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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-23-2009, 01:18 AM   #41
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Which brings us back to the point that you cannot retroactively change a license someone agreed to in the past unless that license contains a clause specifying that the user must comply with any future changes to the license.

You also can't revoke one someone agrees to in the past without a clause allowing for such a revocation.

In either case you cannot impose new terms.

People downloading and agreeing to your new terms would have to comply, but then they'd be complete fools to do such a thing given your track record.
Samson is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 04:44 AM   #42
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
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Which brings us back to the point that you cannot retroactively change a license someone agreed to in the past unless that license contains a clause specifying that the user must comply with any future changes to the license.
We've discussed this before, and it's not as simple as either of you (Samson or Locke) appear to make out. A bare licence can be revoked at will, but a contractual licence, or a licence coupled with an interest, cannot. Even lawyers disagree on whether or not open source licences (such as the GPL) are bare licences, so I don't think we're likely to reach any consensus about the NiMUD licence.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the software in question appears to be a joint authorship, but we don't know whether it was one or both authors who issued the original licence, nor to whom the other author's rights were transferred when he died.

There just isn't enough information or legal precedent to give a clear answer. We can only speculate.
KaVir is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 05:53 AM   #43
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

https://hp.sys-con.com/node/49064
Quote:
although a bare license (like the GPL) can be revoked because it's not a contract for which consideration has been received (typically a payment), the law would recognize that the user's dependence on the software substitutes for that consideration, so that in practical terms the license couldn't be revoked
Yes, we've been over this before, and the above statement sounds about like something that was said during the last hashing of the issue of bare licenses. I have to think that a snippet getting released and becoming pervasive more or less satisfies the dependence issue on that snippet.

The bigger question still lingers around weather Locke even has the copyright on that big list of stuff to be dictating license terms to begin with.
Samson is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 07:03 AM   #44
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
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I have to think that a snippet getting released and becoming pervasive more or less satisfies the dependence issue on that snippet.
You're talking about promissory estoppel, which is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests (and also a principle of contract law, which may or may not apply in this case). Honestly, this situation is far from clear-cut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The bigger question still lingers around weather Locke even has the copyright on that big list of stuff to be dictating license terms to begin with.
He claims credit for so many things (and attempts to rewrite history so freqently) that it's practically impossible to say for sure, and really difficult to even guess. I know for a fact that GW2 isn't based on any of his work though, so I just delete wiki entries that claim otherwise.
KaVir is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 07:58 AM   #45
Samson
Member
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Socialist States of America
Home MUD: SmaugMuds.org
Home MUD: Arthmoor MUD Hosting
Posts: 249
Samson is on a distinguished road
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Promissory estoppel certainly seems to be mentioned a lot in relation to bare licenses - both the real property version and the copyright version. So I don't really think it's as non-applicable as you may think.

He's made the same sorts of claims against Smaug too and Thoric had to chase him around for awhile removing bogus wiki edits trying to claim credit for Smaug's OLC too.

Considering who we're dealing with here I'm almost wondering if Chris wrote the code and Locke is only claiming credit for the work knowing the dead guy can't dispute the claim. May seem a bit ghoulish, but, well, Locke.
Samson is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 09:02 AM   #46
prof1515
Senior Member
 
prof1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Illinois
Posts: 791
prof1515 will become famous soon enoughprof1515 will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to prof1515 Send a message via Yahoo to prof1515
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Makes you wonder what he's trying to make up for doesn't it? Parents that don't love him? Inability to get laid? A half-inch erect penis? Also makes you wonder what sets him off on his crusade to spread these false claims every year. Flunking out of remedial English classes? Anniversary of the failure of his only date? Lack of prescription refill due to his psychiatrist's annual vacation?
prof1515 is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 12:31 PM   #47
locke
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Home MUD: nimud.divineright.org 5333
Posts: 195
locke is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
We've discussed this before, and it's not as simple as either of you (Samson or Locke) appear to make out. A bare licence can be revoked at will, but a contractual licence, or a licence coupled with an interest, cannot. Even lawyers disagree on whether or not open source licences (such as the GPL) are bare licences, so I don't think we're likely to reach any consensus about the NiMUD licence.
Ok, first of all a license is a form of contract. Secondly, the bundle of rights that comes with copyright ownership dictate what you can do, and what you are allowed to do is revoke licenses within 40 years of their enactment. See Stanford.edu's Fair Use information for clarification posted somewhere else in another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
The issue is further complicated by the fact that the software in question appears to be a joint authorship, but we don't know whether it was one or both authors who issued the original licence, nor to whom the other author's rights were transferred when he died.
Well, Chris didn't have kids (second generation heirs) so his family (father, mother) get the other 50%. They have expressed to me that it's up to me. They have watched this thread and I'm sure they aren't happy about insults directed at me and his son, especially where people claim that we aren't its authors.

Also, there seems to be some confusion about the term "OLC" - while I did create this term along with Chris, I don't own it as a trademark. However, for historical purposes, I am the first person to call "online building" "online creation".

Stanford Copyright & Fair Use - Copyright Ownership: Who Owns What?

Headings Results
locke is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 01:30 PM   #48
Crystal
Member
 
Crystal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Name: Crystal
Location: Maryland
Home MUD: Advent of the Mists
Posts: 126
Crystal is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Crystal
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Personally, I give credit just because it's the right thing to do. I don't know why it's a big issue either. A MUD that claims code as their own vs a MUD that credits the originators is no better or worse than each other.
Crystal is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 01:51 PM   #49
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
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
Ok, first of all a license is a form of contract.
No, it isn't. It's possible for a licence to also be a contract, but that isn't necessarily the case. Note that while a bare licence can be revoked at any time, the same is not true of a contract.

You might find this of interest: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch04.pdf

"A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked. The term interest in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration–a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law–in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of consideration and promissory estoppel are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable."

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
Secondly, the bundle of rights that comes with copyright ownership dictate what you can do, and what you are allowed to do is revoke licenses within 40 years of their enactment.
Within 40 years, but after 35 years. See here: Copyright Termination (Copyright Licenses and Assignments: Termination of Licenses, ReversionRights, Copyright Recapture, Terminating Copyright Assignments, Literary Estates, Author's Heirs)

"Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, says that a copyright owner (or his or her heirs) can terminate all grants, licenses or transfers of rights (made prior to 1978) beginning on the 56th year after that assignment was made. This allows authors to benefit from laws that extended the term of copyright from 56 years to 95 years. The Copyright Act provides a five year period beginning in the 56th year, in which these grants, licenses and transfers may be terminated."

"Post-1977 grants, such as a songwriter agreement with a music publisher, may be terminated during a five year period beginning 35 years after the grant was made. To exercise the 35-year right of termination, authors must give written notice not less than two or more than ten years from the intended termination date."


If you issued the current licence in 1994, then you can revoke it in 2029.

Last edited by KaVir : 06-23-2009 at 01:58 PM.
KaVir is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 01:53 PM   #50
locke
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Home MUD: nimud.divineright.org 5333
Posts: 195
locke is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
Personally, I give credit just because it's the right thing to do. I don't know why it's a big issue either. A MUD that claims code as their own vs a MUD that credits the originators is no better or worse than each other.
Thanks. I see it pretty much the same way. I tend to favor proper credit, though. However, Fair Use gives people the right to do things that are beyond the Diku license, as these cronies seem to be claiming. What I mean by that is that since its free, and your work is free, it has no measurable impact and one cannot sue for remuneration. You can view transformative works (like NiMUD) as fair use.


From Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use library:

Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes, which are discussed in detail below. It's important to understand that these factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.
The four factors judges consider are:
  1. the purpose and character of your use
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

On transformative works:

1. The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:
  • Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
  • Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Last edited by locke : 06-23-2009 at 02:19 PM.
locke is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 01:58 PM   #51
locke
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Home MUD: nimud.divineright.org 5333
Posts: 195
locke is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
"Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, says that a copyright owner (or his or her heirs) can terminate all grants, licenses or transfers of rights (made prior to 1978) beginning on the 56th year after that assignment was made. This allows authors to benefit from laws that extended the term of copyright from 56 years to 95 years. The Copyright Act provides a five year period beginning in the 56th year, in which these grants, licenses and transfers may be terminated."

If you issued the current licence in 1994, then you can revoke it at any time between 2050 and 2055. I recommend reposting in 41 years.
My license was not issued prior to 1978. Secondly, I have already established what I desire. If you want to please the author(s), then you may do as I desire.

Furthermore, the argument that a derivative of Diku is legally required to place copyright notices modifies federal law. Since no contract nor agreement can modify the law of governance, it is not possible to require the posting of such notices. See:

Quote:
Loss of Copyright From Lack of Copyright Notice
Under copyright laws that were in effect before 1978, a work that was published without copyright notice fell into the public domain. If the work did not include the word "Copyright" or a (c) (a "c" in a circle) and the name of the copyright owner, the work would be injected into the public domain. This rule was repealed and copyright notice is not required for works first published after March 1, 1989 (although works first published prior to that date must still include notice). Just because you find a copy of a book without a copyright notice doesn't mean that the work is in the public domain. It's possible that the copy you are viewing is unauthorized or that the notice has only been removed from a very small number of copies, both of which are excusable. It is also possible that the author followed a copyright law procedure for correcting the error. Finally, if you're using text from a journal, anthology, newsletter or magazine published before March 1, 1989, check to see if there is a copyright notice either for the individual article or for the whole publication. Either type of notice will prevent the work from falling into the public domain.

Last edited by locke : 06-23-2009 at 02:09 PM.
locke is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 02:03 PM   #52
Crystal
Member
 
Crystal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Name: Crystal
Location: Maryland
Home MUD: Advent of the Mists
Posts: 126
Crystal is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Crystal
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
Thanks. I see it pretty much the same way. I tend to favor proper credit, though. However, Fair Use gives people the right to do things that are beyond the Diku license, as these cronies seem to be claiming. What I mean by that is that since its free, and your work is free, it has no measurable impact and one cannot sue for remuneration. You can view transformative works (like NiMUD) as fair use.


From Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use library:

Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes, which are discussed in detail below. It's important to understand that these factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.
The four factors judges consider are:
  1. the purpose and character of your use
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
Well I mainly meant "no better or no worse than each other" as far as quality. A MUD who gives credit vs a MUD who claims all original code are of equal quality in my opinion. I've seen some pretty crappy MUDs with custom codebases, and I've seen some amazing MUDs from a derivative.

I'm against MUD's that don't give proper credit, despite whether or not the license was written perfectly or not. People can interpret licenses many different ways, but common sense dictates that people just want credit for their hard work. And I think people should give it.
Crystal is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 02:28 PM   #53
locke
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Home MUD: nimud.divineright.org 5333
Posts: 195
locke is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
I'm against MUD's that don't give proper credit, despite whether or not the license was written perfectly or not. People can interpret licenses many different ways, but common sense dictates that people just want credit for their hard work. And I think people should give it.
Part of the pervasive argument here is that Jason Dinkel released source code containing the words "Public Domain" -- but The Isles OLC has never been in the public domain and that was his mistaken interpretation of the permission I gave for him to create a 'port' - a port which by the way was made from Merc 2.2 to Merc 2.2 so there is hardly any difference between "The Isles OLC" and "ILAB OLC" except Jason's documentation and credits. So, years later, I am reminding people of what the original agreement was since it appears to no longer be a part of the general community understanding. Back in the day, we credited people if they asked for it and if we used their code in a way using the honor system. Since I only gave it out to certain individuals, they each had their respective licenses, which were all pretty much:

a) Contact me if you are going to use our code (which is why Jason contacted me)
b) Credit us in "HELP CREDITS"
c) Credit us in "HELP VERSION" and/or "HELP THANKS"
d) Credit us in your title sequence

Now, I've chosen to forgive a) since people can't seem to find my email address or something or just don't think about or want to contact me. But, it turns out the same folks won't do b, c, or d either. I can only hope that changes.
locke is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 02:31 PM   #54
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
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
My license was not issued prior to 1978.
I corrected my post the same minute you posted. If you issued your licence in 1994, then you can revoke it in 2029.

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
Secondly, I have already established what I desire. If you want to please the author(s), then you may do as I desire.
My mud doesn't use OLC, I am simply responding to the legal claims (of both sides). If you wish to argue the ethical side then that's a separate issue. However your outright refusal to follow the Diku licence is likely to undermine your ethical arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
Furthermore, the argument that a derivative of Diku is legally required to place copyright notices modifies federal law. Since no contract nor agreement can modify the law of governance, it is not possible to require the posting of such notices.
Er, no, you've got it the wrong way around (and your link is completely irrelevant). It's not possible to remove the copyright notices. See here: U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 5

" 506. Criminal offenses

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500."
KaVir is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 02:38 PM   #55
locke
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Home MUD: nimud.divineright.org 5333
Posts: 195
locke is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
I corrected my post the same minute you posted. If you issued your licence in 1994, then you can revoke it in 2029.
No, because as you have so aptly argued, it is a bare license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
Er, no, you've got it the wrong way around (and your link is completely irrelevant). It's not possible to remove the copyright notices. See here: U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 5

" 506. Criminal offenses

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500."
As established elsewhere, I did not remove them. During the process of creating a separate, transformative work (NiMUD), they were displaced to various other parts of the source code. I've created a new header for each file which emphasizes compliance, only to avoid further disputes.

As for ILAB OLC / The Isles OLC, there were no need to place those notices anywhere because The Isles OLC was original work and is copyrighted.

Last edited by locke : 06-23-2009 at 03:12 PM.
locke is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 02:56 PM   #56
Mabus
Member
 
Mabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Mabus is on a distinguished road
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
People can interpret licenses many different ways, but common sense dictates that people just want credit for their hard work. And I think people should give it.
I agree with this.

Even though the base code I am currently working from is under the Apache license, and the originator/owner of the code has specifically told me I do not need to state anything at login (nor keep any credits of them in files, etc.) I respect the fact that they wrote the code, and so I do both. It seems the "right" thing to do.

But, as Voltaire said, "Common sense is quite rare.".
Mabus is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 03:11 PM   #57
locke
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Home MUD: nimud.divineright.org 5333
Posts: 195
locke is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mabus View Post
But, as Voltaire said, "Common sense is quite rare.".
Noam Chomsky said "There is no such thing as common sense."
locke is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 03:13 PM   #58
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
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
No, because as you have so aptly argued, it is a bare license.
No, what I said was "Even lawyers disagree on whether or not open source licences (such as the GPL) are bare licences, so I don't think we're likely to reach any consensus about the NiMUD licence ... There just isn't enough information or legal precedent to give a clear answer. We can only speculate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by locke View Post
As established elsewhere, I did not remove them.
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.
KaVir is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 03:23 PM   #59
locke
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Home MUD: nimud.divineright.org 5333
Posts: 195
locke is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

As established in a previous discussion, the license is not open source it is proprietary.
locke is offline  
Old 06-23-2009, 03:38 PM   #60
Mabus
Member
 
Mabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Mabus is on a distinguished road
Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaVir View Post
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.
And at that point he violated the DIKU license, removing any permission to modify the DIKU source. Every modification, including additions, to the source from that point on was in violation of the license.
Mabus is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools


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 07:18 PM.


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