|
But in order to make this analogy accurate, let's also say that dozens of other developers over the last three decades had included exactly the same chunks of code.
Yes, it would certainly raise some concerns, but because that same code had been used by dozens of other people in the same way over the last three decades, and because there was plenty of evidence that the copyright holders knew about it and had done nothing while clamping down on those using other parts of their work, I would not automatically assume that you were using the code without permission.
Fiest and McCaffrey have said that their work cannot be used for muds, therefore I fully agree with clamping down on people that do so. The Tolkien people have said nothing despite being aware for decades, and have ignored muds based on their work while laying the proverbial slap down on various other infringers. That, in my eyes, is the difference.
The copyright holder is aware of the muds, and has been for decades, yet has obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to it. I have always argued for defending the wishes of the copyright holder. You, however, appear to want to defend your interpretation of their wishes, and that is what I disagree with (for the same reason I disagreed with various people during the IMC debate).
Wrong. As I have pointed out already, the two situations are complete opposites.
|