Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Aardwolf commercially violating diku licence

Sinuhe · 11-05-2003, 10:40 AM

Is that so?

Who is this new poster, Fiendish, with the trollish name?
What credibility does an anonymous poster like this have?
Why did he jump into the discussion at this late stage?
What are his motives for posting?
What is his 'normal' identity on the boards and why doesn't he use that?

See, I too have made myself a mew identity. Just so I can ask these questions.
What is my credibility?
None.
What is his credibility?
None.
Anonymous posts are not even worth the toilet paper they are written on.
But there is a difference between me and Fiendish. He made his identity so he could post anonymously. I made mine to prove a point about anonymous posts.

Why should we believe an anonymous troll over a wellknown and longtime respected poster like KaVir? Especially since not even the most loudmouthed advocates of violating the licence have even tried to question his integrity?

And why did Fiendish present the question to that lawyer in such a twisted and biased way? Talk about leading questions.
He might just as well have angled it as follows:

Question: If a software licence for a product has been used by a large community of people for a period of over 10 years, and there has been a general concensus between the copyright holders and this community about the intent and interpretation of the licence during that entire time period, and all abusers of the licence have been shunned by this same community during that same period, what rule should the user follow? Should they follow the intent of the copyright holders, who on single attempts to break the agreement in the past have confirmed and clarified this interpretation? Or should they follow the lead of a few greedy customers, who want to abuse the intent of a licence that most of their competitors respect, for their own personal gain and to get an edge in the competition?

I didn't think Aardwolf should be banned from the list when this thread started. After seeing the deterioration of the general moral on this board that this and the Diku thread started by the_logost already has lead to, I've changed my mind. Aardwolf may not be quite as blatantly violating the Diku licence as Medievia, but the facts are that they are violating it, that they keep doing it even after it was pointed out to them, and that they show absolutely no remorse for doing it. They should be banned as an example, and to keep the the moral of the community from deteriorating completely.

And also because using 'donation money' to pay for an advertising banner hardly could be defined as necessary costs to keep the mud up and running.
If there is a 'thin line' as Lasher calls it, they crossed it with that action.

If and when they ever launch that new code, they can be admitted back on the list.

So I am posing a straight question to Synozeer: Is Aardwolf going to be banned from the list or not? There are a few of us that would like to know.

11-05-2003, 10:40 AM	#125
Sinuhe Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 55	Is that so? Who is this new poster, Fiendish, with the trollish name? What credibility does an anonymous poster like this have? Why did he jump into the discussion at this late stage? What are his motives for posting? What is his 'normal' identity on the boards and why doesn't he use that? See, I too have made myself a mew identity. Just so I can ask these questions. What is my credibility? None. What is his credibility? None. Anonymous posts are not even worth the toilet paper they are written on. But there is a difference between me and Fiendish. He made his identity so he could post anonymously. I made mine to prove a point about anonymous posts. Why should we believe an anonymous troll over a wellknown and longtime respected poster like KaVir? Especially since not even the most loudmouthed advocates of violating the licence have even tried to question his integrity? And why did Fiendish present the question to that lawyer in such a twisted and biased way? Talk about leading questions. He might just as well have angled it as follows: Question: If a software licence for a product has been used by a large community of people for a period of over 10 years, and there has been a general concensus between the copyright holders and this community about the intent and interpretation of the licence during that entire time period, and all abusers of the licence have been shunned by this same community during that same period, what rule should the user follow? Should they follow the intent of the copyright holders, who on single attempts to break the agreement in the past have confirmed and clarified this interpretation? Or should they follow the lead of a few greedy customers, who want to abuse the intent of a licence that most of their competitors respect, for their own personal gain and to get an edge in the competition? I didn't think Aardwolf should be banned from the list when this thread started. After seeing the deterioration of the general moral on this board that this and the Diku thread started by the_logost already has lead to, I've changed my mind. Aardwolf may not be quite as blatantly violating the Diku licence as Medievia, but the facts are that they are violating it, that they keep doing it even after it was pointed out to them, and that they show absolutely no remorse for doing it. They should be banned as an example, and to keep the the moral of the community from deteriorating completely. And also because using 'donation money' to pay for an advertising banner hardly could be defined as necessary costs to keep the mud up and running. If there is a 'thin line' as Lasher calls it, they crossed it with that action. If and when they ever launch that new code, they can be admitted back on the list. So I am posing a straight question to Synozeer: Is Aardwolf going to be banned from the list or not? There are a few of us that would like to know.