Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-29-2006, 09:06 AM   #21
The_Disciple
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 113
The_Disciple is on a distinguished road
While that's certainly Medievia's choice, equally, you shouldn't be too surprised that people who've seen the last audit of the Med code and nothing since are going to (with some justification) assume there's still dirtiness there.

Because the legal aspects of this are pretty much irrelevant, imagine the MUD community as a frontier town with no police or search warrants. The old audit and everything that goes with it are the equivalent of everyone else in the town seeing a missing child enter your house and not come back out. No one in anarchy frontier town can force you to open your house and show them that the kid still isn't there, but until you do, it makes perfect sense for people to assume that she is.

I suspect that you don't care if the MUD community likes you, and that's your choice, but neither should you feel the victim when they attack you over things that are within your control.
The_Disciple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 09:53 AM   #22
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
You're missing the point. The Diku licence is not a contract. If the Diku team decide to take legal action against you, they will do so for copyright infringement. You can then hold up the Diku licence and say "But this gives me permission!". The Diku licence is your defence against lawsuits, not the other way around.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 09:55 AM   #23
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
There's many more, me included, that disagree with the statement, and this even though we're not running DIKU's or even making money from our MUDs. And I don't have any "agenda" as far as Medievia or commercial MUDs are concerned.

In the case of Medievia, the DIKU driver is constantly being put in the spotlight, and all the other work that Medievia has done, is constantly ignored. I'm pretty sure that with the DIKU driver alone, Medievia wouldn't be able to get, nor keep, any paying customers. The reason people chose to play there, is because of all the content and auxiliary systems they themselves have added to the DIKU platform. If they were running yet-another-DIKU-clone with minimal customization, then I would agree that it's a blatant ripoff of the DIKU teams work, but that is not the case.

I find it strange (and also utterly restrictive) that 5% of the sourcecode (26k lines versus over 500k lines), most (if not all) of which has been recoded since, would still affect the use of the whole codebase. I do not think this is what "derivative work" refers to, and I'll reiterate again, that several lawyers have been asked for their opinion (I consulted one who specializes in international IPR litigation) and their professional opinion has been that the DIKU license would not apply in the case of Medievia. (It would apply were I to sell copies of it, and likely if I were to make profit by running a stock DIKU).
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 09:56 AM   #24
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
Well you could probably carry on running the mud, as long as you didn't make it open to the public, make any more changes to it, recompile it, make any backups, move it to a different server, give anyone else a copy, or anything else which is protected by copyright law. For all intents and purposes the mud would be dead, but you could carry on running a private version on your home computer.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 10:04 AM   #25
Valg
Senior Member
 
Valg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Carrion Fields
Posts: 643
Valg will become famous soon enough
In addition to the license issue and other ethical issues, there is an even more clear-cut case of plagiarism with Medievia. They are a DIKU derviative, per US law (Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. §101):

A "derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work''.

In short, it doesn't matter what Medievia has done to modify the DIKU code. A movie based on Hamlet is a derivative work, even if I'm responsible for all the filming, sound, advertising, and I rewrote all the dialogue to conform to 21st-century grammar.

A derivative work, by itself, does not constitute plagiarism. It is the fact that Medievia steadfastly refuses to credit the original authors for the work they are using to make a living.
Valg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 10:04 AM   #26
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
I'm afraid you're mistaken.



COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN A DERIVATIVE WORK

The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a copyright in that material.



Also of interest:

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.

When the first segment of code is rewritten, the new code will be an infringing work if it is substantially similar to the original code, or may be an infringing derivative work if it is a reimplementation in a different programming language. That reimplemented first segment is combined with the remaining parts of the original program to form an intermediate version. Subsequent modifications produce another work. So when you have completed the piecewise reimplementation, you have a set of works, each of whose creation infringes the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright of the original program.

As an analogy, consider the translation of a novel to a different language, something that would clearly be a derivative work. It makes little difference that none of the original words remain, or that the translation was done a little at a time. The resulting translation is still an infringing derivative work.

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.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 10:10 AM   #27
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
I am afraid, KaVir, that you are the one that is mistakened. You keep quoting articles that do not directly deal with the enforcability of this license (and altering the source you are quoting - sometimes from US legislation, sometimes from Australian laws - as you see fit to back your claims). As a matter of fact, you weren't even quoting a section of the law, only a discussion around it.

Enter harsh reality - the implementation of laws is done on a case by case basis in a court of law, by a judge and through professional lawyers. That's how they make their money. It is not done by geeks on the Internet. If IPR and copyright laws really would be as simple and straightforward as just linking in a document, then there would not be any IPR lawsuits to begin with. But in reality, lots of other factors, including the extent of the infringement, limiting and aggravating factors, the wording of any license agreements etc *IS* taken into consideration.
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 10:18 AM   #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
No, I am not.  I have provided several quotes from different locations, along with the appropriate links, while the best you can come up with is some fictional "lawyer" who gives advice which goes against copyright law.  If you're going to continue responding, at least have the good manners to provide sources instead of just making them up.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 10:24 AM   #29
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
The piecewise implementation (well, especially the Clean Room approach) deal with how to cover your back against copyright litigation. It is not stated, that failing to do so, automatically makes you guilty of copyright infringement.

In the case of piecewise reimplementation, one very relevant issue is how significantly the code has changed. If all that remains from the original code is the function name (to assure compatibility) but the whole internal working of the function itself has changed, then I do not see how the author would not own the copyright for the change. Naturally this does not apply to minor modifications (change a few variable names etc).

The author himself states why the piecewise reimplementation is problematic:
Hence, if you rewrite the code and do not utilize the existing program structure, architecture and/or data structures, but rather rebuild the whole function (or module), then it shouldn't matter if a Clean room approach has been used or not (although a Clean room approach makes it easier to prove that the author did not rely on the existing source).
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 10:25 AM   #30
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
The only thing fictional, is your idea of being somekind of expert in the IPR area.

Just to recap:
I have discussed the DIKU license with a lawyer.
Medievia has discussed the DIKU license with a lawyer.
Matt has discussed the DIKU license with a lawyer.

You have:
Quoted links that do not deal with the enforcability of the DIKU license, and refuse to accept that IPR litigation consists of much more than quoting a few sources on the Internet or even a clause from the law. IPR litigation is always decided on a case-by-case basis, based on evidence presented, mitigating factors and financial harm caused. In addition, you want to claim that all of us are just liars. Good game, snap out of your dreamworld.
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 11:14 AM   #31
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
Which is exactly what would happen if the Diku team took the case to court.

Yet, to quote the article, "There is no reason to believe that this would not be a copyright infringement".

No, it's not - did you even read what I posted? "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"

> I have discussed the DIKU license with a lawyer.

You claim many things. You claim to have no interest in Diku or Medievia. Yet you also claim to have hired a lawyer for legal advice on both. And the advice you claim to have received is directly opposed to the wording of the law. It seems pretty obvious that you're lying, I just can't work out why. Is it to try and look clever? Or perhaps you have some related interest in the licence of the LP driver you're using?
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 11:35 AM   #32
Valg
Senior Member
 
Valg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Carrion Fields
Posts: 643
Valg will become famous soon enough
I quoted the US Copyright law directly, above. (Medievia operates within the US.) I also consulted the patent attorney assigned to me at my (US) day job a while ago, and they immediately recommended a documented clean-room implementation for creating a variant of any existing software. Anything else is a derivative work.
Valg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 03:23 PM   #33
The_Disciple
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 113
The_Disciple is on a distinguished road
Speaking only for myself, I don't care about the law in this case. It's a question of ethics, not legality, since it's already pretty well established that the DIKU team is never going to sue.

Whether charges are pressed or not, stealing is still wrong. The better commercial games are above it and provide their players with a wholly original vision and implementation.
The_Disciple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 03:34 PM   #34
DonathinFrye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Name: Donathin Frye
Location: Columbus, OH
Home MUD: Optional Realities
Home MUD: Atonement RPI
Home MUD: Project Redshift
Posts: 510
DonathinFrye is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DonathinFrye

I'll stand on the outside of the "law" side of the argument, as I have no particularly new insight or speciality on internet software law.

However, I'll recap some points I have made:
The large vocal majority of the MUD community have, over the past few years, shunned Medievia and called it unethical. Certainly the MUD has survived(and made some money) despite this - however, the social barriers set forth in various online text-mmorpg communities have created obstacles and (at the very, very least) social awareness of something our community has deemed as unethical.

You are more than allowed to defend their socially unacceptable activities within our community - just as I could vocally lobby for the abolishment of womens' rights within the American workforce. However, both of us(in our given communities) would meet strong social resistance. Welcome to basic laws of sociology, a subject in which I am considered informed to speak on.

Grouping yourself together with Matt and Medievia(arguably the two most accessable symbols of questionable ethics within the MUD-Community), also brings your own opinion and value-set into the line of ethical fire. Your own agenda or angle are fuzzy, but not particularly important to understand in order to further this conversation.

It is important to understand that scrutiny and judgement is a natural social reaction to actions that take place outside of what our given community has decided is ethical action.
DonathinFrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 08:08 PM   #35
nhl
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
nhl is on a distinguished road
If litigation was as simple as you imply, IPR trials would be done as 30 minute drive-in litigation, instead of the lengthy processes they are today.

If DIKU would sue Medievia in the US, which has a legal system based on case law, from my layman perspective, here is roughly what would follow:
1. DIKU claims that Medievia is violating the copyright license by making profit of the DIKU teams work, and by not providing credit. To which Medivia counterclaims that:
  a) the DIKU license is too restrictive, and therefore can not be legally enforced,
  b) the DIKU licenses claims about non-profitability were based on the university's demand, to which Medivia is not a party,
  c) that Medievia is making profit based on their own proprietary work, not that of DIKU. Further, Medievia would likely claim that their code is significantly and materially different from DIKU, and that therefore it can not be considered a derivative work.

I hope we can all somewhat agree that this is the most likely path, should it ever reach a trial?

What happens after this? For claims a) and b), the court would probably hear expert testimony from both sides. For c) the court would hear witness testimony from Medievia about their development model and the amount of work they have put in to the development. It is also likely that for c) the judge would order a code review to find significant overlaps between the DIKU codebase and Medievia.

Once all this has been done, the court would have somekind of idea to which direction the case is leaning. Then enters the case law. In the US, litigation is based on more than just the law. As part of any trial, lawyers and the judge references previous cases in the same field. If there are no such cases, then in order to pass verdict, the court takes into account not only the law, the intent of the law, but also its impact on society. For example, a court would not be likely to impose a sentence that severely limits commercial interests in that area, unless it can be shown that the commercial interests are causing direct damage to the other party.

For some legal cases that a court might see as precedents, please refer to Valens posts on the mudmagic boards from 2004, especially , and . Overall, Valens makes a pretty realistic argument from a litigation point of view - I think we, as programmers, need to remind ourselves that litigation is less black-and-white and less absolute than what we are used to.

I haven't claimed that I have hired a lawyer. I have said that I have spoken with one that specializes in IPR. There's a big difference between hiring one, and discussing out of general curiosity about the issue. Outside of general curiosity (and the feeling that this yearlong battle of personalities is silly), I do not have an interest in DIKU (I don't like the engine myself) or Medievia (never played it, I likely never will).

You claim many things too. But you, on the other hand, do have a direct interest in this case. You have publicly stated that Medievia has been part of a crime, that they have participated in theft. Were this case ever found in the favor of Medievia, they would have a quite strong case of libel against you.

I'm not lying (and I think it's a childish personal attack to claim that I am, something which has no place in a public debate), I am only reiterating my understanding of matters as explained to me by someone who should understand these things alot better than I personally do. Does it mean that I can't be wrong? Ofcourse not, the only one who seems to assert absolute authority on IPR matters (despite having no qualifications for doing so), is you. The legal system is complex, and as I've stated above, litigation takes into account many other factors than just the written law. Which is why you'll find that even legal specialists have split opinions on many IPR cases.

This case has nothing to do with LP drivers. I'm purely participating in this conversation out of personal curiosity. I'm especially curious about the "clean room" debate. Why? Because it has a big implication on software development in general, and if a "clean room" piecemal implementation would be required to avoid automatic copyright infringement, then how does that relate to open source? There's thousands of open source projects available - if a commercial venture were to write their own webserver that emulates the apache interface to PHP, would they automatically be infringing on the Apache copyrights unless they can prove the development was done in a clear room environment? I would certainly hope not, usually the burden of proof in legal cases has been on the plaintiff.

Another example of the "Clean room" problem. In the recent SCO versus (insert basically anybody), SCO claimed that parts of Linux (SMP, JFS, LVM etc) was based on SCO's copyrighted code. Linus Torvalds and OSI called for SCO to disclose which parts of Linux infringed on SCO's IPR so that those could be rewritten. As the sourcecode of these functions is openly available, it would (under your broad definition of derivative work) mean that Linux would be irrepairably tainted for practical purposes, if SCOs claim would hold up.


Legal arguments aside, I think it's unethical to strip out the credits from DIKU, even if one claims to have rewritten the whole thing. A few lines of "We thank XYZ for their work" is certainly not a big demand. My ethical position on the other issue, that of making profit from Medievia, is a bit more complex. Looking at a totally ethical perspective, the best solution would have been had Medievia and the DIKU team found some common ground and maybe even agreed on somekind of revenue sharing. Failing that, as I don't have access to Medievia's current sourcecode, I will have to give Vryce & co the benefit of a doubt that they have indeed rewritten the whole underlying driver as they claim to have, and that it's therefore not my thing to throw stones and sticks at them. I also argue, that Medivia and co make their profit from running Medivia (as in all the custom work they have done), not from running DIKU.

If this position somehow groups me with Matt and Medievia (I didn't know they were in the same group even), and means that my opinion and value-set come into the line of ethical fire (is this somekind of lame threat?), then so be it. To me, it only says that you are unable to deal with the fact that these issues are complex and that just because people disagree, doesn't make either party unethical.
nhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 08:47 PM   #36
Kylotan
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Nottingham, UK
Home MUD: Abattoir (Smaug)
Home MUD: ex-Jellybean (Smaug)
Home MUD: ex-Dark Chambers (Merc)
Posts: 174
Kylotan is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Kylotan Send a message via AIM to Kylotan Send a message via MSN to Kylotan Send a message via Yahoo to Kylotan
In the case of (a), Medievia would almost certainly be ruled against. If the license is found to be totally invalid then it's going to revert to their basic fair use rights, and fair use doesn't come close to letting you use substantial portions of someone else's copyrighted work for material gain.

Even if the license is 'too restrictive', the fact that Medievia have paid nothing for it works against them (ie. DIKU owes them no reciprocal consideration in this regard) and the existence of other successful MUD systems further works against them (in that they can't claim that their inability to accept the flawed DIKU license is a significant barrier to them entering the market).

Remember, a license is a limited exception to a copyright holder's exclusive rights. The only way you typically get more rights than the license gives you is if statute somehow reserves those rights for you (eg. backups for personal use, quotations for review or parody purposes, etc). You don't suddenly gain all rights just because there is a problem with the license.

In the case of (b), this is irrelevant. Any license may have implied 3rd parties who have a bearing on the wording and intent of the license. The fact that the 3rd party is mentioned in the license is a distraction but it doesn't change the enforceability of the previous sentences. At no point does it claim to try and enter you into a contract with that 3rd party. It's purely informational.

And in the case of ©, the definition of derivative work is really quite well defined by now. If it can be shown that they've not rewritten the code from scratch in isolation from DIKU - simply rewriting around the old code until it's all replaced is not enough - then they lose on this count as well.

Of course, these things are heard case by case, but to win this they would really need the case to be heard by a pretty inept or corrupt judge.
Kylotan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 08:56 PM   #37
John
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 252
John is on a distinguished road
To all those citing the law to say Medievia has done something wrong: If the US passed laws tomorrow making what you believe Medievia did/is doing legal, would you change your opinion and say they're doing nothing wrong? If not, why bother bringing up the law anyway?
John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 09:34 PM   #38
DonathinFrye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Name: Donathin Frye
Location: Columbus, OH
Home MUD: Optional Realities
Home MUD: Atonement RPI
Home MUD: Project Redshift
Posts: 510
DonathinFrye is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to DonathinFrye
You misunderstand - I make no threats, I merely explain the rules of sociology, which your arguments do not take into account. Ethics are defined by a specific society's norms, and our text-mmorpg society has vastly decided(and vehemetly defends their stance on this) that making profit on a DIKU derived game, or otherwise breaking the license of the DIKU team is not socially acceptable, or ethical.

Law does not equal ethics - otherwise, Chaos would reign supreme. The checks and balances for this statement are that society can define its own ethics, without the need of execution of law.
DonathinFrye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 11:37 PM   #39
Lark
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 45
Lark is on a distinguished road
Well, everything aside (I refuse to set foot in that legal jungle), I think the attitude is what's turning me off to claims against Medievia.

I don't know if it's just the way text looks when you make an insult, but when I first got wind of this Medievia thing I felt like I was walking into a room full of people calling a woman 'slut' to her face.

I guess I'm just a layman, but it just seems like they've put an awful lot of work into it to call them thieves. Medievia, the game and concept, is something they did themselves. The Diku driver was just the motor the kept it running. And now, they say, they've constructed it to the point where even that's been replaced by something of their own design.

I'd understand better if using Diku meant that they'd just attached a price tag to a free, pre-assembled mud with content out-of-the-box, but the driver's just a tool to achieve an end with, not the end in itself. If I use a hammer and chisel to make a statue, do I owe someone for their use? Should I have to figure out a new way every time, and make sure the next does it, too?

Especially, in this case, for a mud driver, of all things. I sincerely doubt anyone's become a millionaire in muds, even the feared and notorious Matt. I still have a hard time believing that a commercial mud would break even, to be honest.

(On a side note, I don't know if any of our pay-mud administrators would care to volunteer information about their own lifestyles/financial situation, but it might ease people's minds. I'm curious myself. PM me to be interviewed for Lifestyles of the Blind and Sleepless.)

The only real bone I'd have to pick with Medievia, if I in fact thought it was my business to, would be in whatever credit they may owe these DIKU boys from Medievia's earlier history. Aside from that, though, to me the rest is just business and legal junk.
Lark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2006, 01:41 AM   #40
The_Disciple
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 113
The_Disciple is on a distinguished road
I strongly doubt that.

For libel, it's not enough to prove that someone wrote falsehoods -- you also need to prove that they knew it.

So you'd need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavir knew Medievia wasn't guilty of theft but was alleging it anyway.

Since there's an ass-ton of documentation that Kavir believes what he's alleging, it would be difficult to prove that he doesn't.
The_Disciple is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


The DIKU license - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diku license the_logos Legal Issues 86 07-27-2007 08:31 AM
DIKU License Revisited xanes Legal Issues 14 07-27-2007 08:16 AM
What if there had never been DIKU? Threshold Tavern of the Blue Hand 24 05-26-2006 07:43 PM
original Diku? david Advertising for Players 0 02-16-2006 02:26 AM
Diku License -- Facts? tresspassor Legal Issues 1 08-15-2002 04:00 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 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2022