|
So why hear it second-hand? I'm also not talking about just "consulting a lawyer." There are probably people on these forums more in touch with intellectual property law than many lawyers who don't do IP work. I'm talking about consulting a true intellectual property expert.
That's pretty funny coming from a guy who constantly spews nonsense about the DIKU license, going so far as to set up a web page devoted to flaming another MUD. Besides, we'd be paying the lawyer, not each other.
Really? So you speak for all mud developers? How amusingly arrogant. Cause I gotta tell you, there are a LOT more people using DIKU than developing DIKU, and the course of action you insist on gives them less options than actually just following the license does. You wish to reduce their sphere of action by convincing them that they don't have rights they quite likely do. In fact, I'm a mud developer, with 4 successful MUDs, and you certainly don't speak for me. Sounds to me like you're interested only in the interests of a very narrowly defined segment of mud developers.
In any case, this is what I expected. You're not interested in what the license says. You're interested in shoving your point of view down everyone else's throat and by god, your opinion isn't changing regardless of the facts.
--matt
|