[Spoke]

Threshold wrote:
the_disciple replied:

I personally know at least half a dozen people who were in college with me as physics and math students who live of designing software and applications. None of them had a full CE or Software Design education, most did not have anything beyond basic C/C++ clases required of all students.

The thing is, all these people taught themselves how to code in all the other languages they program in, one of them has worked for 3 multinationals already as regional head of Computer Design division.

So, I think Threshold's example was far from ridiculous or idiotic, specially since the person to first use the annalogy was KaViR not him.

[cron0s]

My first paid job on leaving college was as a welfare rights advisor and advocate. Despite having no formal legal training I was quickly working directly with legislation to prepare appeals and then presenting them before legal tribunals. It certainly wasn't easy, but I managed just fine and was regarded as a successful advocate by other legal professionals.

My point is that individual examples don't really do much to sway the argument either way. The 'Software Design vs. The Law' complexity argument is completely pointless. Who can say? Who really cares? It's just another distraction for KaVir and Threshold to flame each other over...

[Valg]

It is not a necessary evil. We uphold the letter of the DIKU license as well as the expressed intent of the DIKU team regarding how they wish it to work. We cover our expenses with voluntary donations and/or the purchase of out-of-game merchandise.

I think you're correct in saying that you shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as Medievia, because you're working with Hans and acknowledging the team's contributions as you do so. <moderator edited stuff out here.>
It's a respectful way to manage the transition from a DIKU-base game to one that will allow you to continue operating as a pay-for-perks game. But no one forced your hand to take things in that direction-- other solutions exist, and it's disingenuous to say it was "necessary".

[Spoke]

[the_logos]

Sorry about the recent lack of moderation. I haven't been on this thread for a couple of days. I've gone through and moderated the heck out of the last few pages, deleting some posts, editing insults or over-the-top invective out of others. I think the thrust of the arguments is still there in any case.

--matt

[the_logos]

Well, making a profit has not been interpreted as giving out virtual benefits in exchange of money. Generating revenue is not profit.

I think you're right though: If you assumed it was profit (again, I and, as far as I'm aware, all tax law, rejects the idea that simple revenue = profit) there'd be no difference between selling a virtual sword (that isn't part of DIKU, but part of your code) and selling a sticker or a character sheet. There's a difference in terms of in-game impact, but the DIKU license doesn't mention in-game impact nor does it imply that it's at all concerned with the distinction, so it's hard to see how that's relevant.

--matt

[KaVir]

I know this has been discussed before, and I'm pretty sure I remember you disagreeing with it, but this is the reasoning that is generally applied to the situation:

Stickers, t-shirts, mugs, and other things completely outside of the game do not infringe the Diku copyright, and thus they fall outside the scope of the licence (unless they've got Diku code printed on them or something equally silly). Obviously you could still have problems if your theme infringes on another copyrighted work (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc).

By the same reasoning, I could sell you the data file for a virtual sword which I'd created, and you could then use that data on your own mud. I could even sell you the entire area file (assuming I'd written it all myself). Once again, if the area was based on another copyrighted work, there could be problems, although these wouldn't be Diku-related.

But selling a virtual item within the game itself assigns it a value separate from that of the raw data or creative effort involved. And that value is something specific to the mud in which the item exists. The reasoning, therefore, is that you're selling something of value within the game itself.

[Valg]

In a similar vein to what KaVir mentions, DIKU owners can sell advertising on their websites, copyright their logos, contents, and images, incorporate themselves as nonprofits, etc. The changes we made (like all our areas) belong to us and fall under our own copyrights.

ROM's author once summarized the license as "Make no financial gains from this, and give credit where it is due." We follow that closely-- Carrion Fields pockets none of the donations or proceeds from merchandise, and routes it all into maintaining and upgrading the equipment needed to run it.

[Soleil]

I've answered this before.  Vryce and the rest of our god staff do not care about this issue.   Thousands of Medievia players do not care about this issue.  The DIKU authors do not care about this issue.  The only people who care about this issue are the ones posting to this thread and probably a few others who frequent TMC.  Why in the world should we turn our code over for inspection to please a handful of other MUD admins that have been on this tired crusade for over 10 years?  We don't care about pleasing you.  We would much rather spend our time pleasing our players by developing and expanding Medievia.

[Shane]

[Anitra]

[Soleil]

Don't mistake me, we CARE about Medievia's code. We don't care about the crap that 10 people on these forums harp over year after year.

[Soleil]

I know I've said this before but I like posting on these boards. I like reading them and responding and so forth. Plus I'm the only one from Medievia who comes to this site and I figure someone should read the MUD site forums regularly. Call it part of my Mediedvia job so to speak. In the end though it's intellectually engaging and good fun.

And btw, I'm not the one who starts these threads.

[DonathinFrye]

I always enjoy, ironically, this argument. There are only so many active forum posters. Those that do post frequently can be compared via percentages on their opinions on Medievia's ethics/running of its MUD. Even if it is only 20-30ish posters who typically have commented on Medievia, a lot more forum users read these forums. Moreover, many of the most active forum users here are admins of their own MUDs(many of them large MUDs), and assuredly their opinion of Medievia is fed back inevitably into their own games via forums and chat channels and general consensus.

I have to wonder howmuch larger Medievia would be if it just played nice with the rest of its community a little. I guess we'll never know, though - I've read Vryce's conversations with other staff members and such, via AOL Instant Messenger, and it seems very unlikely that he'd be willing to make even the smallest of concessions to try to make peace with the rest of the community.

Don't downplay the opinions of a couple dozen people, when those people effect a much larger community's point-of-view.

[Soleil]

[John]

Again I repeat, no-one but you thinks this a valid point. You can argue it until you're blue, you'll just be ignored for the most part. If you think this is a valid argument towards those who defend the DIKU license, you're completely missing their point.

[DonathinFrye]

Sol - if it wasn't AIM, it was some sort of similar messenger; it was posted in the forums, so it wasn't some secret that I read it.

---

The community is very large, Sol - if I thought it would make a difference, I could easily enough send a petition out to various MUDs and forums and get a large amount of people to sign a form saying that they do care about the DIKU Licensing issue and do not agree with Medievia's breaking of it.

If I did that, though, would it change anything? If I got enough people to sign, would you credit the originators of your MUD's code-base? Would you co-operate with the rest of the community? I have the feeling the answer is no, but correct me if I am wrong.

[KaVir]

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was an in-game channel of some sort (hero talk, or immortal chat, or something similar).

[Threshold]

And by "many" you mean 3 people. Looks like you're using the same math as you use to add up your "mud community" support.

And please go back and read my posts. I never said you had to be a professional to DISCUSS an issue. I said when it comes to an issue like the law, a non-professional shouldn't speak with absolute certainty just because they ran a few google searches. That's irresponsible and totally destroys their credibility.

[Murpe]

From a hosting perspective, if someone wrote to the co-location site that said game was doing something illegal (i.e. license violations, etc), I pretty much would think that co-lo site would put a block on the game server access (both physical and net-connection wise) until the problem is resolved rather than face legal or public/community confontation against the co-lo site for supporting such a so-called business entity.

Just my $0.02 worth.

-- M