[prof1515]

Only there's no proof that it is your work. Your claim is as unsubstantiated as your claim to have invented YouTube.

You've attempted to claim that "your" code is not a derivitive. Either it is or it isn't.

You're not meeting the qualifications of "Fair Use". You're attempting to circumvent a license that you entered into when you used the code in the beginning.

We're banning plagarism. The legitimate code is completely welcome. Your plagarized and miscredited work is not. By not banning your code it would be like a library shelving a copy of Tom Sawyer photocopied by someone who changed the title page to read "By Joe Nobody".

You also don't appear to have a very good vocabulary. It's not fascism to remove and not recognize stolen work from a collection. It's respecting the work of the original authors. You've been shown to be an unrepentant thief. It does no harm to the spread of knowledge to ignore stolen work nor does it constitute oppression to do so.

"Whatever" is the argumentative equivalent of admitting the other person's point is valid and that you can't make any argument against it.

It's not a double standard because Kavir can not be held responsible for the actions of others once the code is out of his hands. In your case, however, the offense began before others used the code. They can make amends by properly modifying the credits to reflect the actual lineage but in no way does that absolve you of the offense.

You're crediting yourself with other people's work. There is no more proof that you invented OLC than there is that you invented YouTube, the internet, oxygen or gravity.

You did violate the Diku license. It's not your right to interpret their license to your desire. The reason other people haven't been singled out for similar violations is because they have the good sense not to make an ass of themselves trying to claim that they didn't.

It's not the same and if you were intelligent and not narcissistically close-minded then you'd realize the difference.

I have yet to meet anyone who, upon hearing your arguments, has agreed with you.

A clear sign of a narcissist is the paranoid belief that anyone who can find flaws in their arguments must be part of a conspiracy to discredit them. You are a textbook example.

Prove this lie. Show us this example. Simply claiming to catch someone in a lie is a lame tactic.

Lying isn't ethical whether it's about creating a codebase, OLC or YouTube. If you didn't create it, claiming otherwise is a lie.

Far more than six support the same position as Kavir. The RPMUD Network's Operating Committee supported his position 5-0 and I'm the only one of those five that has posted here. In the past, your bull**** threads have produced far more who have supported the same position as Kavir. One need only go back through the forums to see.

Furthermore, Kavir has never been shy about standing on his own with or without support. His identity is well-known in the community. You, on the other hand, have no such reputation. All you are known for is being a thief, a liar and an unjustifiable egomaniac.

No one who has demonstrated any understanding of the issue has come to your defense. They, like you, have been unable to provide any legitimate argument to support your position and actions. Relying on self-serving arguments that are not backed by legitimate evidence does not strengthen your position no matter how many equally-unethical people might agree with you.

They also probably share your lack of intelligence and ethics. Two racists agreeing that they think whites are mentally superior doesn't make them right. Two thieves agreeing that stealing isn't wrong doesn't make it legal. You and any unethical moron agreeing is no different.

Irrelevant. The popularity of Kavir does not invalidate his arguments nor do the actions of Cratylus or anyone else validate your position.

Except of course that I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims about the origins of my code ir unethically attempting to give myself credit for other people's work.

You don't have the right to enforce exceptions when it comes to other people's licenses nor do you have the right to attempt to belittle their work by over-emphasizing your own. You're required to acknowledge the people upon whose work you've expanded. Additional commentary is unethical especially when the intent is to diminish the credit given.

Use of that "short piece of code" required adhering to the license. If you didn't want to credit them, you should not have used it. You made the choice to use it and thus by doing so agreed to the terms of use.

It makes perfect sense. By use of their code, you agreed to their license requirements. From that point forward, anything built off of that work is subject to those same requirements. That's why people scratch-build their code and don't simply work off the code of others. You did not choose to do that and thus you are bound by the decision you made.

It's an observation based on your inability to comprehend.

Of course it does. We base our self-worth on our perception of ourself and anything we do. Self-worth does not have to refer to financial possessions hence noting a game is "free" is irrelevant. Perhaps I could have used the term "self image" instead though since you appear to be confused over the phrase "self-worth".

I'm referring to your narcissistic tendency to transfer your own behavior to your perception of others. Instead of recognizing your own failings, you attempt to cite them in those whom you view as opposing you. Instead of admitting wrong, you claim to be a victim because to do otherwise would shatter your concept of yourself.

And which software is that? YouTube? Sim City? Someone else's work that you claim to have created? Oh wait, was it the internet itself? I've lost track of all the things you claim to have created which conveniently your name is in no way associated with whatsoever.