[Shane]

Originally Posted by (Kylotan @ May 01 2006,12:29) Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 01 2006,08:42) Mud's very specifically are a strange amalgum between normal literature and programming, such that I doubt, for example, that the world design could be coopted by the Diku team as a derivitive work should the mud be moved to another code base. I'm not at all sure why you think that any sort of mixture makes it harder to protect. The world is protected, the code is protected. Changing part of the whole or even 99% of the whole does not exempt the rest. As for enforceability, it's likely that if a court felt that there was a case to answer, they would take action to ensure that the code was available to that court, the same way as any sort of evidence or documentation can be brought to a court.

Oh, well, that wound its way through my head more in relation to in the final weighing of all the circumstances what the final decision would be. One school of thought might have the world design itself as a derivative work of the code, such that moving the whole world to another codebase wouldn't even be allowed. I suspect that it WOULD be allowed.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (Kylotan @ May 01 2006,12:29) Originally Posted by Shane,May 01 2006,08:42 Mud's very specifically are a strange amalgum between normal literature and programming, such that I doubt, for example, that the world design could be coopted by the Diku team as a derivitive work should the mud be moved to another code base. I'm not at all sure why you think that any sort of mixture makes it harder to protect. The world is protected, the code is protected. Changing part of the whole or even 99% of the whole does not exempt the rest. As for enforceability, it's likely that if a court felt that there was a case to answer, they would take action to ensure that the code was available to that court, the same way as any sort of evidence or documentation can be brought to a court.

Oh, well, that wound its way through my head more in relation to in the final weighing of all the circumstances what the final decision would be.  One school of thought might have the world design itself as a derivative work of the code, such that moving the whole world to another codebase wouldn't even be allowed.  I suspect that it WOULD be allowed.

P.S. this is getting seriously annoying.  Anytime one of my posts is supposed to begin a new page, it doesn't show up, so I repost it and get two.

Watch...

Voila.  Now my original post is right above.  I even went so far as to go back to the home page and hit the thread from there, then refresh.  

Bizarre.

PPS Also, series quotes get messed up. The tags in my edit appear correct, but you see that some of the quoted text now appears as regular text in the post itself.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Anitra @ May 01 2006,07:23) How about the evidence that the Medievia representatives provide themselves? Like for instance Soleil repeatably requesting that Medievia be added to the 'professional games' list, which, if I recall right, has as one of the basic requirement that at least one staff member must be working full time on it? If you make a living from running a mud, (in fact, support a family on it), is that not making a profit? Or how do you define 'turning a profit' yourself?

Making a living or bringing in substantial revenue doesn't equal turning a profit. Profit = revenue minus costs. Salaries are one of those costs. A fortune 500 company could have 20,000 employees and fail to turn a profit. Medievia is owned by a company, and that company has certain costs, such as server costs, bandwidth, and salaries. If they simply adjust their salaries, they can easily ensure there is no profit. A salary is a cost that is no different from paying for a server.

So, without seeing their financial statements, there is no way to know whether they are turning a profit.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 01 2006,07:39) There is clear evidence that they do not have the diku or merc credits.  Such credits are required by the Diku and Merc licences, and therefore it is clear to me that Medievia is not following those licences. Do you disagree?

Oh, I agree that they're not displaying the DIKU or Merc credits. That's only relevant if you assume that the licenses are applicable to them though, and that's never been settled in court either.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Oh, I agree that they're not displaying the DIKU or Merc credits. That's only relevant if you assume that the licenses are applicable to them though, and that's never been settled in court either. --matt

It is relevant to the majority of DIKU-derived MUDs that do credit the authors and not attempt to make a profit off of the MUD. It does not need to be settled in court for the community here to say that it is wrong to do what they are doing. This has been repeated over and over again, by myself and others.

While it might be a difficult battle to fight in court(though certainly not impossible, considering how the judicial system works in this country), it is more clear cut within our community. Yes, there are those who side on both sides - however, the majority here has established an obvious social norm.

If you want to lobby against that, do so - skirting around the legal issues is all theoretical, and does not change the societal status quo. You'd need to show us philosophical insight into why it should not be considered "wrong" to do what License Breakers are doing.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Seeing how someone in the Diku team seemed satisfied with changing the structure, functions, etc behind the sceness as a condition to not being called Diku derivative in the case of Aardwolf (I do not really feel like looking it up but if any has a problem accepting that as true, PM me and I will do the lookup for you in these forums). Therefore, if we do not really know (eventhough we may be suspicious about it because they seem to have lied in the past about it), I feel pressed to assume that they learned from those past mistakes and actually rehauled they handful of code lines and code structures that 10 years ago made them a Diku derivative.

Aardwolf invited Hans(of the DIKU team) in to inspect their code to give the stamp of approval. Hans inspected the code and said that he was satisfied that there was no longer any DIKU in the codebase.

Medievia once claimed that they had done the same thing, but KaVir exposed that they were lying and showed the DIKU that was still evident in their code. They then eventually claimed that they had rewritten the code from scratch again; however, this time they did not offer to let anyone, including the DIKU team, to inspect the code. If they allowed Hans to inspect the code, as Aardwolf had, and Hans found that they were telling the truth - then Medievia would have reckonciled its ethical issues with many here in the community(myself included), I'm sure.

However, Medievia has a history of lying about the DIKU License and secrecy; that is their choice. They understand that it will make them be a target of open ethical judgement. Aardwolf took the route of working alongside the DIKU team for approval, and this is why I have never heard anyone attack Aardwolf on this issue, besides Matt.

[Shane]

If the code has been redone, then the credits don't matter, I think is the point.

I do wonder though if Matt's argument is that he feels there is absolutely no ethical problem with Medievia ever, or just that there is no hard evidence of it going on right now. I've said it before, just the history of the place makes it hard not to think bad thoughts about their overall professionalism.

Until participating in this thread, my overall impression was to be annoyed at the Diku crowd for carrying on about this all over the place, and I still feel it gets brought up at odd and unpredictable times, and in some cases with a tone that is offputting. Still, I think my new tactic is just to point out all the good, free to use and easily licensed software that has existed and that continues to come out such as DGD or Coffeemud or this new MUDMAKER site.

My main concern is that people not be put off of world building entirely by some sort of fear that making a mud puts them in some sort of legal jeapardy, or that they feel they have no options to go professional should their work turn out to be marketable. There are presently a lot of options, so my old outlook is somewhat changed.

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Until participating in this thread, my overall impression was to be annoyed at the Diku crowd for carrying on about this all over the place, and I still feel it gets brought up at odd and unpredictable times, and in some cases with a tone that is offputting. Still, I think my new tactic is just to point out all the good, free to use and easily licensed software that has existed and that continues to come out such as DGD or Coffeemud or this new MUDMAKER site. My main concern is that people not be put off of world building entirely by some sort of fear that making a mud puts them in some sort of legal jeapardy, or that they feel they have no options to go professional should their work turn out to be marketable. There are presently a lot of options, so my old outlook is somewhat changed.

I do think that this particular outlook is positive and worthwhile. There are DIKU alternatives to text-mmorpg creation that would allow for you to legally "go professional", assuredly. I take nothing away from those, especially as some them can be used quite well. I just uphold the standards that if someone creates a codebase for public use, and in turn allows for hundreds and hundreds of MUDs to be created, their wishes should be considered.

In the case of Medievia and lack of evidence; socially(not judicially), the burden of proof that they are not lying again and should be trusted to have finally honored the DIKU license is upon them. If they wanted to be looked at in a better way within the community, they would invite Hans or the like in to inspect their code in the same manner that Aardwolf has.

[Valg]

Not that I believe for a second that Medievia isn't a derivative, but one has to wonder what they gain from not acknowledging the contributions of the creators.  Medievia V is clearly based on Medievia IV, which was shown to be a DIKU derivative.  (Not even Team Vryce has claimed that they did a clean-room implementation.  They only claim that Medievia V has a lot more code and therefore the DIKU contribution is not important, oblivious to all legal definitions of a derivative work.)

It doesn't hurt to say "And thanks to... ... for providing a free tool which eventually grew into Medievia V.", include them in the credits as the DIKU license stipulates, and otherwise act like decent human beings, rather than bite the hand that feeds (*) them in an arrogant false "history".

(*): I almost wrote "fed", but Medievia wouldn't be where it is now without the foundation it used.

[the_logos]

Donathin wrote:

Originally Posted by or approval, and this is why I have never heard anyone attack Aardwolf on this issue, besides Matt.

I've never attacked Aardwolf. I've pointed out that it is a DIKU and it charges money for things in game. Both of those are indisputable. You may draw whatever conclusions you like from that, but it's only an attack to someone who believes there's something wrong with being a DIKU and charging for in-game items. I do not.

--matt

[Shane]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ May 01 2006,14:48) Donathin wrote: Originally Posted by or approval, and this is why I have never heard anyone attack Aardwolf on this issue, besides Matt. I've never attacked Aardwolf. I've pointed out that it is a DIKU and it charges money for things in game. Both of those are indisputable. You may draw whatever conclusions you like from that, but it's only an attack to someone who believes there's something wrong with being a DIKU and charging for in-game items. I do not. --matt

I'm thinking the "DIKU community", if I may be allowed to coin a phrase, is satisfied with them because they opened their code for inspection, thus demonstrating good faith.

[the_logos]

5-->

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ May 01 2006,14[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]5)]It does not need to be settled in court for the community here to say that it is wrong to do what they are doing. This has been repeated over and over again, by myself and others.

Exactly. Repeated over and over by the same people who like to claim, completely without merit, that their views represent the views of 'the mud community.' (Actually, just you. I don't recall anyone else on the forums claiming to speak for the mud community.) You speak for yourself. That's it. Stop pretending that you speak for the mud community. I don't claim I speak for the mud community, and my company gets more support from the mud community than any organization besides Simutronics.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 01 2006,14:51) I'm thinking the "DIKU community", if I may be allowed to coin a phrase, is satisfied with them because they opened their code for inspection, thus demonstrating good faith.

But these same "DIKU community" people continually state that one of the reasons they are unhappy with Medievia is because Medievia charges money for things and is a DIKU, thus violating, in their minds, the profit clause. Aardwolf does exactly the same thing. It's just more evidence, to me, that many of the attacks on Medievia are about personal dislike of Vyrce rather than principle.

So we're clear, Aardwolf has -not- completed its clean-room transition and is still a DIKU selling in-game stuff.

--matt

[Shane]

Vryce and Medivia do seem to be treated as one and the same, which is probably unfair as many other people have contributed to the community there.

We have reached the limit of my knowledge of that game though. I do see where you're coming from as far as the suggestion that there is some "majority" out there that no one can lay their fingers on. On the other hand, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, in the form of a whole lot of DIKU muds that operate "as intended", that there is some sort of broad understanding of how to go about respecting the original intent of the DIKU team.

I also suspect I have discovered the source of the tension between you and Don, and will, if you both will allow me, duck out of the way now so you two can get on with it.

[the_logos]

0-->

Originally Posted by (Shane @ May 01 2006,15[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]0)]On the other hand, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence, in the form of a whole lot of DIKU muds that operate "as intended", that there is some sort of broad understanding of how to go about respecting the original intent of the DIKU team.

The fact that many MUDs do things one way is not a comment on MUDs who do things other ways. If it were, as an example, you might as well use the same logic to claim that RPIs aren't wanted or are unethical, since they make up such a small percentage of the MUDs out there.

Going with or against the pack is neither inherently a virtue nor a sin.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by Exactly. Repeated over and over by the same people who like to claim, completely without merit, that their views represent the views of 'the mud community.' (Actually, just you. I don't recall anyone else on the forums claiming to speak for the mud community.) You speak for yourself. That's it. Stop pretending that you speak for the mud community. I don't claim I speak for the mud community, and my company gets more support from the mud community than any organization besides Simutronics.

The fact that this issue is constantly brought up again and again by many, many different of people is evidence of what the MUD Community thinks. The fact that other DIKU derived MUDs credit the DIKU team in their log-in is evidence of what the social norm on this issue is. I, as anyone else, speak of my opinion formed from my knowledge on the community and sociology.

It does not take a brain-surgeon to construe what is the accepted social norm when dealing with the DIKU License. You can twist whatever words you want to make me look like I am not credible, Matt, but your efforts are transparent. Whatever backwards arguments you might make, this forum is not a court of law - I don't need DNA and statistical evidence to prove what is socially proven overwhelmingly. If I were to document every DIKU MUD, show you their log-in sequence, then investigate to make sure that they did not charge players for their services, you would simply move on to some other word-twisting argument in an attempt to do whatever it is, exactly, you are trying to do.

[Shane]

Matt,

Possibly I'm missing the correlation between copyright violations and roleplaying.  

Seriously, I can sympathize with you regarding the whole pack mentality thing.  I come to this discussion though with baggage of my own concerning mud owners and their ethics and professionalism, and in my own profession there are also standards which make me sympathetic to the whole Diku licensing mess in certain ways.  I just don't like how it seems to pop up everywhere, all the time.  

I've been jumped by Diku fanatics before, and I feel sure I will be again, from the oddest directions sometimes.  I'm still struggling with the accusation that you are somehow unethical.  That seems to come from almost nowhere, and from the same crowd.  Like it or not, that sort of agressive behavior on the part of the Diku supporters does have its effect on people's perceptions about Diku issues.

On the other hand, since this thread was created specificly for it, well...