View Single Post
Old 04-30-2006, 06:32 PM   #77
John
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 252
John is on a distinguished road
I believe they're breaking the (well) stated intent of the license.

As I said in my very first post, you can do one of two things with the DIKU license. Attempt to use the law (and IMO most likely succeed) to wiggle out of the license so you can break it without repercussions. Or you can follow the intent of the license.

For those who ignore ethics (whatever your personal ethics may be) and supplant them entirely with the law, following an unenforcable license would seem ridiculous. For those who follow a set of ethics that may differ from the law, it might (or might not, depending on your ethics) seem right to follow the intent. Read one of my previous posts to see my opinion in full (in fact, the post you quoted. Why'd you ignore all of it? I thought I was fairly clear on my opinion).

It may be minor now, because of how much they've withdrawn from mudding (although it could be quite major), but that doesn't make it right. They shouldn't (IMO) have been forced to withdraw because of people breaking the intent of their license.

Sueing has advantages and disadvantages. Just because the disadvantages outweighed the advantages, doesn't mean that people breaking the intent of the license would have been some tiny part of their lives.

Oh for crying out loud, please stop trying to redefine this argument. Please. Make a poll if you must, but no-one who defends the DIKU license accepts your interpretation of it. So stop trying to push it forward.
John is offline   Reply With Quote