Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

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:

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

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.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

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.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

I corrected my post the same minute you posted. If you issued your licence in 1994, then you can revoke it in 2029.

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.

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:

"§ 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."

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

No, because as you have so aptly argued, it is a bare license.

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.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

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.".

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Noam Chomsky said "There is no such thing as common sense."

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

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"

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.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

As established in a previous discussion, the license is not open source it is proprietary.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

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.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

No, it is a transformative work with significant changes in meaning. If what you said was true, there would be no derivative nor transformative works.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Let me break this down for you again, as you cannot seem to understand it.

From the DIKU license:
You did that, which violated the rule stated in the license.
Since you violated the license, from that point you were no longer allowed to alter the source.

Even you are smart enough to understand that.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

No, I'm sorry, your personal opinions are just yours and yours alone. Stop spamming this board with repeated unprovable assertions contrary to what has already been established.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

I didn't write the DIKU license.

Are you stating I incorrectly quoted the license? Please clarify.
First, you are not a moderator of this board. If the staff of this board has an issue with any of my posts I am sure they will address the issue.

Second, I have not stated "I created YouTube" as you have (Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim created it). I have not stated "Yes, my cousin is a COL POLAD who helped shut down Gitmo." as you have (GITMO is very much still open). I also did not violate the DIKU license as you have.

Those issues have "already been established".

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

No, I'm sorry, your personal opinions are just yours and yours alone. Stop spamming this board with repeated unprovable assertions contrary to what has already been established.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

They are not his opinions and his alone. You're the only one with an opinion unsupported by anything or anyone. The only thing you've proven is that you're a liar and a delusional one at that.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

No, I'm sorry, your personal opinions are just yours and yours alone. Stop spamming this board with repeated unprovable assertions contrary to what has already been established.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

I do believe we broke him.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

He's probably curled up in a corner rocking back and forth while saying, "I invented OLC. I invented YouTube. I invented the internet. I invented English."

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

As a transformative work, it does not have to follow the license. A transformative work is one that is significantly different than what it was based on. For this reason, I do not have to follow the license.

Line length of files in nimud package:
Original Merc 2
82037
-------- = 0.28794324512110389214622670258542
26322

Considering only the source code and related scripts:
Even without comparing content of individual lines, we can see that if I had just inserted "Merc" into the NiMUD package and then wrote stuff around it, Merc would only constitute 28.79432...% of the content that is included in NiMUD 5. If you compare the lines of code, you would determine that the actual content that is still Merc/Diku is an even smaller percentage, probably around 10% though I don't really know and do not plan on doing a case study involving a diff. Since a majority is >50%, you can easily say the majority of the content in NiMUD is original and therefore not Merc/Diku MUD. Because of this, you can say it is a transformative work. Since it is a transformative work, it is NOT a derivative but instead a "transformation" of the original Merc/Diku MUD into something totally new. Therefore, NiMUD is mine and does not need to follow any licenses by Diku or Merc or anyone else.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Even if 0.00000001% of it is Diku or Merc it's not your property and you have no right to claim someone else's work. Your code, and by that I mean the code of the person who likely wrote it and from whom you simply leeched off, is still a derivitive and and thus subject to the terms of the Diku license.

Posting long segments of code doesn't change anything. The original work wasn't your's and thus you're a thief if you don't provide the proper credit. All you're proving by your repeated denials is that you're an egotistical moron, a fool with a sub-par IQ who is so much less than he thinks he is.

Why not save some face and just acknowledge that you're wrong? Everyone here knows it and can see that. Repeating the same tired disproven opinions won't change that fact.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

No, that's just not how the law works. I suggest reviewing the information at Stanford posted earlier about transformative works. Also, your claims that I "leeched work" are unfounded and wouldn't hold weight without evidence. You can make all the outlandish claims you want but without any real hard evidence (of topics in which I have quite thoroughly proven the opposite) it won't be considered as fact.

I have to say, "Mr Grammar Cop", that "your's" is not a word or valid contraction. I think you meant "yours" -- well obviously you're a child or at least an immature person because other people don't seem to take pot shots at my ego while delivering their retorts. You also don't apparently know what code is, considering I haven't posted any. I posted the output of the linux command "wc"

Because I'm not wrong, not "everybody" sees it your way and frankly I'm tired of changing your diaper.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

A few problems:
1) You have no "compelling public interest" for the transformative work to exist.
2) Your usage is not a parody, nor for purely informative or educational purposes.
3) Amount and Substantiality of the original work is extensive.
4) A modified DIKU is still available for sale. Your usage could cause harm.
5) The main body of DIKU is "a multi-user online text game", as is your derived work.
6) You lost any "fair use" when you violated the software license.

You're grasping at straws when you are trying to claim it as a "transformative work".

Also remember that software is not art and music. Courts have given more leeway to artists then to software developers, as deriving a work in art deals with impressions while using another coder's code (and claiming it as your own) is usually considered theft and/or piracy.

And then there is that whole sticky issue that US Copyright Law does not apply with DIKU. You might want to check into "Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society " and "Copyright law of the European Union" (as well as treaties between the US and the European Union dealing with intellectual property).

I will leave you with this:
There are places that offer free mental health screening and aid. There is nothing wrong with having issues. You may want to seek help.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

This whole issue of "transformative works" does not even seem to be set in law yet?

I mean, they're still debating it in terms of proposed changes as far as I can find through Google.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Thanks for all of your unsubstantiated claims (and some boldfaced lies). See ya in the game!

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Your code is NOT "transformative work" it is a DERIVATIVE and always will be, and therefore subject to the DIKU license.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

There, fixed it for you.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

No, it's not a derivative because it is transformative and falls under "fair use".

o.o
D

-.o
o

For NiMUD, the answer to both of these questions is a resounding and obvious "yes"; I have provided substantial evidence for this in previous posts. Anyway, I'm done here. It's obvious to me there is no way to settle this argument with you, so unless you are going to file some sort of court action against me, which you can't, I suggest dropping it. As a show of good faith, I am not going to post on this thread again. Feel free to lie yourselves into whatever you would like to convince yourselves of. Cheers.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Except for the part where Mabus already explained why this is not the case.

And for the part that "transformative work" isn't something that seems to be valid law as all the links I can find point to it being proposed changes to the law that the US Congress has not taken up yet. The copyright.gov website has only one link directly dealing with the subject, which is the PDF document those wackos from the fanfic site submitted to them. You're behaving just like them in that your argument sounds like you wish to deprive Diku of their rights in the same manner they want to allow fanfic writers to deprive the original authors of their rights.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

There. Fixed it for both of you. :)

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

The post on transformative works has already been proven not to apply to your theft.

Your claims of authorship and thus ownership are not proven by any evidence and in light of your similar claims regarding YouTube are highly subject to doubt.

Just as a prosecutor must prove guilt, copyright requires evidence to prove that one has legitimate claim of ownership. You have not established any evidence to that effect that wasn't created by you after the fact and in denial of the facts, namely the fact that you used Diku in violation of the license.

I must admit to a certain perverse pleasure at deflating the egos of narcissists. Watching a person with a hyper-inflated opinion of themself flail against reality is slightly enjoyable, even more so when that person is an ass. Thus in your case it's very enjoyable. It's with a grin that I know you will seeth and that your egomaniacal need to maintain your delusional view of the world will result in your compulsion to respond.

So far I haven't seen anyone agree with your claims. If someone does agree (any of your possible multiple personalities are disqualified) then, by all means, name them.


*listens to the crickets chirping*

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

This thread is made out of win.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Locke reminds me of those guys on Judge Judy who keep trying to talk and she just says, "Shut up, I'm talking!".

Haha. And then the verdict is rendered by law and he still refuses to accept it. :p

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Here's an article you may find of interest:

In particular, the first and last paragraphs of the Piecewise Reimplementation section:

"Many people have reimplemented computer programs by rewriting them to replace the source code with code of their own writing. 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."

"Even if you completely replace the program with new code, nonliteral elements also protected by the original program’s copyright are likely to remain and infringe – elements like the overall program structure or architecture and data structures that are not dictated by external or efficiency considerations. Although there is no case law on this point, it would seem that the only way to break the chain of infringing works is by some extraordinary act, such as a clean room implementation."

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Locke,

I've done copyright research and analysis for a very large company with the team of lawyers collectively known as the Nazgul, and they were VERY explicit about this matter. Your work is clearly derivative, and claims otherwise would fall flat immediately in an american court of law.

It's problems like this that make me thankful over and over that I actually wrote AA from scratch. It was worth the extra effort.

-dentin

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

But doesn't this mean he removed the code from the copyright rather than the copyright from the code? Of course though, this is probably the same thing to any REASONABLE...um, no, sorry...

Moving on, I hadn't heard of this transformative vs derivative thing before so I find this discussion very interesting. I admit that I can see what fanfic writers are getting at but using it in different context confuses me.

Does this mean that if I removed an engine from a parked car, removed the car and left the engine there, then bought an engine and placed it in the car, it becomes a transformative car? Or would I need to keep the engine, take it apart and replace most of the parts before putting it back in the car?

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Agreed. I don't understand half the legalese here, but I get the jist of it which boils down to "Uh huh!" followed by "Nuh uh!" and then in a big circle.

Good stuff, guys.

I also invented fire. Prometheus is just a thief and a LIAR. He owes me billions by now.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

This does actually bring up a question to me, if I create a new source file in my game, do I then go and put Diku/Merc credits at the top of it? (I mean an honestly NEW source, not just chopping up parts of act_wiz.c and putting them into new files ;p).
IE. Say I write behavioral code for a mob AI and put it in behave.c, should I then put the Diku/Merc/Rom credits at the top of that file as well?

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Creating a new file doesn't guarantee that it won't be a derivative (as it might include code copied in whole or part from elsewhere), but if you've written it from scratch without conscious copying then IMO you shouldn't add the Diku copyright notice to that file.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

That file wouldn't need it, but if ANY piece (even one line) of the whole game was taken from DIKU then it is a derivative and must follow the license (put them in the credits, etc). I look at it in the same way that the USG does security classification, if I have a 100 page document and 1 sentance is SECRET then the whole document is SECRET (and I just mark which one is, ie put the DIKU license on that page of the source).

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Maybe you should read about how fair use applies considering what you have said is not true. If it was true, the use of the function "str_cmp()" would mean that any program using str_cmp() would be under the Diku license. It's not the case. The function "str_cmp()" in Diku is licensed under Diku, but is actually taken from another library and placed into the Diku source when it was released as Merc to avoid compatibility problems. However, it's part of the body of work of DikuMUD now. So if I use "str_cmp()" and fail to credit Diku, or Merc, or whomever, it's basically not possible to contend that the newly licensed software is somehow "violating" Diku licensing and the new software is not required to follow the Diku license at all.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Then you should have thought of that before stealing the code, yes?

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

I was referring to his example where he says, erroneously, that even a single line of code requires a license. It just isn't done that way, otherwise new media works wouldn't be able to quote older media works.

Stop making unfounded claims about "theft" - again, a word that Hans Henrik Staerfeldt doesn't even use to describe "violating a software license". And no, this is not an admission but merely an observation that your two remaining braincells are having difficulty making.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

The fair use doctrine allows you to use limited portions of a work for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. It's not there to let you strip the copyright notices from someone else's work and pass it off as your own.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Now you're grasping at straws. What is func str_cmp()? Is a function written by the Diku team as part of Diku, or is it part of some library they used (which would have its own license, or be released into the public domain).

I'm quite sure it is the later. In which case if you take the line from Diku where they call that function, then THAT line is under the Diku license.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

As soon as the claims become unfounded, me and my two brain cells (which are doing just fine, thanks) will stop making them.

This isn't really about trying to get you to change. It's about making sure other people who might unwittingly believe your lies don't get burned at the stake later as code thieves if someone comes along to work on their stuff and sees the credits have all been stripped.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Still doesn't provide enough substance to warrant following a Diku license.

if ( !str_cmp(buf, "open") ) return buf;

on its own, is not owned by Diku. Diku Group -- not the university -- owns the body of work called DikuMUD. It's not the Diku license, but the Diku Group's license. Anyway, go on living in your delusion, I'm outta here. *wave*

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Actually it's been said more than once that the license is the way it is because they used university resources to develop the codebase. So it could well be the university's license.

In either case, you're still a code thief for violating that license no matter who actually has controlling interest in it.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Except, even the owner of DikuMUD who still works at the university said calling me a thief is just plain wrong.

Re: Compliance reminder if your MUD uses OLC
 

Except for how you're full of crap because they both called Vryce a thief for doing the same thing you did. Stripping credits. The fact that Vryce then started charging money for stuff wasn't relevant.

BTW, thought you said you were leaving? Oh, that's right, you lied again. How nice.