[Spoke]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ May 01 2006,19:07) Originally Posted by Yes, exactly. There's no evidence that most people in the community care at all. A couple people have taken to claiming that the fact that many DIKU muds follow the license (nevermind that they have no proof of that, given that they aren't able to verify whether the MUD operators sent an email/snail mail to the DIKU creators notifying them of use) means that the community must be against Medievia. I won't respond to the flame bait, but will respond here. There is evidence - there are many different kinds of evidence, and not all has to be statistical. Even in US Court, cases are won when the amount of circumstancial evidence is overwhelming. Here, outside of court, in the community, I certainly don't need to do a statistical graph poll of the average MUDer to prove to you what is already obvious. I could dance around with you non-stop, and every time I wasted time to gather more specific numbers(as I've done in past arguments with you), you'll simply ignore them and move onto some other argument that talks around the issue at hand. Even politicians fail when they use your method of arguing, Matt - and they are professional liars/debaters.

I think that Matt is correct though when he says that it is not the same to follow the law and supporting what the law says. I would venture a different analogy that happens to apply to me specifically. I am not a US citizen but study in the US, I came here legally and have always refused to break the conditions of my F1 Visa that say I cannot work in the US unless it is for the school I attend, not even tutor someone in exchange of food

Now my stance with respect to illegal immigration is that harsher laws and more control are necesary. It could have been that more opportunities to legalize situations and more openness of the borders are a good way to go (my wife's position, who is in the same Visa status I am).

I hope this attempt for an analogy is not going to be dissorted to no end, all I want to portrait is that by following the spirit of the license, the countless number of Diku MUDs that show credits are not adhering to either side of the discussion, complying with the law and agreeing with the law are two separate issues completelly.

[Sombalance]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ May 01 2006,18:46) (quote=Sombalance,May 01 2006,18:22)I have to confess that whenever this topic comes up, I normally only see the same group of people commenting on it. I would be hard pressed to come up with 20 names that spoke strongly for or against perceived violations of the DIKU license. That doesn't mean there aren't a majority supporting one side or the other, its just that I couldn't calculate it from what I've seen. Yes, exactly. There's no evidence that most people in the community care at all. A couple people have taken to claiming that the fact that many DIKU muds follow the license (nevermind that they have no proof of that, given that they aren't able to verify whether the MUD operators sent an email/snail mail to the DIKU creators notifying them of use) means that the community must be against Medievia.

I think the argument that people who follow the license support the license is probably valid. At least much more valid than thinking that people will follow an agreement that they think is worthless.

I also can't recall any posts by people who comply with the DIKU license who support ignoring it.

I also haven't seen any strong arguments for ignoring the DIKU license beyond the points of it being difficult to enforce and the DIKU team doesn't force it to be complied with. Both of which seem to be very poor justification for an action.

Sombalance

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by I think the argument that people who follow the license support the license is probably valid. At least much more valid than thinking that people will follow an agreement that they think is worthless. I also can't recall any posts by people who comply with the DIKU license who support ignoring it. I also haven't seen any strong arguments for ignoring the DIKU license beyond the points of it being difficult to enforce and the DIKU team doesn't force it to be complied with. Both of which seem to be very poor justification for an action. Sombalance

Well articulated post, I think.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 30 2006,18:47) Threshold>> KaVir, I've always wondered this: Threshold>> Where did you get your law degree? Where did you get your software engineering degree? Don't have one? Does that mean you're not qualified to discuss programming issues? Should we all ignore your posts on programmnig topics, even if you cite links to articles written by well-known software engineers?

By using that comparison, you just lost the argument, KaVir. Thank you for making it so simple.

1) I rarely speak about software design with absolute certainty in the "know it all" tone you use about the law, precisely because I know there is a lot about software design I am not trained in. Perhaps you should follow the example. That's the problem. You don't just offer your OPINION of the law, you claim to *** KNOW *** with absolute certainty what the law is, and how the situation would be resolved legally. If anyone disagrees with you, you simply declare they are wrong. And you do all of this despite any formal training in an extremely complicated and obscure discipline.

2) Software design is nowhere near as complex as the law. Software design is generally logical and follows logical rules. The law often is not. Furthermore, the law is often written to be DELIBERATELY obscure so as to guarantee lawyers their jobs. Almost anyone can teach themself how to design software - and often be quite good at it. The law is a human construct that is the product of thousands of years of evolution (pretty much starting right around the Magna Carta). Your attempt at a comparison is totally fallacious.

In fact, your comparison demonstrates such a fundamental lack of understanding of the law, that it actually discredits any legal analysis you might engage in.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I rarely speak about software design with absolute certainty in the "know it all" tone you use about the law, precisely because I know there is a lot about software design I am not trained in. Perhaps you should follow the example.

Yet if you were to make a claim about software design, and back it up with a link to a reliable source which confirmed your claim, do you think I should dismiss your post out of hand?

Originally Posted by That's the problem. You don't just offer your OPINION of the law, you claim to *** KNOW *** with absolute certainty what the law is, and how the situation would be resolved legally.

Everyone on these forums is offering their opinion, nothing more. I don't notice you complaining about the people who claim to "know" that the licence is unenforcable - why is that? Particularly when you yourself have said "I'm not saying you are wrong".

Originally Posted by If anyone disagrees with you, you simply declare they are wrong.

Not without providing links to legal sources which back up my opinion.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 02 2006,06:09) Yet if you were to make a claim about software design, and back it up with a link to a reliable source which confirmed your claim, do you think I should dismiss your post out of hand?

You still don't get it.

Software Design is based on logic, and is not the result of thousands of years of cases that piled upon and contradicted each other. It is also not deliberately designed to be obscure. It is quite simple for someone to teach themself how to design software, as it is a relatively simple and straightforward discipline (especially when compared to the law).

The Law is not based on logic much of the time, it IS the product of thousands of years of cases piling on top of each other (often contradicting each other), and it is also (very often) written to be deliberately obscure (so lawyers can maintain their utility). The law is filled with elements that defy logic due to a desire to fulfill a political or public policy purpose.

Your comparison is absolutely absurd and is a very clear example of how little you know about the law. The fact that you even try to compare software design to legal analysis makes ANY legal analysis you do dubious at best.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 02 2006,06:09) Not without providing links to legal sources which back up my opinion.

By that you mean legal sources you do not fully comprehend, are not trained to comprehend, and from which you provide tiny citations rather than the full text. The law doesn't work like stock DIKU code snippets.

Again, the problem is not just that you are discussing a matter you are not even remotely qualified to discuss authoritatively. The problem is that you make absolute declarations as if you are CERTAIN how the law would operate here. It is your excessive certainty and absolutism that makes your posts utterly ridiculous.

In other words, you would be wise to stop acting like a know-it-all regarding a subject area in which you are untrained, uneducated, and inexperienced. A little more humility and acknowledgement that you might be wrong is in order.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ May 02 2006,15:27) Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 02 2006,06:09) Everyone on these forums is offering their opinion, nothing more. The problem is that you make absolute declarations as if you are CERTAIN how the law would operate here. It is your excessive certainty and absolutism that makes your posts utterly ridiculous. In other words, you would be wise to stop acting like a know-it-all regarding a subject area in which you are untrained, uneducated, and inexperienced. A little more humility and acknowledgement that you might be wrong is in order.

Everyone on these forums is offering their opinion, nothing more.

If you disagree with what I've posted, then counter it. But to attack me because you don't like the way I've presented the information is extremely petty, particularly when you're ignoring the "anti-Diku" crowd who do exactly the same.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ May 02 2006,11:32) Judge from a higher court: I've never seen someone so willing to dish out hostility, and so completely unable to take it. If anyone attacked you the way you continually attack KaVir, TMS would have collapsed under the hard drive requirements necessary to store all of your "Moderator! Mommy! Anyone! Stop the bad man!" posts.

<Moderator edited something out here.>

I am not personally attacking KaVir. I am calling into question his credibility to make the kind of absolute, "There's No Way I am Wrong" legal analysis he makes. Since he has no legal training, he really needs to tone down the absolutism of his blather.

Look at Shane for example. He's doing the same kind of research and linking, and yet he is fully open to the possibility he is misinterpreting things since he has no legal training. He's a good example of a layperson discussing a legal matter with an appropriate degree of caution and self-doubt. KaVir could really learn from his example.

<Moderator edited out some more stuff>.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 02 2006,11:12) Everyone on these forums is offering their opinion, nothing more.

Then act like its an opinion, with the humility and frequent admission/caveat that you have absolutely no legal training, instead of acting like you are handing down absolute truth from on high.

<Moderator edited out some stuff>

The law is not software design, but somehow you don't grasp this. Laypeople engaging in legal analysis based on a handful of links and google searches is about as likely to be accurate as asking my 3 year old how to design an atom smasher.

[KaVir]

Once again Threshold, if you disagree with what I've posted, then counter it. If not, try acting like the professional you keep claiming to be, and cease the personal attacks. The fact that you keep going for my posts and ignoring the other equally opinionated posts by the "anti-Diku" people really doesn't help your cause, either.

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ May 02 2006,09:27) You still don't get it. Software Design is based on logic, and is not the result of thousands of years of cases that piled upon and contradicted each other. It is also not deliberately designed to be obscure. It is quite simple for someone to teach themself how to design software, as it is a relatively simple and straightforward discipline (especially when compared to the law). The Law is not based on logic much of the time, it IS the product of thousands of years of cases piling on top of each other (often contradicting each other), and it is also (very often) written to be deliberately obscure (so lawyers can maintain their utility). The law is filled with elements that defy logic due to a desire to fulfill a political or public policy purpose. Your comparison is absolutely absurd and is a very clear example of how little you know about the law. The fact that you even try to compare software design to legal analysis makes ANY legal analysis you do dubious at best.

<Moderator edited out stuff here.>

Your comparison is absolutely absurd and is a very clear example of how little you know about software design. The fact that you even try to compare software design to legal analysis in these terms makes ANY talking you do dubious at best.

A lot of what you're saying about software design is true in theory, but not in any way relating to any project in the real world. (Much like the law, in theory, is meant to generally make things better for people and not, for example, meant in parts to guarantee lawyers jobs.) KaVir may be talking about something he doesn't have professional experience with, but you're not doing any better.

I'm sure you have some level of exposure to software development that makes you think you know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea.

[Valg]

<Moderator edited out some stuff here.>

KaVir has been dealing with these issues for over ten years. He's done a ton of research on the specific topics of Medievia, copyright infringement, and the DIKU license. He's backing up his findings with relevant citations. It's incredibly insulting to say that the guy could be involved with something like this for ten years, yet is unable to offer anything to the discussion because he doesn't have a law degree.

<moderator edited some stuff out here>

As for this debate, I tend to stick with the subject I have been professionally briefed on: Using the work of others without crediting the authors is plagiarism, which brings both ethical and legal concerns to the table.

<moderator edited out some stuff here>

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 02 2006,19:53) Once again Threshold, if you disagree with what I've posted, then counter it. If not, try acting like the professional you keep claiming to be, and cease the personal attacks. The fact that you keep going for my posts and ignoring the other equally opinionated posts by the "anti-Diku" people really doesn't help your cause, either.

Since you seem to be big on skimming:

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 02 2006,11:12) Everyone on these forums is offering their opinion, nothing more.

Then act like its an opinion, with the humility and frequent admission/caveat that you have absolutely no legal training, instead of acting like you are handing down absolute truth from on high.

<moderator edited out some stuff>.

The law is not software design, but somehow you don't grasp this. Laypeople engaging in legal analysis based on a handful of links and google searches is about as likely to be accurate as asking my 3 year old how to design an atom smasher.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ May 02 2006,22:00) KaVir has been dealing with these issues for over ten years. He's done a ton of research on the specific topics of Medievia, copyright infringement, and the DIKU license.

That's nice.

Too bad its no substitute for actual legal training.

10 years of posting red faced rants and searching the internet is worth about as much as a Sally Struthers paralegal correspondence course.

Again, the point isn't that he shouldn't be engaging in legal analysis. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. People do that sort of thing every day on every subject.

The point is that he shouldn't be making such absolute declarations as if he is DEFINITELY right and everyone else is definitely wrong.

I might enjoy a discussion of quantum physics, but I sure as heck wouldn't declare everyone else to be DEFINITELY wrong when I lack any formal education but have a few google searches to back up my point.

[Valg]

(Edit: Fixing a botched quote.)

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ May 02 2006,22:42) Wow, your zealotry has turned you into a skimmer. I'm not the one that compared them. I don't think they are comparable for the reasons I already mentioned. If you think they are comparable, you know jack squat about the law, and what you know about software design would be questionable as well.

Did you read The_Disciple's post?

1) In it, he quotes you comparing the two.  Please note that in English, one can "compare" dissimilar things.  Note: I don't have an English degree, and language is not perfectly logical, but I feel confident in letting you know that you are incorrect in your assertion you did not compare them.

2) The_disciple does make the point that they are similar in one respect.  Your belief is that software design is logically perfect, and that the law is an accident.  His post was stating that they are both imperfect reflections of logically perfect things, which compares favorably to everything I've heard from professional software developers, as well as my own experience.  Your personal attack on him afterwards completely misinterprets his argument.

Again, deal with the facts, not the speaker.

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ May 02 2006,22:42) Wow, your zealotry has turned you into a skimmer. I'm not the one that compared them. I don't think they are comparable for the reasons I already mentioned. If you think they are comparable, you know jack squat about the law, and what you know about software design would be questionable as well.

No, I read the whole thing.

Every single thing you give as an example of how the law is unlike software is essentially true about software. Anyone who's worked in the field professionally for six months could tell you as much.

Will you deal with thousands of years of cases piling on top of each other? No, but you will deal with things in projects that are the way they are because someone did it a certain way a year ago. You will deal with that pretty much every day.

I'm sure a programmer would never write deliberately obscure or convoluted code to guarantee himself or other programmers jobs. Here's an essay about it I was forwarded just this week: http://www.thc.org/root/phun/unmaintain.html . There's also an excellent interview with Bjarne Stroustrup that's been making the rounds for years, essentially stating that he wrote C++ in the convoluted, bass-ackward way he did to keep programmers in jobs for years to come. It's almost certainly fake, but if you work for C++ for very long, you won't be too sure about that -- and C++ is hardly the most 'special' language out there by a long shot.

Anyone who's worked on a software project for any duration has seen design that defies logic and sense. On almost any project, what the client or stakeholders demand of development will almost certainly defy logic and sense. They may smile prettily at logic and promise to build something beautiful from it, but once logic steps behind the proverbial project barn it is quickly tasered and fitted for a gimp mask. The building blocks are logical and orderly, of that there's no doubt, but what is constructed from them is, with few exceptions, most certainly not.

I've seen people who were never cut out to be lawyers lured into practicing law by watching too many TV courtroom dramas. With few exceptions, they were unhappy or terrible at it and made a poor living from the law at best. Equally, I've seen art students and the like "retrained" to be programmers during the height of the dot.com boom. With very few exceptions, they were unhappy at it and generally incapable of performing anything but the simplest tasks satisfactorily.

There's logic and reason and order to both disciplines, but there's beauty and art, too. Even throwing extreme examples like the Johnny Cochrans of the world aside, a truly gifted lawyer can make a great living, including many who work in less than glamorous fields such as real estate law. Similarly, even discarding your early-days-of-Microsoft billionaires, a truly gifted software engineer or architect can make a great living, including many using unglamourous tools and technologies.

In both cases, it's often the combination of people skills and technical/legal knowledge that makes a truly successful professional. I know a (non-trial) lawyer who makes a great living, essentially because he is a very likeable, very natural networker. The most successful developers I've met are similar; they have a facility for working with non-technical clients and bridging the gap between worlds for them that is not easily replaced and impossible to outsource.

Both professions have, in recent memory, drawn many people that would not normally choose them because of the perceived salary or growth opportunities of the career.

Both fields have countless specializations, each with its own volumes of knowledge and lore useless for any of the other disciplines. You can take a patent lawyer and throw him in a murder trial, and while he probably knows the basics he's probably not going to be great at it. You can take an IBM mainframe COBOL programmer and toss him on a .NET web-based project, but I wouldn't expect great results.

I'm not going to tell you these two fields are identical or equivalent. They're certainly not. However, there's more than enough in common there on many levels that it's silly to mock someone for comparing them.