's not really anything to prove in Locke's case, because even he admits that his mud is based on Diku, and contains large amounts of Diku code. We've already explained to him that what he's doing is illegal, but he doesn't care, and it's not really as if his reputation could get much worse anyway.

I suppose someone could fire off an email to the FSF and tell them that he's violating the GPL...but other than that, our options are pretty much limited to throwing rotten fruit.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Already tried contacting the FSF. They said they won't act on it unless the Diku team tells them to, or unless they hold the copyright. I'm not sure the person who responded even understood the problem, but in the end, it seems they can't or won't pursue it without say-so from the Diku team.

So unless they're willing to step up for once and defend what's theirs, Locke is going to get away with this.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

It's well known that in order for a codebase to be succesful it needs to have a large player base, and NiMUD has no player base to speak of.

So my question is, if Locke violates Diku in the woods, and there's nobody around to hear, will it make a sound?

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

It's not just about Locke, it also effects anyone else who downloads his codebase - they may not even know it's an illegal distribution.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Well, I'm talking to Hans in email and he said:

"Why exactly are they claiming you stole anything (I assume they mean that you are in violation of the license, instead of theft, which is not exactly equivalent legally)?"

As for "player bases make mud codebases" -- that's just not true. First of all, there is no term "codebase" -- instead, there is a term "software package" -- secondly, the amount of work in the source code has to do with how the code is made, not the number of players active at any given time. If that were true, Merc 2.0c would not be considered important because very few if any MUDs use that code.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Like I said, I don't think that's going to happen.

History shows different, pretty much every successful codebase started out as a popular mud.

One of the reasons for this is that starting with a codebase you've never played has a much steeper learning curve than working on a codebase you've actively played for years.

Given NiMUD is substantially different from any popular mud in existence the chances of someone starting work on a NiMUD derivative is close to zero. It's more likely that someone will grab NiMUD code and plug it into something else, as was the case with OLC.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

The Isles was popular before it released its OLC features. It had 20 players online at any given time, and had only been around for a few months. CthulhuMUD had about 5 players at any given time and was its direct predecessor. I also ran/developed this. It had OLC, and it also had something called "ritualistic magic" -- (It is not the CthulhuMUD that is out there today.)

The Isles reached a second height of popularity a few years later when it was an RP intensive MUD during the period that I collaborated with Morgenes of Aldara ]I[. Aside from this, its OLC features are immensely popular and have had tens of thousands of users.

Using your logic, Bartle's MUD II would be an example of a "failed" and irrelevant MUD. I think you're just wrapping insults up with glossy paper.

Well, it's not really possible to plug an entire mud into to something else. Parts of it, maybe (and have been such as HIT_FUN or other subsystems) -- it doesn't use the same types and requires painstaking redeployment procedures. Significant (reverse?) engineering would have to occur to get it to work with a MERC. See "installing NiMScripts in Merc" doc that is floating around out there and you will see the differences.

Furthermore, there have been 4 derivatives and one hugely popular MUD that have came out of this project. The four derivatives are: eWar (Emlen based), FateMUD (Emlen based, not distributed), Midpoint Void (NiMUD derivation point) and EmlenMUD I (Midpoint Void based). Additionally, there was the immensely popular "ROP" or "Rites of Passage" which had supposedly 90+ people online at any given time according to the administrators and former players.

Any source code derivative of NiMUD source code must adhere to the AL 2.0 license and be released under AL 2.0. It's protected. Prior versions such as the ones on ftpgame.org are under the Diku/Merc/NiMUD license tree. I can't really speak to those versions except to say that they are depreciated.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Err? Are you really dense enough to be trying to claim that NiMUD is not derived from Merc and therefore indirectly from DIKU? I assure you, codebases which are derived from DIKU still are licensed under the DIKU license.

As a general rule when two licenses conflict the stricter of the two takes precedence. In this case it is a moot point as licensing DIKU derived material as GPL is hands down, 100%, illegal.

The DIKU Team had access to a copy of Medievia's code and stated with 100% certainty that it was DIKU derived.

You'd be hard pressed to prove that there are even ten thousand mudders today. There are absolutely not ten thousand MUD admin today, let alone ten thousand using OLC's derived from NiMUD's.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Yes, he is dense enough. Go look at his Google project page:

Those of us who are sane know this, but I think we've pretty well established Locke is not sane.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

That quote about precedence is not on my project page.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Um, ok dude. I think the OLC has had 10,000+ users since 1993 easily. There have been as many as 20000 active muds before, so this number is pretty low.


Merc, Rot, Rom, Emlen, Nimuds currently listed on mudconnect: ~200

Lets say 2 people use OLC per mud, that means there are at least 400 users currently using OLC, probably more since 2 is a conservative figure. Plus, it doesn't include QuickMUD or 1stMUD listings.

Oh by the way I forgot about VoRMUD (Void of Reality) which is a NiMUD derivative bringing the number of derivatives to 5, and I also forgot the italian translation of NiMUD made by Fabrizio Baldi, it is called Lyonesse 1.0 and is now bringing the number to 6.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

This is not a court order, then. Hey did you know that "Diku concepts" can't be copyrighted, patented or trademarked? That part of their license falls out of any jurisdictive governance.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

This assumption is based on there being any shred of believable evidence that you wrote the OLC all those codebases use. Since no such evidence exists, it's entirely possible the number of people using your OLC is exactly 1: Yourself.

The Diku team also does not need a court order to view code that's been provided to them and certify that the code is in fact theirs.

And I don't think anyone here believes for one second that you're in communication with them on this because I'm pretty sure they'd tell you you can go to hell for trying to steal their code the way you are right now.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

This is an existentialist argument like "Am I really here or is this just a hallucination?"

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)

Well yes -- they do! Otherwise, it's been handled out of court and is not certified. It's hard to ask for tangible remuneration from free software unless Vryce made money. If he made money, then they have grounds to sue. If he did not, it's hardly worth the court's time, is it?

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Umm? No. Lyonesse is a CircleMUD/Smaug derivative (a combination of the two) which features Oasis OLC.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

Vryce made enough money off of Medievia to supprt his household. He admitted as much on several occasions.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

It seems to be still actively developed. A long time ago it (~1999?) was NiMUD 4.0 as the base (Thus, it was originally using my OLC and server) .. note: it talks about OLC here, but I haven't found either Smaug building or OLC in the code. I assume it now has CircleMUD building (Oasis OLC) -- but I can't seem to find exactly where that is. It purports to have taken obj_to_obj() from Smaug.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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:

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

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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).



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

It looks like it was most active during 2002:

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

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

LOL CLASSIC NIMUD WEB GRAPHICS!

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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!

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

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

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.



"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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.

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.

Re: NiMUD 5 Re-released Under AL/GPL
 

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.