|
DonathinFyre wrote:
So in other words, you don't have any evidence but since it is "commonly accepted" none is required. I'm curious in what field of social science you believe that the assertion that the MUD community supports your personal interpretation of the Diku license is commonly accepted?
The real answer is 'none' of course, because there's never been any real research on this question, and thus there is no real evidence for it.
Let's not forget notifying the DIKU authors that you're running a DIKU. You and someone else (Emil) have asserted that the majority of DIKU-derived MUDs follow the license or the spirit of the license, but nobody's yet demonstrated that they've audited the majority of MUDs and somehow discovered proof that all of them notified the DIKU creators.
I'm also not aware of any proof that Medievia, or any other MUD supposedly violating the profit clause, is turning a profit. Do you have some? Have you seen their financial statements? If so, please, share them with us. Share the evidence with us.
In the real world, evidence is required, and your assertions don't appear to be backed up by any but your favorite type "common knowledge." Sounds like the sort of common knowledge that held the earth was flat to me, though no doubt you're going to reply that my refusal to recognize this "common knowledge" makes me unethical or something.
--matt
|