Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > Mud Development and Administration > Legal Issues
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-29-2006, 09:41 AM   #21
Fishy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 42
Fishy is on a distinguished road
Angry

Personally I can't wait for the day when the holders of the DIKU liscence takes it to court... but oh wait, that won't actually stop the bitching will it? No since MudX is hosted in country Y, the US court's decision isn't valid. Now only god know's how many licenses are not valid in our days (but if we're talking Europe, we're talking about alot of commercial licenses not being valid).

1. Give credits
2. Do whatever the hell you want (if the holders ever decide to take legal action: be sure you have your server&company in a "free" country).
3. Go buy yourself an icecream and some flowers for your girl.
Fishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 10:35 AM   #22
Milawe
Senior Member
 
Milawe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Home MUD: Stash
Home MUD: Archons of Avenshar
Posts: 653
Milawe has a spectacular aura aboutMilawe has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Fishy @ Mar. 29 2006,09:41)
3. Go buy yourself an icecream and some flowers for your girl.
I vote for some nifty jewelry instead! Can I do that?
Milawe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 01:43 PM   #23
Aarn
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 44
Aarn is on a distinguished road
There may be some legal stuff that one could argue, and whether things would stand up in court or not. I'm no lawyer. But it seems to me that their intent was clear; give them credit, and don't make money off their work.

Regardless of whether this will hold up in court or not, it seems like it should be up to our community to enforce it, namely by not supporting MUDs that break it. Aardwolf posted that they "agreed to disagree" with the DIKU people. Sounds like he's basically flaunting the fact that DIKU can't/won't spend the money to enforce it.

It's like saying "Hey, thanks for creating this stuff long ago. You don't agree with how we're using it? Well, thankfully you're toothless, so why don't we just ignore that part and move on."

In my opinion, that should make people who enjoy mudding fairly mad. I'll suffice this by saying I have no knowledge of this sitation beyond the posts in this thread, so I'm just offering my opinion from that.
Aarn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 02:56 PM   #24
Fishy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 42
Fishy is on a distinguished road
Exclamation

1. Give credits
We all agree what this means and what their intent with it was.

2. You're not allowed to make profit
We all disagree what their intent was and they did not clearly state it, nor do they bother on clearifying it. Therefor anyone trying to speak on the behalf (or second guess) the original creators is over his --- in bull...


ps. Mina thanks for reminding me
Fishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 03:13 PM   #25
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 28 2006,17:51)
In the case of your codebase the licence may well be a contract, but the same is not necessarily true for Diku:

http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html

"A software licence is not necessarily a contract. It can be, but that requires a couple of preconditions to be satisfied. One of those preconditions is the existence of consideration on both sides. Consideration is a legal concept that simply means a quid-pro-quo, or something of value given by each party in exchange for what the other party provides. In the case of open source software, there usually isn't anything provided by the licensee of the software (that is, the person who uses it) back to the licensor (usually, the person who wrote it). As a consequence of this lack of consideration there is no contract between the licensee and licensor."
That citation speaks about open source software. If DIKU were open source, this whole issue would be moot, because people could charge whatever they wanted for access to their DIKU mud.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 03:15 PM   #26
Threshold
Legend
 
Threshold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,241
Threshold will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Aarn @ Mar. 29 2006,13:43)
It's like saying "Hey, thanks for creating this stuff long ago. You don't agree with how we're using it? Well, thankfully you're toothless, so why don't we just ignore that part and move on."

In my opinion, that should make people who enjoy mudding fairly mad. I'll suffice this by saying I have no knowledge of this sitation beyond the posts in this thread, so I'm just offering my opinion from that.
It does not sound to me like that is their attitude at all. It sounds like they have tried to make the best out of the situation, while also trying to maintain the finacial viability of their enterprise.

One of the worst things that ever happened to the MUD community was the fact that it had its exploison BEFORE the open source movement. If MUDs came along now, instead of ~20 years ago, all of these mud engines would be open source and probably hosted somewhere like sourceforge.

The restrictive licenses put on so many MUD engines, drivers, source code, etc. has been nothing but a burden for the MUD community, as it provided a disincentive for a lot of commercial operations that could have really helped MUDding become more than a niche hobby.
Threshold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 04:31 PM   #27
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,301
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Aarn @ Mar. 29 2006,13:43)
 Sounds like he's basically flaunting the fact that DIKU can't/won't spend the money to enforce it.  
It sounds to me more like the DIKU creators realize they are not actually being harmed in any material way. One doesn't sue to redress trivial harms typically.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 05:02 PM   #28
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Threshold @ Mar. 29 2006,21:13)
That citation speaks about open source software.
The article concerns open source software, but the part I quoted regards contract law and copyright law, and is just as valid for Diku as it is for open source software.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 05:59 PM   #29
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Mar. 29 2006,16:31)
It sounds to me more like the DIKU creators realize they are not actually being harmed in any material way. One doesn't sue to redress trivial harms typically.
I think it's a combination of three factors:

1. The DIKU creators realize they aren't being financially harmed (as you said).
2. The DIKU creators realize that their "license" would have a slim chance to hold up in most courts.
3. The DIKU creators realize that if a court would rule against the "license", it would open up the door for countless of other DIKUs to introduce revenue models. At the moment, they can just hope that the ambiguity will scare off most such attempts.
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 06:51 PM   #30
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (nhl @ Mar. 29 2006,23:59)
1. The DIKU creators realize they aren't being financially harmed (as you said).
Debatable - people who make money from Diku muds are unlikely to pay for the commercial DikuII licence, are they? And even if that weren't the case, they could still claim statutory damages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
2. The DIKU creators realize that their "license" would have a slim chance to hold up in most courts.
However as I've already pointed out, the Diku licence is not a contract. All it does is give you permission to do things which would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
3. The DIKU creators realize that if a court would rule against the "license", it would open up the door for countless of other DIKUs to introduce revenue models.
No, it wouldn't - it would simply take away everyone's right to copy, modify, distribute, derived from and display works based upon DikuMUD. The licence is the only thing giving those rights, so if you removed it you would also remove those rights.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 07:15 PM   #31
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
Not only are you assuming some universal contract law (which does not exist), but I think we may have misunderstood each other.

If a court decides that the DIKU license does indeed only apply to making profit by direct distribution or resale of the DIKU engine, it does not necessarily invalidate the rest of the license, including the provisions of setting up a DikuMud and altering the DikuMud sourcecode.

So one plausible scenario is that a court would find that the resale of the Diku Engine is against the license, whereas charging for content running on it isn't. The rest of the license wouldn't be void. Other provisions which weaken the case of upholding the license, is where the MUD operator is claimed to be violating agreements which he/she is not part of (between the DIKU team and the University) and which implies legal action.
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 07:31 PM   #32
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (nhl @ Mar. 30 2006,01:15)
Not only are you assuming some universal contract law (which does not exist), but I think we may have misunderstood each other.
No, I think you're missing the point - contract law doesn't apply. The Diku licence is not a contract.

Also note that (cited from the link I gave earlier) "Because the licensee hasn't given any consideration in exchange for the software, the licence can be revoked by the licensor at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee".
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 07:44 PM   #33
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
As I'm not a legal expert (are you?) I can only reiterate what the lawyers I have consulted on this matter have told me - that not only is the DIKU license in its current form not likely to hold up in most courts in the EU, and that most likely the DIKU team would not be in a position to withdraw the rights to use the DIKU engine either.

I'll quote a little from the very same document you linked (especially note the last statement):

Quote:
Originally Posted by
So what kind of licence conditions can we legally impose on the use of open source software, in the absence of a contract? In general, we can impose conditions that restrict the right to copy the software, because this is one of the exclusive rights that copyright grants to the licensor. We can also impose conditions that restrict the licensee's ability to modify the software. But we probably cannot restrict their right to run the software, nor require them to destroy their copy of the software if the licence is revoked, or require them to allow the licensor into their premises to perform a software audit, because these are not rights that the licensor possesses under copyright law.
Furthermore...

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Because there is no enforceable contract, if the licence conditions are breached, the licensor's action against the licensee is simply an action for breach of copyright. A court hearing such an action is entitled to refuse to enforce a licence condition (or to award damages for its breach) if it goes too far outside the scope of copyright law and into the realm of private ordering. The only guide that we have is that in order to be enforceable, a licence condition must be "reasonable". Given the dearth of authority on what amount to "reasonable" software licence conditions, the enforceability of a given condition can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
So again, there is no universal truth about license disputes. The DIKU license certainly contains some rather unorthodox licence conditions (including references to login screens and 'credits' commands). But I am no lawyer, only reiterating what lawyers have told me (don't shoot the messenger
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2006, 08:03 PM   #34
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
As I'm not a legal expert (are you?) I can only reiterate what the lawyers I have consulted on this matter have told me - that not only is the DIKU license in its current form not likely to hold up in most courts in the EU, and that most likely the DIKU team would not be in a position to withdraw the rights to use the DIKU engine either.
Well the link I provided was also written by a lawyer, and he was pretty clear on the fact that "Because the licensee hasn't given any consideration in exchange for the software, the licence can be revoked by the licensor at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee" (Wood v Leadbitter (1845) 13 M & W 838).

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I'll quote a little from the very same document you linked (especially note the last statement):
That you can't restrict their right to run the software or delete their copy, because those aren't rights under copyright law?

True. However you could prevent them making backups (copy), recompiling (copy/derivative), releasing it (distribution), allowing anyone to play (perform/display), etc. Without those rights they might as well not have the mud.

Regarding the "reasonable" software conditions thing, see further down:

Are these conditions enforceable? Although an authoritative answer cannot be given until the GPL is tested in court, all indications are that these are exactly the kind of conditions that can be successfully attached to a non-contractual software licence, since they only affect the distribution and modification of the software, which are within the right of the copyright owner to control.

Well, copyright also gives the right "To perform the work publicly" and "To display the copyrighted work publicly". And you're going to need those rights if you want anyone to play your mud.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 01:32 AM   #35
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 29 2006,20<!--emo&[img
http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]Well the link I provided was also written by a lawyer, and he was pretty clear on the fact that "Because the licensee hasn't given any consideration in exchange for the software, the licence can be revoked by the licensor at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee" (Wood v Leadbitter (1845) 13 M & W 838).
Last I checked, neither Australia nor the US were part of the EU, and the person who wrote the article is looking at it from an Australian perspective, backing it up with legal cases from the US. There is no international standard according to which contract or copyright disputes is solidly enforced in every country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
That you can't restrict their right to run the software or delete their copy, because those aren't rights under copyright law?

True.  However you could prevent them making backups (copy), recompiling (copy/derivative), releasing it (distribution), allowing anyone to play (perform/display), etc.  Without those rights they might as well not have the mud.
That's questionable. First of all, the document you linked also lists some mitigating factors. Of particular interest is the Estoppel, which would likely apply to situations where the licensor (Diku) attempts to modify or revoke the license from a single licensee (MUD).

Second, I am not convinced that using the engine to run a MUD would legally constitute a display of the MUD engine (though I guess a DikuMUD might be an exception, given how much of the actual game logic is embedded in the driver), anymore than  running your own java application is displaying the Java platform or running anything on a Linux server constitutes diplaying the Linux platform. Largely, it would be a question of what do the users see -- is it the standard DikuMUD interface, or content created by the MUD?

If this truly were an issue, I doubt any company (with enough lawyers) would be developing anything commercial on non-commercial platforms (like java applications) -- to me as a layman, the article you are linking to, is a bit on the dramatic side to provide a punch at Australia's national Linux conference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Well, copyright also gives the right "To perform the work publicly" and "To display the copyrighted work publicly".  And you're going to need those rights if you want anyone to play your mud.
Again, you are quoting a US law (Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright act), where I was refering to the situation in the EU. But even if you go with the US laws, those rights are not absolute (as an example, section 107 describes the "fair use" if copyrighted works). As I stated above, it is questionable if running a MUD would constitute "performing the work (driver) publicly". What you are displaying is the content running on it (that is what the player sees, right?), which is usually copyrighted by the MUD owner and the MUD developers.
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 03:07 AM   #36
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,301
the_logos will become famous soon enough
NHL wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I can only reiterate what the lawyers I have consulted on this matter have told me - that not only is the DIKU license in its current form not likely to hold up in most courts in the EU, and that most likely the DIKU team would not be in a position to withdraw the rights to use the DIKU engine either.
I've been told the same thing by IP specialists here in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Well the link I provided was also written by a lawyer
There's a bit of a difference there. A layman reading general legal principles is far different from receiving directed advice on a specific situation from an expert in that area of law. When you want quality legal advice you don't, with all due respect, just google up general legal principles on the web. You hire someone qualified to provide you with an expert opinion on your specific issue, because chances are, as a layman, you (the generic you) are missing many things that someone with expertise will not.

--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 04:00 AM   #37
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (nhl @ Mar. 30 2006,07:32)
There is no international standard according to which contract or copyright disputes is solidly enforced in every country.
BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Quote:
Originally Posted by
That's questionable. First of all, the document you linked also lists some mitigating factors. Of particular interest is the Estoppel, which would likely apply to situations where the licensor (Diku) attempts to modify or revoke the license from a single licensee (MUD).
There "may be scope" - if the licencee could prove they'd been mislead into "relying on the continuance of the existing terms". The Diku team could clarify the wording of the licence, but if that failed to hold up, they could simply revoke it for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Second, I am not convinced that using the engine to run a MUD would legally constitute a display of the MUD engine (though I guess a DikuMUD might be an exception, given how much of the actual game logic is embedded in the driver), anymore than running your own java application is displaying the Java platform or running anything on a Linux server constitutes diplaying the Linux platform. Largely, it would be a question of what do the users see -- is it the standard DikuMUD interface, or content created by the MUD?
If you removed all of the stock areas, stock messages, help files, etc, so that nothing stock (or derived) was displayed to the users, then perhaps that would work (assuming the Diku-derived code wasn't considered part of the public "performance"). However you'd have to change the messages before the licence was revoked - otherwise you'd lose the right to recompile with the new messages (it's been argued before about whether compiling creates a copy or a derivative work, but both are rights protected by copyright law, so in this case the point is moot). The mud would also be an evolutionary dead-end, as you'd no longer be allowed to change it, or even make backups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Again, you are quoting a US law (Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright act), where I was refering to the situation in the EU.
The copyright law is very similar, as the US and EU both follow the Berne Convention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
But even if you go with the US laws, those rights are not absolute (as an example, section 107 describes the "fair use" if copyrighted works).
Yeah, great. You could quote small sections of the Diku code "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". It was a good way for me to post sections of the Medievia source code in order to prove it was Diku derived. It won't simply let you use the codebase for anything you wish!

Quote:
Originally Posted by
As I stated above, it is questionable if running a MUD would constitute "performing the work (driver) publicly". What you are displaying is the content running on it (that is what the player sees, right?), which is usually copyrighted by the MUD owner and the MUD developers.
We're talking about Diku here, not LP. LP breaks the mud down into a separate driver and mudlib - but in a Diku, they are both the same thing (the entire game is hardcoded). And yes, the mud developers (not necessarily the owner) would own the copyright to their changes, but the mud itself would be a derivative work.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 05:45 AM   #38
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 30 2006)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
There is no international standard according to which contract or copyright disputes is solidly enforced in every country.
BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)
The Berne convention (which, btw is nowadays handled by WIPO) is not a de facto law. Various provisions of it have been implmented into national legislation, but there are variations. Heck, there are even variations in how copyright is interpretted in different states of the US. To quote an URL you pasted yourself (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#icp):

Quote:
Originally Posted by
There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions.
So yes, there are conventions that simplify things, but there are still big variations at national (and state) level. Feel free to consult any lawyer with international experience in these matters, and I'm pretty sure he/she will concur.

I don't know why I'm really replying to these, as I don't have any personal interest in DIKU's myself, and it feels silly that two laymans with no legal experience is debating over matters like this by providing links and quotes to cases with little to no bearing on this issue. Two geeks (with no experience of litigation) fighting over legal matters is somewhat pointless

Nonetheless, I will (again) try to get ahold of a few lawyers who have worked extensively with international copyright and ipr matters, to get a more experienced opinion than my own. But thus far it seems like the opinions I have gotten from them, are in line with what lawyers have told Matt (IR) and the guys/girls at Medievia, whereas your view is backed by links to generalized documents which doesn't deal with the DIKU case. Guess which I'd bet my money on in a court of law?
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 06:07 AM   #39
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
However "The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights." (ref)

It doesn't cover every country, but the points mentioned here are going to apply to the vast majority of muds currently in operation. Aardwolf and Medievia are both located in the US, for example - and DikuMUD is registered with the US Copyright Office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nonetheless, I will (again) try to get ahold of a few lawyers who have worked extensively with international copyright and ipr matters, to get a more experienced opinion than my own. But thus far it seems like the opinions I have gotten from them, are in line with what lawyers have told Matt (IR) and the guys/girls at Medievia, whereas your view is backed by links to generalized documents which doesn't deal with the DIKU case.
Oh I've heard plenty of people claim they've spoken to lawyers, on all sides of the debate, and the only thing they really have in common is that they all back up what that person wants to hear. The Medievia 'lawyers', for example, supposedly claim that Medievia no longer has to follow any part of the licence. Other lawyers apparently claim that only the 'profit' clause is unenforcable. Other lawyers claim that Diku team have good grounds for legal action should they wish to take it.

The EverQuest situation indicates two important points to me, however: (1) The Diku team are prepared to take action if they feel the situation is worthwhile, and (2) the licence holds sufficient strength that it cannot be simply ignored (like Medievia does) - otherwise the EverQuest people wouldn't have responded the way they did.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2006, 06:54 AM   #40
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 30 2006)
However "The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights." (ref)
There are nonetheless big differences in the copyright legislation of different countries. For example, in Finland it is considered "fair use" to make copies of musical works (not software) for your own personal use (for example, someone lends you an original cd, from which you are then legally allowed to make a copy for personal use), something which to my understanding the US copyright laws do not recognize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oh I've heard plenty of people claim they've spoken to lawyers, on all sides of the debate, and the only thing they really have in common is that they all back up what that person wants to hear.  The Medievia 'lawyers', for example, supposedly claim that Medievia no longer has to follow any part of the licence.  Other lawyers apparently claim that only the 'profit' clause is unenforcable.  Other lawyers claim that Diku team have good grounds for legal action should they wish to take it.
I have no reason to believe that any of the lawyers I have spoken to, would sweettalk me about their view of the DIKU license, given that neither I nor they have any financial interest in it (nor am I paying them to prepare legal statements on the matter). Thus far we've presented claims from lawyers who think the DIKU license is unenforcable (which seems to be a common claim from both my side, IR and Medievia) -- I would love to hear which lawyers have actually claimed that specifically the DIKU team has a good ground for legal action. Maybe you can provide some reference on that (and not a link to documentation about copyrights in general)?
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Aardwolf? - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aardwolf presents - Aardwolf Hold'em! Filt MUD Announcements 0 09-05-2005 06:34 PM
These forums, Aardwolf, and me the_logos Tavern of the Blue Hand 24 11-06-2003 03:57 PM
A Brief Dissection of Aardwolf Rundvelt Advertising for Players 1 10-27-2003 11:58 AM
Go Aardwolf! Terloch Tavern of the Blue Hand 30 10-26-2003 04:27 AM
Aardwolf Mud Jaenelle Advertising for Players 1 10-13-2003 08:41 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014