[KaVir]

Originally Posted by The piecewise implementation (well, especially the Clean Room approach) deal with how to cover your back against copyright litigation.

Which is exactly what would happen if the Diku team took the case to court.

Originally Posted by It is not stated, that failing to do so, automatically makes you guilty of copyright infringement.

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

Originally Posted by In the case of piecewise reimplementation, one very relevant issue is how significantly the code has changed.

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?

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (nhl @ April 29 2006,11:10) 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.

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.

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (nhl @ April 29 2006,11:10) 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.

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.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[nhl]

Originally Posted by Which is exactly what would happen if the Diku team took the case to court. 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"

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 this thread, and this one. 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.

Originally Posted by > 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ Apr 29) 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.

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.

[Kylotan]

Originally Posted by (nhl @ April 29 2006,21:08) 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?

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.

[John]

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?

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Lark]

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.

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (nhl @ April 29 2006,21:08) Were this case ever found in the favor of Medievia, they would have a quite strong case of libel against you.

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]

Originally Posted by (Lark @ April 30 2006,00:37) If I use a hammer and chisel to make a statue, do I owe someone for their use?

To take your analogy, it's like if a friend of yours loaned you his hammer and chisel for free to make a statue with, because you didn't have your own. And maybe he's like, "Hey, buddy, I'm happy to lend you my hammer and chisel, but if you make a great statue, tell people I helped you out, okay?"

I mean, if you don't want to, you could buy your own hammer and chisel. Maybe you think your buddy is a little weird that he wants you to tell people that you borrowed his hammer and chisel. You've got that choice. But it's kind of a jerky thing to do to instead take what he loaned you out of the kindness of his heart and then disrespect his wishes.

I think that's part of why people get so up in arms about it -- they feel like the DIKU team isn't asking for a lot for what they provided, and that it's a real slap in the face to not give them their tiny bit of due.

[The_Disciple]

Edit: Damn my accidental double-posting.

[Anitra]

To me the 'legal' discussion is pretty irrelevant, since none of you are qualified lawyers, and in any case Americal lawyers seem able to twist almost anything in any direction they like.

However, from an ethical and moral point of view what Medievia did was shady, to say the least. Not only did they strip the credits out because they were making money from the code against the intent of the Diku licence. They also insulted the original coders in that 'History' link that Soleil provided.

Whether the wording of the licence is flawed or not, there is certainly no doubt about what the INTENT of it is. Ignoring that intent is unethical, and there is a pretty large concensus among the Mud ownerss about this. The fact that some who think differently are very vocal about it does not make them a majority.

For what they did, Medievia will always be shunned by decent mudowners. And since Vryce lied once, who'd trust his word again?

[nhl]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ April 29 2006,22:34) 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.

Laws do not equal ethics, Amen to that. Then why are you questioning my ethics, claim that "my value-set comes under fire" (or even worse, try to claim that I am ethically grouped with some people that I don't even know) for participating in a discussion about the legal aspect of the license? Is my ethics so horribly bad for pointing out that there are lawyers (as consulted by me, Medievia and also by Matt, among others) that feel that Medievia would be likely to prevail in this case? We're merely stating what has been told to us. I am sure there are lawyers who feel differently too. IPR litigation is horribly complex - it's not just a matter of quoting a section of law - it is even more about interpreting it. There's a nice article about this athttp://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095....ht.html. It's interesting to note that in the Lotus v. Borland copyright litigation, even the US Supreme court was divided (4-4) on the issue. It's naive to claim there is only one absolute legal truth in these matters.

Also, a newsflash - there is no uniform, heterogeneous "text-mmorpg society" that "has vastly decided" anything. Only a small fraction of the admins of the "text-mmorpg society" even frequent these forums (and honestly, I see why), and even less players. This thread alone is a fine example, that even in this small group of people who do frequent the forum, there are numerous different positions on the matter. There are some people who have made up their mind in one direction, there are others who have made up their mind in another. And the overwhelming majority is somewhere in the middle, with little interest in this fight or who just haven't decided.

As for my agenda, I don't have one (I'm sure this would be easier for you to categorize and minimize me, if I was an evil capitalist person who is cashing in on his own MUD, but alas - the only profit I get from MUDs is personal enjoyment). But based on the zealous conviction with which you and KaVir have pushed forward on this topic, it seems obvious that you guys have one, and you can't tolerate any dissent. I have to wonder, if a US court would eventually rule in favor of Medievia, would your world shatter? Or would you be able to embrace their ruling and accept Medievia as a full, and equally respectable, member of the "text-mmorpg society"?

[Fishy]

A quick question... How long is the copyright good for?

(It is to my understanding that copyright lasts X amount of years...unless you somehow anaged to get it renewed)

[nhl]

Originally Posted by (Fishy @ April 30 2006,06:43) A quick question... How long is the copyright good for? (It is to my understanding that copyright lasts X amount of years...unless you somehow anaged to get it renewed)

It depends on the country. In the US the copyright generally lasts (atleast for works created after 1978) 70 years after the author's death. For a "Joint work" such as DIKU, the copyright lasts 70 years after the last surviving author of the DIKU team has died. (What a morbid post, I hope they aren't reading this