Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 05-08-2005, 05:03 AM

Slander is spoken - libel is written, and doesn't apply in this case, because it also has to be false.

And as for 'absolutely no evidence beyond hearsay', that's absolute rubbish - I've provided statistical comparisons of the Medievia code vs Merc 1.0, and I have scanned copy of a statement signed by Vryce under penalty of perjury in which he states that the code I reviewed is "Medievia 4.1" - and that's without all the backing views of many other people who have seen the code (including at least one person who coded for Medievia). All this information has been available for years, specifically because of people claiming the sort of thing you're claiming now.

But tell me, if you believed there was no evidence, and that posting such claims about people without evidence is unprofessional, why did you repeatedly post things like:

"There seems no doubt that Medievia is violating the license. They may or may not be violating the profit part of the license (we have no way of knowing whether they are showing a profit or not) but they certainly do seem to be violating the bits involving proper credit."

And:

"Medievia IS violating the DIKU license. It's not including the proper credits to the DIKU authors...None of these facts are really in question."

You see, most of do know the facts, have plenty of evidence, and have used that as the basis for our opinions. There are other muds which I strongly suspect of violating the Diku licence as well, but without any evidence to back it up I prefer not to say anything.

But if you posted your above statements about Medievia without reading the evidence, then by your own reasoning that makes you less professional than the rest of us in this thread. And for the first time in as long as I can remember, I actually agree with you on this point.

05-08-2005, 05:03 AM	#21
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Slander is spoken - libel is written, and doesn't apply in this case, because it also has to be false. And as for 'absolutely no evidence beyond hearsay', that's absolute rubbish - I've provided statistical comparisons of the Medievia code vs Merc 1.0, and I have scanned copy of a statement signed by Vryce under penalty of perjury in which he states that the code I reviewed is "Medievia 4.1" - and that's without all the backing views of many other people who have seen the code (including at least one person who coded for Medievia). All this information has been available for years, specifically because of people claiming the sort of thing you're claiming now. But tell me, if you believed there was no evidence, and that posting such claims about people without evidence is unprofessional, why did you repeatedly post things like: "There seems no doubt that Medievia is violating the license. They may or may not be violating the profit part of the license (we have no way of knowing whether they are showing a profit or not) but they certainly do seem to be violating the bits involving proper credit." And: "Medievia IS violating the DIKU license. It's not including the proper credits to the DIKU authors...None of these facts are really in question." You see, most of do know the facts, have plenty of evidence, and have used that as the basis for our opinions. There are other muds which I strongly suspect of violating the Diku licence as well, but without any evidence to back it up I prefer not to say anything. But if you posted your above statements about Medievia without reading the evidence, then by your own reasoning that makes you less professional than the rest of us in this thread. And for the first time in as long as I can remember, I actually agree with you on this point.