[prof1515]

Originally Posted by locke No, that's just not how the law works. I suggest reviewing the information at Stanford posted earlier about transformative works. Also, your claims that I "leeched work" are unfounded and wouldn't hold weight without evidence. You can make all the outlandish claims you want but without any real hard evidence (of topics in which I have quite thoroughly proven the opposite) it won't be considered as fact.

The post on transformative works has already been proven not to apply to your theft.

Your claims of authorship and thus ownership are not proven by any evidence and in light of your similar claims regarding YouTube are highly subject to doubt.

Just as a prosecutor must prove guilt, copyright requires evidence to prove that one has legitimate claim of ownership. You have not established any evidence to that effect that wasn't created by you after the fact and in denial of the facts, namely the fact that you used Diku in violation of the license.

...other people don't seem to take pot shots at my ego while delivering their retorts.

I must admit to a certain perverse pleasure at deflating the egos of narcissists. Watching a person with a hyper-inflated opinion of themself flail against reality is slightly enjoyable, even more so when that person is an ass. Thus in your case it's very enjoyable. It's with a grin that I know you will seeth and that your egomaniacal need to maintain your delusional view of the world will result in your compulsion to respond.

Because I'm not wrong, not "everybody" sees it your way....

So far I haven't seen anyone agree with your claims. If someone does agree (any of your possible multiple personalities are disqualified) then, by all means, name them.


*listens to the crickets chirping*

[Threshold]

This thread is made out of win.

[Delerak]

Locke reminds me of those guys on Judge Judy who keep trying to talk and she just says, "Shut up, I'm talking!".

Haha. And then the verdict is rendered by law and he still refuses to accept it.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by locke As a transformative work, it does not have to follow the license. A transformative work is one that is significantly different than what it was based on. For this reason, I do not have to follow the license.

Here's an article you may find of interest: Digital Law Online: New Software from Old

In particular, the first and last paragraphs of the Piecewise Reimplementation section:

"Many people have reimplemented computer programs by rewriting them to replace the source code with code of their own writing. There is no reason to believe that this would not be a copyright infringement, particularly if the reimplementer had access to the source code of the original program, even if none of the original source code remains."

"Even if you completely replace the program with new code, nonliteral elements also protected by the original program’s copyright are likely to remain and infringe – elements like the overall program structure or architecture and data structures that are not dictated by external or efficiency considerations. Although there is no case law on this point, it would seem that the only way to break the chain of infringing works is by some extraordinary act, such as a clean room implementation."

[dentin]

Locke,

I've done copyright research and analysis for a very large company with the team of lawyers collectively known as the Nazgul, and they were VERY explicit about this matter. Your work is clearly derivative, and claims otherwise would fall flat immediately in an american court of law.

It's problems like this that make me thankful over and over that I actually wrote AA from scratch. It was worth the extra effort.

-dentin
Alter Aeon MUD - An Online RPG

[Parnassus]

Originally Posted by KaVir You copied the Diku-derived source code into another file, leaving out only the copyright notice. That is the same as removing the copyright notices.

But doesn't this mean he removed the code from the copyright rather than the copyright from the code? Of course though, this is probably the same thing to any REASONABLE...um, no, sorry...

Moving on, I hadn't heard of this transformative vs derivative thing before so I find this discussion very interesting. I admit that I can see what fanfic writers are getting at but using it in different context confuses me.

Does this mean that if I removed an engine from a parked car, removed the car and left the engine there, then bought an engine and placed it in the car, it becomes a transformative car? Or would I need to keep the engine, take it apart and replace most of the parts before putting it back in the car?

[WarHound]

Originally Posted by Threshold This thread is made out of win.

Agreed. I don't understand half the legalese here, but I get the jist of it which boils down to "Uh huh!" followed by "Nuh uh!" and then in a big circle.

Good stuff, guys.

I also invented fire. Prometheus is just a thief and a LIAR. He owes me billions by now.

[Zivilyn]

This does actually bring up a question to me, if I create a new source file in my game, do I then go and put Diku/Merc credits at the top of it? (I mean an honestly NEW source, not just chopping up parts of act_wiz.c and putting them into new files ;p).
IE. Say I write behavioral code for a mob AI and put it in behave.c, should I then put the Diku/Merc/Rom credits at the top of that file as well?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Zivilyn This does actually bring up a question to me, if I create a new source file in my game, do I then go and put Diku/Merc credits at the top of it? (I mean an honestly NEW source, not just chopping up parts of act_wiz.c and putting them into new files ;p).

Creating a new file doesn't guarantee that it won't be a derivative (as it might include code copied in whole or part from elsewhere), but if you've written it from scratch without conscious copying then IMO you shouldn't add the Diku copyright notice to that file.

[Baram]

That file wouldn't need it, but if ANY piece (even one line) of the whole game was taken from DIKU then it is a derivative and must follow the license (put them in the credits, etc). I look at it in the same way that the USG does security classification, if I have a 100 page document and 1 sentance is SECRET then the whole document is SECRET (and I just mark which one is, ie put the DIKU license on that page of the source).

[locke]

Originally Posted by Baram That file wouldn't need it, but if ANY piece (even one line) of the whole game was taken from DIKU then it is a derivative and must follow the license (put them in the credits, etc). I look at it in the same way that the USG does security classification, if I have a 100 page document and 1 sentance is SECRET then the whole document is SECRET (and I just mark which one is, ie put the DIKU license on that page of the source).

Maybe you should read about how fair use applies considering what you have said is not true. If it was true, the use of the function "str_cmp()" would mean that any program using str_cmp() would be under the Diku license. It's not the case. The function "str_cmp()" in Diku is licensed under Diku, but is actually taken from another library and placed into the Diku source when it was released as Merc to avoid compatibility problems. However, it's part of the body of work of DikuMUD now. So if I use "str_cmp()" and fail to credit Diku, or Merc, or whomever, it's basically not possible to contend that the newly licensed software is somehow "violating" Diku licensing and the new software is not required to follow the Diku license at all.

[Samson]

Then you should have thought of that before stealing the code, yes?

[locke]

Originally Posted by Samson Then you should have thought of that before stealing the code, yes?

I was referring to his example where he says, erroneously, that even a single line of code requires a license. It just isn't done that way, otherwise new media works wouldn't be able to quote older media works.

Stop making unfounded claims about "theft" - again, a word that Hans Henrik Staerfeldt doesn't even use to describe "violating a software license". And no, this is not an admission but merely an observation that your two remaining braincells are having difficulty making.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by locke Maybe you should read about how fair use applies considering what you have said is not true.

The fair use doctrine allows you to use limited portions of a work for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. It's not there to let you strip the copyright notices from someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

[Baram]

Now you're grasping at straws. What is func str_cmp()? Is a function written by the Diku team as part of Diku, or is it part of some library they used (which would have its own license, or be released into the public domain).

I'm quite sure it is the later. In which case if you take the line from Diku where they call that function, then THAT line is under the Diku license.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by locke Stop making unfounded claims about "theft" - again, a word that Hans Henrik Staerfeldt doesn't even use to describe "violating a software license". And no, this is not an admission but merely an observation that your two remaining braincells are having difficulty making.

As soon as the claims become unfounded, me and my two brain cells (which are doing just fine, thanks) will stop making them.

This isn't really about trying to get you to change. It's about making sure other people who might unwittingly believe your lies don't get burned at the stake later as code thieves if someone comes along to work on their stuff and sees the credits have all been stripped.

[locke]

Originally Posted by Baram Now you're grasping at straws. What is func str_cmp()? Is a function written by the Diku team as part of Diku, or is it part of some library they used (which would have its own license, or be released into the public domain). I'm quite sure it is the later. In which case if you take the line from Diku where they call that function, then THAT line is under the Diku license.

Still doesn't provide enough substance to warrant following a Diku license.

if ( !str_cmp(buf, "open") ) return buf;

on its own, is not owned by Diku. Diku Group -- not the university -- owns the body of work called DikuMUD. It's not the Diku license, but the Diku Group's license. Anyway, go on living in your delusion, I'm outta here. *wave*

[Samson]

Actually it's been said more than once that the license is the way it is because they used university resources to develop the codebase. So it could well be the university's license.

In either case, you're still a code thief for violating that license no matter who actually has controlling interest in it.

[locke]

Originally Posted by Samson Actually it's been said more than once that the license is the way it is because they used university resources to develop the codebase. So it could well be the university's license. In either case, you're still a code thief for violating that license no matter who actually has controlling interest in it.

Except, even the owner of DikuMUD who still works at the university said calling me a thief is just plain wrong.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by locke Except, even the owner of DikuMUD who still works at the university said calling me a thief is just plain wrong.

Except for how you're full of crap because they both called Vryce a thief for doing the same thing you did. Stripping credits. The fact that Vryce then started charging money for stuff wasn't relevant.

BTW, thought you said you were leaving? Oh, that's right, you lied again. How nice.