Medievians on PC Game Review
Fredfish
explaining how Medievia violates the Diku liscence got removed after
less than a day, I just *had* to point out the stupidity of most of the
pro-Med reviews.
Here are some fun quotes:
"It is a text based game. Imagination rules the day." (this person rated
graphics 5/5)
From the same person:
"With regards to the allegations of a few outspoken and immature
detractors of Medievia I dismiss them entirely. Personally I feel the
Diku Licence is outdated [ ? ] and handcuffs any developer who wishes
to expand a MUD to a truly outstanding status. [Ah. So you're saying no
good muds follow the Diku liscence. ] The development of any silicon
baby takes money [ yeah, like Linux.] and to deny this fact is naive and
absurd in todays society. The whole idea of publicly releasing code yet
handcuffing potential developers with ridiculous repressive licenses is
counter productive and contradictive. [ I know, people should just write
everything for you and not expect to have their wishes regarding it
followed. Where do these trolls /come/ from? ] And yes I am fully aware
of the current upsurge (and history) with regards to source code release
in such areas as webservers, OS, etc."
"Player behaviour is not monitored as such, but complaints about cursing
and the like
are treated quickly in my experience. Bad language is not tolerated
and with the large
staff numbers there is usally someone online to deal with complaints
of this nature, and
others, promptly."
This fellow actually seemed quite reasonable, intelligent, and
thoughtful. How atypical of Med users...
I still remember the time I said '#$%@' on a public channel. Not even
'f---' or *gasp* 'f-ck'. I was told 'implied cursing is forbidden on
public channels'. I think this speaks for itself.
"I've never used the in-game sounds, mainly because I think they would
take
away from the game. But since there is no inherant sound in Medievia,
why not put in
some Prodigy when Player Killing, or some soft music when you're just
xping, you make
the music." (this fellow rated the sounds a '5', along with everything
else in the game.)
As for music, I would suggest 'Death on Two Legs' by Queen. A song about
an unethical jerk. ( Aaaaaaaah, / you suck my blood like a leech / you
break the law and you preach / screw my brain till it hurts / you've
taken ALL, MY, MONEY... and you want more... / / misguided old mule /
with your pigheaded rules / with your narrow-minded cronies who are
foooools, of the first divison... (no offense to those Med Gods who have
done the right thing))
"Probably the most interesting bit of coding and the most unique (Other
then the Catacombs) is the quest coding. ... (Hey! I'm 13 years old and
I'v had my med char chug down 13 kegs of ale in about 2 minutes with my
Bracelet of Life worn)"
This was from another '5s across the board' review by a Medievian who
seems unfamiliar with both linefeed and tab.
"Medievia's Graphics are ALL up to you! since it is an all text game
your imagination does all the graphics. making it somewhat different
looking for everyone."
Since this guy rated the graphics '5', I guess the best possible game
would not exist at all...
Of course, I think the best 'review' is the one with the nice, long
sequence of Medeivia-related MudSex foreplay <g>. You'll have to see it
for yourself at
http://www.pcgr.com:80/reviews/roleplaying/product_1222.asp.
>> Fredfish (E. Harper) <<
Danwar
> [snip]
> "It is a text based game. Imagination rules the day." (this person rated
> graphics 5/5)
Yes 5 out of 5 for the absence of bullshit, overbloated graphics. So many
games on the market today are just a bunch of pretty pictures strung
together with lame gameplay. IMO computer game quality has degraded
markedly since the pre-Commodore 64 era due to the advances in technology.
> "With regards to the allegations of a few outspoken and immature
> detractors of Medievia I dismiss them entirely. Personally I feel the
> Diku Licence is outdated [ ? ]
Yes outdated. Under the GNU General Public License and I quote 'When we
speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General
Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to
distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
wish), ...' At least the GNU General Public License acknowledges some form
of cost recovery be that only distribution costs. It is my understanding,
from reading this newsgroup, that any form of cost recovery is prohibited
under the DIKU license and to this I stated it was 'outdated' with regards
to contemporary licensing. Please note I do not purport to be a GNU license
or DIKU license expert. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the GNU
license please correct me in some form of mature and thought out manner.
> and handcuffs any developer who wishes to expand a MUD to a truly
> outstanding status. [Ah. So you're saying nogood muds follow the Diku
> liscence. ]
No that is not what I have said.
> The development of any silicon baby takes money [ yeah, like Linux.]
Yes, although many Linux products are free for download they are also
available to be purchased for a moderate fee, as stated above. Linus
Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world developed linux
under the GNU General Public License with many man-hours of initial
development and this did not come without the cost of time and money.
> and to deny this fact is naive and absurd in todays society. The whole
> idea of publicly releasing code yet handcuffing potential developers with
> ridiculous repressive licenses is counter productive and contradictive. [
> I know, people should just write everything for you and not expect to have
> their wishes regarding it followed. Where do these trolls /come/ from? ]
Once again this newsgroup dives into the world of flame and thus eroding any
sense of credibility. I will state, again, that the DIKU licence, in my
opinion and it is just that take it as you may, is outdated with regards to
contemporary forms of public code release licensing.
For the record since 1984 I have not had anyone write any code for me and if
they did I would give credit where due
Finally I would like to state that since the allegations of code theft have
been forwarded by this newsgroup I have had to check my own moral standing
with regards to my activity on the game I love the most, that being
Medievia. I do not support or have stated that I support code theft. I
instead focus on the inadequacies of the DIKU licence with regards to cost
recovery. Credits of initial developers should be replaced if infact it is
proved in a court of law that code theft was committed. I do not adhere to
the court of public opinion to which this newsgroup does. People in my
country are innocent until proven guilty.
[snip]
> >> Fredfish (E. Harper) <<
Dan Ottway
--
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield in the face of adversity.
"Danwar" <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote in message
news:39B12E9D...@crossroads.com...
kast...@my-deja.com
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
> Fredfish wrote :
> At least the GNU General Public License acknowledges some form
> of cost recovery be that only distribution costs. It is my
> understanding, from reading this newsgroup, that any form of cost
> recovery is prohibited under the DIKU license and to this I stated it
> was 'outdated' with regards to contemporary licensing.
All this is irrelevant, though. If he didn't want to follow the rules,
he shouldn't have used the codebase. Then he'd be able to follow
whatever rules he wanted and we'd all be standing by him.
But, *sigh*, he didn't.
Kas.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Robert Arras
<snip>
>
>Finally I would like to state that since the allegations of code theft have
>been forwarded by this newsgroup I have had to check my own moral standing
>with regards to my activity on the game I love the most, that being
>Medievia. I do not support or have stated that I support code theft. I
>instead focus on the inadequacies of the DIKU licence with regards to cost
>recovery. Credits of initial developers should be replaced if infact it is
>proved in a court of law that code theft was committed. I do not adhere to
>the court of public opinion to which this newsgroup does. People in my
>country are innocent until proven guilty.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> Fredfish (E. Harper) <<
>
Ok, you never said that "Medievia is not based on Diku", so I will
assume that you won't deny that. You choose instead to decide that
since a poorly written license is not legally enforceable, people can
do whatever they want.
That's ok, but it still won't make it ethical. And that is one of the
lovely things about your country, which I assume is the same as mine...
you may be innocent until proven guilty, but you also have the right
to call certain kinds of activities unethical even if they are
technically legal.
Also, the person who makes something can decide when and if others
use it, and under what terms they may use it. If you don't like
those terms, then don't use it.
This leaves us back where we were. Everyone seems to agree that Med
code started as Diku, and was altered a lot, is still being used today,
and Vryce decided to ignore the license since he felt it wasn't legally
enforceable.
So, what it comes down to is we divide the world into two kinds of
people: those who care about this, and those who don't.
John
Lee
> Yes 5 out of 5 for the absence of bullshit, overbloated graphics. So many
> games on the market today are just a bunch of pretty pictures strung
> together with lame gameplay. IMO computer game quality has degraded
> markedly since the pre-Commodore 64 era due to the advances in technology.
> Yes outdated. Under the GNU General Public License and I quote 'When we
> speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
General
> Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to
> distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
> wish), ...' At least the GNU General Public License acknowledges some form
> of cost recovery be that only distribution costs. It is my understanding,
> from reading this newsgroup, that any form of cost recovery is prohibited
> under the DIKU license and to this I stated it was 'outdated' with regards
> to contemporary licensing. Please note I do not purport to be a GNU
license
> or DIKU license expert. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the GNU
> license please correct me in some form of mature and thought out manner.
[snip]
charge for _distribution_
Vryce is _not_ distributing Medthievia. He is running it on his own server.
Even if DIKU were licensed under GPL, he is charging for use of the software
(by the players, they are users) and thus violating that license (DIKU's and
GPL). so you can't make the argument that DIKU's license is outdated b/c
GNU is better. They _both_ do not allow Vryce to charge players for free
software b/c he's not distributing it.
> Yes, although many Linux products are free for download they are also
> available to be purchased for a moderate fee, as stated above. Linus
> Torvalds with the assistance of developers around the world developed
linux
> under the GNU General Public License with many man-hours of initial
> development and this did not come without the cost of time and money.
yes, but the moderate fee applies to packaging, shipping, and distribution
costs. you can get linux distros for free or you can buy a CD. and DIKU
didn't come w/ man-hours of initial dev. and the cost of time and money?
See GPL info i stated above too. it's the disto of the CD, packaging, etc.
plus, if you buy something like RedHat or Mandrake, most of them include
software that is commercial, and not licensed under GPL.
[snip]
> Once again this newsgroup dives into the world of flame and thus eroding
any
> sense of credibility. I will state, again, that the DIKU licence, in my
> opinion and it is just that take it as you may, is outdated with regards
to
> contemporary forms of public code release licensing.
again, see above GPL info i gave. either way, Vryce is violating the
license.
[snip]
> Finally I would like to state that since the allegations of code theft
have
> been forwarded by this newsgroup I have had to check my own moral standing
> with regards to my activity on the game I love the most, that being
> Medievia. I do not support or have stated that I support code theft. I
> instead focus on the inadequacies of the DIKU licence with regards to cost
> recovery. Credits of initial developers should be replaced if infact it
is
> proved in a court of law that code theft was committed. I do not adhere
to
> the court of public opinion to which this newsgroup does. People in my
> country are innocent until proven guilty.
He's been proven guiltly by the jury here.
Go read KaVir's page:
http://www.kavir.dial.pipex.com/med.html
KaVir also did an estimation of costs and profit from donations. Vryce is
_making_ money. He is _profiting_ from the software. he is not at all
"recovering" costs.
Lee
kt...@ktek.yi.org
> Fredfish wrote :
[snip]
>> "With regards to the allegations of a few outspoken and immature
>> detractors of Medievia I dismiss them entirely. Personally I feel the
>> Diku Licence is outdated [ ? ]
> Yes outdated. Under the GNU General Public License and I quote 'When we
> speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General
> Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to
> distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you
> wish), ...' At least the GNU General Public License acknowledges some form
> of cost recovery be that only distribution costs. It is my understanding,
> from reading this newsgroup, that any form of cost recovery is prohibited
> under the DIKU license and to this I stated it was 'outdated' with regards
> to contemporary licensing. Please note I do not purport to be a GNU license
> or DIKU license expert. If I am incorrect in my understanding of the GNU
> license please correct me in some form of mature and thought out manner.
You can't modify GPLed software unless you agree license.
If you agree to comply GPL, you must announce appropriate copyright notice when it runs..
If you agree to comply GPL, you must redistribute source code of your modifications.
[snip]
>> >> Fredfish (E. Harper) <<
Danwar
kast...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
> > At least the GNU General Public License acknowledges some form
> > of cost recovery be that only distribution costs. It is my
> > understanding, from reading this newsgroup, that any form of cost
> > recovery is prohibited under the DIKU license and to this I stated it
> > was 'outdated' with regards to contemporary licensing.
>
> All this is irrelevant, though. If he didn't want to follow the rules,
> he shouldn't have used the codebase. Then he'd be able to follow
> whatever rules he wanted and we'd all be standing by him.
No this is not irrelevant for examples such as the GNU General Public
License are
yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU license. Precedence
and
exemplars allow us to question and contrast in an educated manner without
delving
into immature flame wars that prove nothing except the stupidity of its
authors.
My argument is based on the contents and appropriateness of the DIKU
license
and not based on moral or ethical issues. Once again I do not adhere to
the court of public opinion or the many attempts of character
assassination. I will wait to judge
when the evidence is brought to the appropriate forum.
Danwar
> Ok, you never said that "Medievia is not based on Diku", so I will
> assume that you won't deny that. You choose instead to decide that
> since a poorly written license is not legally enforceable, people can
> do whatever they want.
I never said Medievia is not based on Diku or based on Diku. Making assumptions
on what I will or will not deny is a poor stance and line of arguement. Secondly
in no way did I ever mention anything about the enforceable nature of the DIKU
license. Please do not misquote me or take what I said out of context. For
your benefit I will state again that examples such as the GNU General Public
License are yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU license. My
argument is based on the contents and appropriateness of the DIKU license and
not based on moral or ethical issues.
> That's ok, but it still won't make it ethical. And that is one of the
> lovely things about your country, which I assume is the same as mine...
> you may be innocent until proven guilty, but you also have the right
> to call certain kinds of activities unethical even if they are
> technically legal.
No, I call oppressive regimes (i.e. China, North Korea), parasitic contractual
agreements (music industry contracts for new artists), and licensing agreements
that
carry forward for some infinite time period for derived works into question. In
no way do I equate the aforementioned examples in terms of severity. Do you
not question authority or do you just blindly obey? This newsgroup has only
focused on the point that Vryce may or may not have broken the spirit and nature
of the
DIKU licence and not the appropriateness of the contents of the DIKU license
itself.
> Also, the person who makes something can decide when and if others
> use it, and under what terms they may use it. If you don't like
> those terms, then don't use it.
Agreed. That person must also realize the ramifications involved around the
greater
issue of releasing creative property into the public domain. This topic was
very
controversial before the expansion of the internet and has been even more
exacerbated due to the internet. All pubic release licenses are under question
as to
their perceived appropriateness.
> This leaves us back where we were. Everyone seems to agree that Med
> code started as Diku, and was altered a lot, is still being used today,
> and Vryce decided to ignore the license since he felt it wasn't legally
> enforceable.
>
Wrong only certain people on this newsgroup with underlying agendas have
concluded that. Nothing is proven it is an allegation. Kavir is putting
together a strong case as to these allegations.
[snip]
Fallen
Danwar wrote:
It's irrelevant as far as the fact that this 'is' the license, outdated or not.
If the license said 'You may only use the DIKU codebase if you always wear a
red hat on thursdays and howl at the full moon' then that's the license and you
'must' follow it or don't use it.
It really is that simple.
Fallen.
Danwar
> charge for _distribution_
> Vryce is _not_ distributing Medthievia. He is running it on his own server.
> Even if DIKU were licensed under GPL, he is charging for use of the software
> (by the players, they are users) and thus violating that license (DIKU's and
> GPL).
You have brought up many interesting points of discussion. I would like to
claim that indeed he maybe acting in a 'distributing manner'. Does he not pay
for the server? Does he not pay for the software (OS), and other associated
operating costs such as marketing, ISP costs, maintence, alternative power
supplies and storage-backup? I would contend that the internet is just another
medium of distribution. With that said what is Vryce actually distributing, a
service? Entertainment? Moreover Vryce does not charge anyone. Medievia is not
a pay-for-use or pay-to-pay item. Nowhere are players prohibited from playing
Medievia if they do not submit donations. This is the distinction it is a
donation not a charge for use. For example I love to sit in medlink and chat to
my fellow clannies and nowhere am I disallowed from this due to the lack of
making a donation.
> so you can't make the argument that DIKU's license is outdated b/c
> GNU is better. They _both_ do not allow Vryce to charge players for free
> software b/c he's not distributing it.
I have never stated that GNU is better. I have, however, stated it is a
yardstick for comparision. Please do not misquote me. Finally how do you know
what he is allowing donations for, usage or distribution? Is it stated
anywhere?
> He's been proven guiltly by the jury here.
Thanks you have stated and proven exactly what I have been saying. He has only
been found guilty here in the court of public opinion, this newsgroup where the
detractors of Medievia have many differing agendas.
Danwar
> It's irrelevant as far as the fact that this 'is' the license, outdated or not.
I contend it should be the focus of attention. Why not try to solve this issue
from the perspective of modifiying the license. How about a royality system? Joint
Business partnership?
> If the license said 'You may only use the DIKU codebase if you always wear a
> red hat on thursdays and howl at the full moon' then that's the license and you
> 'must' follow it or don't use it.
> It really is that simple.
Not really this issue is much more complicated. For example lets say that you
release a codebase for public usage. However you include a very oppressive and
restrictive license with the codebase. This license would call into question your
initial intentions of why you ever wanted to release the codebase? Did you infact
ever want to release the code for development and for the betterment of the
community or did you just want recognition by having clone like games with your
name plastered on the front of it? Why then release the code to the public? You
see we have a contradiction of terms and intentions here.
John Robert Arras
Ok, I will try again.
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
> I never said Medievia is not based on Diku or based on Diku. Making
> assumptions on what I will or will not deny is a poor stance and line of
> arguement.
> Secondly in no way did I ever mention anything about the enforceable
> nature of the DIKU license. Please do not misquote me or take what I
> said out of context. For your benefit I will state again that examples
> such as the GNU General Public License are yardsticks by which we judge
> the qualities of the DIKU license. My argument is based on the contents
> and appropriateness of the DIKU license and not based on moral or
> ethical issues.
Ok, what does " examples such as the GNU General Public License are
yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU license."
mean?
If you are attacking the Diku license, and GPL is a "yardstick by
which we judge the qualities of the DIKU license", does it stand to
reason that you think GPL is better in some sense? If I had written
that statement, I would mean that I think GPL is better than the
Diku license in some sense, but that is just me and you can feel free
to attack me for misquoting or assuming things about your statements
again.
The real question is:
Do you believe Medievia was written totally from scratch without using any
Diku code? Y/N (or do you not know or not have an opinion?)
I was not making assumptions in a vacuum. You seemed to be defending
or tolerating Vryce's activities based on you ~not liking the Diku
license as much as GPL~. (Feel free to replace the "not liking Diku"
statement with whatever you meant by that statement above about the
yardstick and GPL and Diku if you didn't mean that Diku was lacking
or inappropriate in your opinion in some respect.)
However.
This license issue has nothing to do with the central issue.
The central issue is whether or not Vryce is using code based on Diku.
Had you believed that the code was not based on Diku, you could have
just posted "Med is not Diku since it was all written from scratch."
Instead you decided to use a tangential argument attacking the license
itself.
This tells me that you have conceded the central issue.
At least, I should say if I were in your shoes and I knew that Med
was not based on Diku, I wouldn't even get into the licensing
issues, I would just stated that "Med is not Diku" and leave it
at that. Here's why:
The "you" below here means anyone..., and this is how I judge people:
If there is a central issue at hand, and you have a solid foundation for
making your case based on the central issue, then you address the central
issue.
If you don't have a solid case regarding the central issue, then
you throw up smokescreens and red herrings and use tangential issues to
avoid dealing with the central issue.
We now return to the specific "you".
That is what you did by attacking the license instead of attacking whether
or not the code is based on Diku. (or maybe you didn't attack the
license but just decided to say "the GNU General Public License are
yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU license. My
argument is based on the contents and appropriateness of the DIKU license
and not based on moral or ethical issues", which means something else
besides finding fault with the Diku license in some sense).
> No, I call oppressive regimes (i.e. China, North Korea), parasitic
> contractual agreements (music industry contracts for new artists), and
> licensing agreements that carry forward for some infinite time period for
> derived works into question. In no way do I equate the aforementioned
> examples in terms of severity. Do you not question authority or do you
> just blindly obey? This newsgroup has only focused on the point that
> Vryce may or may not have broken the spirit and nature of the DIKU
> licence and not the appropriateness of the contents of the DIKU license
> itself.
I feel this is more like an artist in the 1950's recording a song,
which is sampled by a current artist, who pays no royalties. Lots of
people have sued and won judgements in cases just like this.
> > This leaves us back where we were. Everyone seems to agree that Med
> > code started as Diku, and was altered a lot, is still being used today,
> > and Vryce decided to ignore the license since he felt it wasn't legally
> > enforceable.
>
> Wrong only certain people on this newsgroup with underlying agendas have
> concluded that. Nothing is proven it is an allegation. Kavir is putting
> together a strong case as to these allegations
You are again technically correct, but if people really believed that
Med was written from scratch, why aren't they posting "Med is not Diku
because it was all written from scratch." Instead there are arguments
like "Med rocks", "Med has changed a lot of code", "The license sucks",
"The Diku people aren't suing", "I don't care since it doesn't affect
me", "there are more important things in the world" ... etc..
All of these are tangential arguments which don't address the central
issue. Therefore, I must conclude that these people have conceded
the central issue that the Med code is massively rewritten Diku code.
P.S.
I didn't care about this until this summer. I posted one thing I think
during the "melpremo" phase of the flame war.
Then the Vryce post came out where he basically laid out about 10
tangential issues like how copyright isn't really enforceable in
this case, and how he spent money on lawyers and blah...and never
once did he say that he coded it all from scratch.
At that point I became one of the people with the "underlying
agendas". I don't like lawyerly BS and people trying to talk
over my head by using big words to obscure the central issue.
So I gained an agenda which was to try to show that Vryce is doing
something wrong, and that it bothers me, so I will try to expose the
wrongdoing. That is my agenda.
John
Sarenthalanos
> Lee wrote:
>
> > charge for _distribution_
> > Vryce is _not_ distributing Medthievia. He is running it on his own
server.
> > Even if DIKU were licensed under GPL, he is charging for use of the
software
> > (by the players, they are users) and thus violating that license (DIKU's
and
> > GPL).
>
> You have brought up many interesting points of discussion. I would like
to
> claim that indeed he maybe acting in a 'distributing manner'. Does he not
pay
> for the server? Does he not pay for the software (OS), and other
associated
> operating costs such as marketing, ISP costs, maintence, alternative power
> supplies and storage-backup? I would contend that the internet is just
another
> medium of distribution.
/Operational/ costs are *not* covered by GNU or most licensing.
/Distribution/ of software is.
The fact that you're saying it's "distributed" by the interenet fringes
around the likes of a straw-man argument. no, it is /OPERATED/ via the
Internet, as a /SERVICE/. So hence, it's considered a /SERVICE CHARGE/ in
this case, *not* a "distribution cost".
>With that said what is Vryce actually distributing, a
> service? Entertainment? Moreover Vryce does not charge anyone. Medievia
is not
> a pay-for-use or pay-to-pay item. Nowhere are players prohibited from
playing
> Medievia if they do not submit donations. This is the distinction it is a
> donation not a charge for use. For example I love to sit in medlink and
chat to
> my fellow clannies and nowhere am I disallowed from this due to the lack
of
> making a donation.
He is making a profit off of it. A BIG profit. Which again goes against
both GNU/Diku. Let's put this into perspective:
The "donations" are for in-game items only. These items are of a great
beneficial aid to the player, so yes, they would pay for their help they
offer. And which items are also a great help and almost essential to
advance to being a Hero, and the chances of Hero without said items going
against Hero with said items is laughable.
Now, you seem to have a couple of terms mixed up.
"Donation" does not mean "sale". The fact that it is used in this context
has confused you and many others as to the actual operation that's going on.
"Donate $50 a year and you get a talisman." There is actually a set PRICE
for these items, based upon "donation" level, and those items degrade. Kind
of like if you went to a rental and rented a boat or something. Eventually
it goes away, but you still have to pay the price to use it.
Vryce is, in fact, SELLING things in-game (or RENTING, if you will), which
is yet another GNU/Diku breaker. And, if you'd read someone else's post on
current stuff he's bought/owns, making one HELL of a profit.
-Sarenthalanos
rr...@lanminds.com
Fine. You may think the DIKU license is a very bad license. But it
IS the DIKU license, and thus is the one that must be followed when
using DIKU code. You can't unilaterally decide that you aren't going
to follow it because it's a bad license.
Kira Skydancer
Fredfish
Sir,
You are missing the point entirely. You do not 'judge' a licence. You follow it,
or you do not use the software. If you feel the DIKU licence is 'outdated', you
can ask the DIKU team to grant you a 'non-outdated one'.
On the 'court of public opinion' and 'innocent until proven guilty' comments.
'Public opinion' may influece one's feelings on the -quality- of a game,
however, my (and I think most of our) objections to the -ethics- of Medevia's
use of DIKU code is spurred by morality, rather than positive or negative
opinions towards Med's -gameplay-.
In addition, you are incorrect when you state Mr. Krause is 'innocent until
proven guilty'. While this is true in a criminal case, the civil standard of
proof is far more complicated. The most often quoted standard is 'preponderance
of the evidence'. In other words, if there is more evidence against Vyrce then
supporting him, he can be found guilty in a civil case. (Mind you, there is not
likely to be a civil case against Mr. Krause either.)
::: Fredfish :::
missa...@my-deja.com
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
[snip original quote]
> I never said Medievia is not based on Diku or based on Diku.
With statements like this, it is honestly very difficult to figure out
exactly what you _are_ saying.
Making assumptions
> on what I will or will not deny is a poor stance and line of
arguement. Secondly
> in no way did I ever mention anything about the enforceable nature of
the DIKU
> license. Please do not misquote me or take what I said out of
context. For
> your benefit I will state again that examples such as the GNU General
Public
> License are yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU
license. My
> argument is based on the contents and appropriateness of the DIKU
license and
> not based on moral or ethical issues.
>
[snip]
> No, I call oppressive regimes (i.e. China, North Korea), parasitic
contractual
> agreements (music industry contracts for new artists), and licensing
agreements
> that
> carry forward for some infinite time period for derived works into
question. In
> no way do I equate the aforementioned examples in terms of severity.
Do you
> not question authority or do you just blindly obey? This newsgroup
has only
> focused on the point that Vryce may or may not have broken the spirit
and nature
> of the
> DIKU licence and not the appropriateness of the contents of the DIKU
license
> itself.
Someone said it below, but it bears repeating. If the DIKU license
stated that in order to use the software, you needed to agree that Coke
was better than Pepsi, and provide a 3 page essay on a yearly basis
attesting to this, then that's what you need to do. If you don't want
to, then don't use their code. As far as the contents and
appropriateness of the actual DIKU license, they want you to give them
credit for their work, and prohibit you from making money off it in
several specific ways, due to the fact that the code was developed
while at university, and those were the terms of the agreement THEY HAD
TO SIGN. Now, is it appropriate for them to want you to follow the
agreement they had to sign? Yes. Is it appropriate for them to want
credit for their work? YES. There is no moral or ethical issue in
that - they have every right in the world to ask you obey the rules
they had to obey, and that you give them credit for their work.
Now that we've established the "contents and appropriateness" of the
DIKU license, we can bring ethics and morals in to play.
Case 1.
A friend gives me a game that he's gotten tired of, but still has
installed on his computer in exchange for a pack of cigarettes. I
install that game on my computer at my house, and proceed to play it.
Meanwhile, my friend has played it a few times since it's still on his
harddrive anyway. The EULA that came with the game says that you can't
resell the game, and that you need to buy a copy for each machine. Are
my friend and I doing something wrong?
Yes, you are. By giving your friend a pack of smokes for the game he,
in essence, sold it to you. The game is also now being played on 2
machines, but the publisher has only sold one copy of the game. This
is against the EULA.
Case 2.
I downloaded an email client that said it was "postcard ware" from
TuCows. The creator of the program has a little note in the "about"
saying that he/she would like a postcard or letter from anyone who uses
the program. I don't really have time to hunt up a stamp, and I don't
buy postcards anyway, but I'm gonna use the software. Am I doing
something wrong?
Yes, you are. A postcard is a rather frivolous thing in exchange for a
program that someone spent time and effort on. If you can't be
bothered to send a card with a picture of cows or chicks in bikinis on
it, then you shouldn't use the software.
With me so far?
Case 3.
I downloaded some game code to use in an online game that I run. Since
the code didn't fit flawlessly with my existing code, I had to debug it
and rewrite large setions of it. Since I had to spend my time doing
this, I don't feel that it's necessary to give credit to the author(s)
of the module. As far as I'm concerned, it belongs to me now because
of all the time and effort I had to put in to making it work. Is the
license agreement (which requests that I give credit on my "help
credits" screen) that came with this code still valid?
Yes, it is. If you didn't want to create something from scratch, you
need to give credit to the person whose work you used.
The above have all been ethical/moral situations. In each of them,
chances are good that no one is going to know if you break the
"rules". However, just because no one is going to know does not make
it right. And you can fully expect to have problems if someone who
DOES know you've broken the "rules" finds out about what you're doing.
In the DIKU/Medievia situation, this has happened. You can see KaVir's
page for the proper quote, but the creators of DIKU (and Merc) are
aware that their code is being used, but their license agreement has
been disregarded. On one side, you have people saying that the
creator's wishes should be honored, regardless of what changes you've
made to their code. On the other side, you have people who discount
the wishes of the creators, saying things have been changed so much
that it isn't their code anymore. (And yes, you do have people from
both sides in the middle, screaming insults at anyone). What you, as a
player, need to decide is what your concious is worth. If you believe
the code snippets that have been examined, the statements made by the
creators of that code, and the validity of their license, then you've
either quit playing/never going to play, or are what is commonly
reffered to as a "sell-out". In the case of a player, you'd be selling
your sense of what's right for fun. In the case of a god, you'd be
selling your contributions to the game for free donation items, and fun.
[snip]
> Agreed. That person must also realize the ramifications involved
around the
> greater
> issue of releasing creative property into the public domain. This
topic was
> very
> controversial before the expansion of the internet and has been even
more
> exacerbated due to the internet. All pubic release licenses are
under question
> as to
> their perceived appropriateness.
The DIKU license, on the issue of making money from the code, is quite
clear. The clause(s) were put into place due to the agreement they had
with the actual "DIKU" institution, where the code was developed. Is
it appropriate that a university have an agreement with their
students/staff that any code developed under specific circumstances be
kept "not for profit"? In my opinion, yes. Unless the developer(s) of
the code had a contract with the university to produce code for
commerical use, then the institution has a right to say that something
developed using their resources (computers, lab time, etc) be kept non-
commercial.
> Wrong only certain people on this newsgroup with underlying agendas
have
> concluded that. Nothing is proven it is an allegation. Kavir is
putting
> together a strong case as to these allegations.
>
I think Medievia is a great game. The only "agenda" I have is the wish
to see Vryce make "honest women" out of his players and staff by giving
credit where credit is due (and where it has been requested), and
following agreements he said he would follow. In a country where a
handshake has been a historically binding legal contract, it isn't too
much to ask that someone do the right thing for a game. Did you know
that during Medievia 3 the DIKU team was given proper credit (as
requested in the license) for 2 days before it was again removed?
Vryce has as much as admitted he used the code by sending the infamous
"fax", which demanded the removal of his copywritten property from
someone else's website. The property in question included code written
(and signed) by members of the DIKU and Merc teams.
I would encourage you to do some research into the past discussions on
this issue. Not everything has been a flamewar (hint: avoid posts that
have the word "slutress" in the topic). Also, I reccomend that you
visit www.lumthemad.com and search for the term "DIKU" in the past news
announcements. Although some of the documents mentioned are no longer
avalible anywhere I can find, Lum covered the EverQuest/DIKU code
dispute, and that may give you more of an idea as to why Medievia is
viewed as guilty of code theft.
Regarding your topic: Ethics vs Strict Legality, I find that Medievia
loses on both counts. What has been done is certainly unethical, and
it's illegal to agree to follow a license agreement, then toss it out
with the dirty dishwater.
Danwar
> Sir,
>
> [snip]You do not 'judge' a licence. [snip]
I guess you also do not question authority or try and solve problems through
alternative methods. Interesting.
I pose this scenario for your rebuttal. Let us say that you release a codebase for
public usage. However you include a very oppressive and restrictive license with the
codebase. This license would call into question your initial intentions of why you
ever wanted to release the codebase? Did you infact ever want to release the code
for development and for the betterment of the community or did you just want
recognition by having clone like games with your name plastered on the front of it?
Why then release the code to the public? You see we have a contradiction of terms
and intentions here.
> In addition, you are incorrect when you state Mr. Krause is 'innocent until
> proven guilty'. While this is true in a criminal case, the civil standard of
> proof is far more complicated. The most often quoted standard is 'preponderance
> of the evidence'.
Ok however you want to peel the potato that is fine by me. Until I see a civil case
Vryce is innocent until proven guilty.
Danwar
> IS the DIKU license, and thus is the one that must be followed when
> using DIKU code. You can't unilaterally decide that you aren't going
> to follow it because it's a bad license.
>
> Kira Skydancer
I never stated that the DIKU license is in anyway a 'bad license'. I have made
contrasts between them. Please read my posts carefully. I have, however, said
'outdated', 'inadequate', and 'appropriate'. Moreover I have not declared in
anyway not to follow the license because it is 'bad'. I am within my right to
call into question the contents of the DIKU license.
Sarenthalanos
> Fredfish wrote:
>
> > Sir,
> >
> > [snip]You do not 'judge' a licence. [snip]
>
> I guess you also do not question authority or try and solve problems
through
> alternative methods. Interesting.
>
> I pose this scenario for your rebuttal. Let us say that you release a
codebase for
> public usage. However you include a very oppressive and restrictive
license with the
> codebase.
However, let's put the above into perspective with the issue at hand.
Was the DikuMUD license "very oppressive and restrictive"?
No. Just about everyone who makes free to use programs have a licensing
agreement on giving proper credit of "based on", or "original author".
Check ANY perl script or program out there, particularly the free ones.
Most ask that you let them know, or include a copyright notice. Most
notably, DCForum2000, which I regularly reprogram. I keep the credits
clearly legible at the bottom of the pages it creates, and actually modified
the copyright notice so that it linked back to Davi Choi's site.
Is that so hard to do, leave in the credits though you have edited the
program to hell and back. It's still based upon the code, correct?
Asking that you leave the credits in is BASIC. We're not talking about a
Microsoft EULA where they want your next of kin (a joke, if you must know).
Credits is a very minor thing to ask people to include.
>This license would call into question your initial intentions of why you
> ever wanted to release the codebase? Did you infact ever want to release
the code
> for development and for the betterment of the community or did you just
want
> recognition by having clone like games with your name plastered on the
front of it?
> Why then release the code to the public? You see we have a contradiction
of terms
> and intentions here.
Mr. Scarecrow, you need to understand a bit more about the programming
community. Requesting that credits be left in to the original programmers
is very basic, and a general code of ethics used in just about EVERY piece
of software ever created and distributed for use/build.
Implying that the Diku team is being "wishy-washy" for asking a mere
courtesy leads me to believe that you are not too familiar with standards
credits and aknowledgements, or just don't care.
_Sarenthalanos
Sarenthalanos
Now we are arguing semantics.
Almost all of the terms you used are implying that the license is bad in one
manner or another. 'Outdated' and 'inadequate' in particular.
Also, along such said arguments of yours in the past, you have also, through
possible accident but it still comes across that way, that it's ok to use
and rip the DikuMUD license because it is 'outdated' and 'inadequate'.
So, a bit of inductive thinking...
AxL
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
>No this is not irrelevant for examples such as the GNU General Public
>License are
>yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU license.
No, it is not. The Diku license is not a GPL license. Whether
you think it is inadequate or not is entirely besides the point. If
Vryce did not wish to follow the Diku licesning agreement, then he
should not have chosen a Diku-derivitave (Merc) to base Medthievia on.
He did, and he has broken two of the major license requirements:
1. Credits in the login sequence, (login and see that they are not
there).
2. Making a profit / accepting donations. (login and read the helpfiles
on donations, and estimate how much he rakes in a year).
Quad erat demonstratum.
--
-AxL, a...@wpcr.plymouth.edu "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion
a...@mail.plymouth.edu Come into contact with reality at any point."
http://mindwarp.plymouth.edu/~axl - Nietzsche
Lee
[snip]
also, donations go toward usage, not distro. Vryce is not distributing
anything.
Lee
Sarenthalanos
"Lee" <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8orul7$13q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
> [snip]
> also, donations go toward usage, not distro. Vryce is not distributing
> anything.
>
> Lee
Actually, by my calculations, he's making off like a bandit. I wonder if
the IRS knows...
Now, taking the least-costing item from reports:
A talisman for $50 yearly.
Now, take a nice, big random number, like $2000 dollars a month it costs him
to run it with ISP charges.
$24k a year.
Now, it would take only 480 people to 'rent' a talisman to cover server
charges.
$50 each, and that's the lowest-costing item in the rack, so to speak.
Nevermind the $300 donations and such. Now, there are according to Vryce,
hundreds of thousands of players. It doesn't take a calculus wizard to
figure out that he's making some giant wad of cash.
-Sarenthalanos
Kurt Schwind
> Actually, by my calculations, he's making off like a bandit. I wonder if
> the IRS knows...
>
> Now, taking the least-costing item from reports:
>
> A talisman for $50 yearly.
>
> Now, take a nice, big random number, like $2000 dollars a month it costs him
> to run it with ISP charges.
>
> $24k a year.
>
> Now, it would take only 480 people to 'rent' a talisman to cover server
> charges.
>
> $50 each, and that's the lowest-costing item in the rack, so to speak.
> Nevermind the $300 donations and such. Now, there are according to Vryce,
> hundreds of thousands of players. It doesn't take a calculus wizard to
> figure out that he's making some giant wad of cash.
Not to pick-nits, but the talismans are purchased. Not rented. If you
pay $50 bucks you get a talisman for as long as you keep your character.
There are other items that last a year. Aura, Pocket, Blessing, etc....
all of which expire at the end of one year and can be renewed at a
slightly reduced price.
Kurt
Sarenthalanos
"Kurt Schwind" <ku...@slithytoves.org> wrote in message
news:39B185F5...@slithytoves.org...
I stand corrected.
But, of course, those items cost MORE than the Talisman, correct?
I'm not even going to go into the elitism that the item-collecting has
caused...that's another can of worms...
-Sarenthalanos
Danwar
[snip]
> Now that we've established the "contents and appropriateness" of the
> DIKU license, we can bring ethics and morals in to play.
No you have not established anything. Giving credit for previous work is a
must. As I have stated at the onset of this post I believe the DIKU license
to be outdated with regards to contemporary public code release licenses.
[snip]
> The DIKU license, on the issue of making money from the code, is quite
> clear. The clause(s) were put into place due to the agreement they had
> with the actual "DIKU" institution, where the code was developed. Is
> it appropriate that a university have an agreement with their
> students/staff that any code developed under specific circumstances be
> kept "not for profit"? In my opinion, yes. Unless the developer(s) of
> the code had a contract with the university to produce code for
> commerical use, then the institution has a right to say that something
> developed using their resources (computers, lab time, etc) be kept non-
> commercial.
Thanks for adding this to the conversation. Here we see that indeed the
DIKU license states 'not for profit'. Does the license anywhere state
collection of donations? Does the license anywhere state the collection of
donations for the further development of the code base? Medievia does not
charge money for playing the game and creating profits. It accepts
donations to help defray the costs of running the game and developement.
> I would encourage you to do some research into the past discussions on
> this issue.
I have attempted to read every post related to med on this issue. I suggest
you read my initial posts as to the thesis that I have forwarded. It is
obvious you have not.
I am not contesting or discussing the issue of if the DIKU license applies
to Medievia. Once again for your benefit, I am calling into question the
inadequacies of the license with regards to contemporary business models.
> viewed as guilty of code theft.
Yes as you say 'viewed' by a bunch of people who develop other MUDs and that
may or may not have other agendas.
> Regarding your topic: Ethics vs Strict Legality,
Wrong this is not my topic. Please read the posts. John Robert Arras came
up with this one.
Sarenthalanos
> missa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The DIKU license, on the issue of making money from the code, is quite
> > clear. The clause(s) were put into place due to the agreement they had
> > with the actual "DIKU" institution, where the code was developed. Is
> > it appropriate that a university have an agreement with their
> > students/staff that any code developed under specific circumstances be
> > kept "not for profit"? In my opinion, yes. Unless the developer(s) of
> > the code had a contract with the university to produce code for
> > commerical use, then the institution has a right to say that something
> > developed using their resources (computers, lab time, etc) be kept non-
> > commercial.
>
> Thanks for adding this to the conversation. Here we see that indeed the
> DIKU license states 'not for profit'. Does the license anywhere state
> collection of donations? Does the license anywhere state the collection of
> donations for the further development of the code base? Medievia does not
> charge money for playing the game and creating profits. It accepts
> donations to help defray the costs of running the game and developement.
>
"You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in
any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for
distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge
for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc.
By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the
University, and hence will be sued."
Vryce HAS profited on it, through SALES of items in-game. The 'donations'
are for ITEMS. You 'donate' X amount, you recieve Y item. It's fixed, and
a set amount. People aren't 'donating' for the sheer purpose, it's to
actually be able to get somewhere in the game through giving money for items
to help them. Which, if it was just to defray for the server cost and
everything, then it wouldn't need that much money. However, some yearly
'donations' have been in the hundreds of dollars. And by thousands of
players, then it would accumulate a lot of cash. Not all of the 'donations'
are used to pay for the server or whatever. A LOT of it goes into Vryce's
pocket, which explains a lot of things reported by others about his
purchases of late.
So yes, he is making profit.
And yet, there's still the matter of the credits.
Danwar
> You seemed to be defending or tolerating Vryce's activities
No I am not defending Vryce. I in no way speak for Vryce or represent his
views.
Please read my posts and try to keep this discussion on topic.
> This license issue has nothing to do with the central issue.
Actually it does and is very relevant. If in anyway this leads to a conclusion
of the outstanding issues then it is a worthy conversation. Pointing fingers
and conducting character assissination is however immature and can be brought
against you in a civil case.
> This tells me that you have conceded the central issue.
Not at all it tells me that you have.
> Therefore, I must conclude that these people have conceded
> the central issue that the Med code is massively rewritten Diku code.
Please do not assume to know what others are thinking this serves no point.
This newsgroup is obviously biased because it is frequented by coders of other
muds that are in competition to Medievia. I do not expect to find an unbiased
point of view here.
Fredfish
> alternative methods. Interesting.
I question authority when there is a moral imperative to do so. I do not view the DIKU
team as 'authority'. I view them as what they are - a small group of dedicated and
talented coders who put a lot of work into making a truly great MUD system.
Violating the trust of the entire MUD community is not an 'alternative method to solving
problems'. It is an illegal and morally reprehensible activity which deserves censure if
not legal action.
The thing with straw men -- they're quite easily ripped apart.
> I pose this scenario for your rebuttal. Let us say that you release a codebase for
> public usage. However you include a very oppressive and restrictive license with the
> codebase.
Well gee, then I've exercised my legal and moral right to control the distribution of my
work. Whether or not you or anyone else likes it.
> This license would call into question your initial intentions of why you
> ever wanted to release the codebase?
That's not a question.
> Did you infact ever want to release the code for development and for the betterment of
> the community or did you just want recognition by having clone like games with your
> name plastered on the front of it?
Does it matter? No. It's my work. If my licence says, 'you may use this software only if
your name is Bob, you have a black cat, and your login screen says 'pook' at least 57
consecutive times' then you must abide by this licence, or not use the software.
But the DIKU licence is nowhere near this arbitrary and restrictive. All it asksis that
credit is given where credit is due, and the wishes of the authors with regard to
profits be respected. These wishes are completely understandable - they feel if someone
wants to make money off a MUD, fine, just don't use our code!
> Why then release the code to the public? You see we have a contradiction of terms
> and intentions here.
No, we don't.
The expectation when code is released to the public is that the wishes of the authors be
respected. If someone has a problem with the authors' terms, they can write their own
piece of software.
> Ok however you want to peel the potato that is fine by me. Until I see a civil case
> Vryce is innocent until proven guilty.
Actually, if you want to get technical, he's innocent if he's innocent, and guilty if
he's guilty.
[ hint - not innocent ]
::: Fredfish :::
Danwar
[snip]
> no, it is /OPERATED/ via the Internet, as a /SERVICE/. So hence, it's
> considered a /SERVICE CHARGE/ in this case, *not* a "distribution cost".
I would suggest that Medievia is distributed via the internet. And Vryce
accepts donations he does not charge.
> He is making a profit off of it. A BIG profit.
This is an allegation that is only supported through a back of the napkin
analysis.
Do you know the exact outlay? Have you inspected his hardware/software
resources? No you are speculating.
> The "donations" are for in-game items only. These items are of a great
> beneficial aid to the player,
Medievia's player base is diverse. You only come from the perspective that
people want stats. Do you not realize that there are many people that view
Medievia as a large chat room to talk to friends?
> almost essential to advance to being a Hero
Wrong again. I heroed in 900 hours without any donation equipment.
> and the chances of Hero without said items going
> against Hero with said items is laughable.
>
No not laughable just takes a little work and imagination. I am in the process
of proving that you do not need donation eq to be competitive. I am a evil
cleric. I can produce stats where I can win player killing quests quite easily.
[snip]
Danwar
> Now we are arguing semantics.
I have seen in previous posts how people on this newsgroup take peoples comments
out of context and manipulate the meaning. Therefore I have to correct them.
[snip]
thr...@my-deja.com
> Thanks you have stated and proven exactly what I have been saying. He
has only
> been found guilty here in the court of public opinion, this newsgroup
where the
> detractors of Medievia have many differing agendas.
>
>
He has been found guilty by people such as myself, Danwar, who have
worked on the Medievia code and know for a fact , that is stolen and to
this day contains a substantially large amount of the original MERC
code. There is no "opinion" in this matter.
You are aware of the fact that he did just not violate the license with
which the software was distrbuted with. He also removed the credits of
OTHER PEOPLE'S code and copywrited it AND made himself the author of
the code.
You can give me all the irrelevant arguments you want, compare the DIKU
license to GNU or GPL, it just doesn't matter.
FACT: Medievia is running on dervied MERC code that was not orginally
written by Michael Krause in its entirety.
FACT: Michael Krause removed the original author's comments , replacing
them with his own meaningless copyright and labeling the code as
authored by himself. To this day, the large portions of the orginal
author(s) work remains in "his" code.
FACT: Medievia.com makes far above the costs of operation and is in
blatant violation of a license that had Michael Krause not wanted to
follow, he should not have used the software in the first place.
Whatever domain the software was released in, it is beyond my
comprehension how you can justify the ethics and rationalize what
Michael Krause has done with Medievia, Danwar.
Had you spent countless hours contributing entertainment software to
the public *for free* and then had your name removed from the code as
if you never had existed, perhaps then you might understand.
I also understand you are a player of Medievia and the "cult of
personality" extends far beyond the drones who serve on the staff and
into a lot of the players who just don't give a damn about ethics in
general.
Thranz
Former Level 140 God and Coder of Medievia
Danwar
> No, it is not. The Diku license is not a GPL license.
You are correct the Diku license is not the GPL.
> Whether you think it is inadequate or not is entirely besides the point.
No I contest that there are many perspectives at which to attack this problem.
Fredfish posted comments made by myself and I commented. I did not wish to be
included in this newsgroup. I am attempting to defend my perspective in a
mature manner.
> If
> Vryce did not wish to follow the Diku licesning agreement, then he
> should not have chosen a Diku-derivitave (Merc) to base Medthievia on.
To my knowledge I have heard of no civil case to which Vryce has been charged
with violating any license or ordering him to follow a license.
[snip]
Danwar
First off I respect the work and skill exhibited by such players named
Thranz/Zartan.
And on behalf of the med community if I may speak on their behalf I would
like to say that we miss you.
Secondly I did not start this post Fredfish posted comments I made. I am
attempting to defend my original comments. My original comments did not
attempt to investigate or dispute the claims of code theft. I did however
attempt to forward a point of view in that I feel the Diku license is
outdated.
I still stand by my judgement in that I judge people as innocent until
proven guilty in the appropriate forum. I know some people may see this as
naive however my society operates by certain rules. Futher I do not
condone code theft or licence violation. And if Vryce is proven guilty by
a court of law I will request Danwar to be removed from Medievia. My ethics
and morals are held in standing due to these aforementioned beliefs.
[snip]
> You can give me all the irrelevant arguments you want, compare the DIKU
> license to GNU or GPL, it just doesn't matter.
I don't believe my arguement to be irrelevant. I would love for this issue
to be concluded where all parties are happy. I agree that creative
property should be properly credited. I believe however that to develop a
game to truly worldwide proportions takes money.
[snip]
> Whatever domain the software was released in, it is beyond my
> comprehension how you can justify the ethics and rationalize what
> Michael Krause has done with Medievia, Danwar.
I do not justify the ethics. I have not even talked about ethics. I am no
perfect human being and I am not one to judge. I stand by my initial
arguement that is centered around the approptiateness of the Diku license
in today's commerical society. Not if Vryce has broken it, that is not for
me to judge.
> Had you spent countless hours contributing entertainment software to
> the public *for free* and then had your name removed from the code as
> if you never had existed, perhaps then you might understand.
I agree and I understand and I do not believe in theft. I work 9-5 as a
programmer and hated all those kids in school looking over my shoulder
trying to copy my programs.
[snip]
Sarenthalanos
interested in this.
Rough amounts of how many people 'donated' what kind of money, and what
items could be had for the levels of cash 'donations', would be appreciated.
As I rebuilt systems for the Navy, I know the approximate costs for hardware
and even ISP charges, so I'm trying to roughly figure out how much this guy
is making off this.
Thanks in advance,
-Sarenthalanos
<thr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8os4ri$ml7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Sarenthalanos
> Sarenthalanos wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > no, it is /OPERATED/ via the Internet, as a /SERVICE/. So hence, it's
> > considered a /SERVICE CHARGE/ in this case, *not* a "distribution cost".
>
> I would suggest that Medievia is distributed via the internet. And Vryce
> accepts donations he does not charge.
Now you are really grasping at straws.
Ok, just one small thing.
Medievia is not distributed on the internet by Vryce, because the term
"distribution" means that the software is spread out.
People are using the software, which is hosted on his machine. That is
considered a "service".
> > He is making a profit off of it. A BIG profit.
>
> This is an allegation that is only supported through a back of the napkin
> analysis.
> Do you know the exact outlay? Have you inspected his hardware/software
> resources? No you are speculating.
It doesn't take an ex-Naval network co-sysop to figure THAT one out. But
just for shits n' giggles, one will put things in a simple to understand
format for you so you'll possibly understand exactly how off-base you are..
A typical MUD server, or even one that could be built to specification for
VERY large use:
No high-end graphic card requirements.
High-RAM.
High-end CPU.
High-bandwidth network connection/ISP.
And this is assuming he goes out and buys a brand-new system every year,
fully high-end.
$400 - 800MHz Athlon CPU (at the time I bought it)
$1k - 3x 256MB RAM
$100 - Motherboard
$120 - Router
$70 - High-Speed LAN card.
$2k - Misc computer hardware and software.
$24k Monthly ISP charges (Now this is a LOT. You could get OC-3 lines for
cheaper than this.)
Comes to around $27690. $24k of which is needed for ISP charges.
Now, with the yearly 'rentals', some of around $300 each, and with one-times
of $50, that adds up quickly.
A lot admit to paying over $100 each, and some up to $300. Would take less
than three hundred people at a $100 to easily cover the costs.
$3690, a large total for a MUD server. Hell, let's bump it to $5000, again,
for shits n' giggles. Takes only a hundred people paying for a talisman to
cover the cost of the server. A backup server would only ass in about
another $1k or so, because it's just a file server.
So, the donations more than easily cover the cost of the server and ISP
charges.
Still, if it was out of his pocket, or the 'donations' leveling out the
server and ISP cost, that still doesn't explain that with the higher amount
of 'donations' (or, to be more accurate, sale of in-game items) Vryce has a
new car and everything, even moved to a nice house (if I hear right).
Doesn't look like he's hurting for money, or has any problems with finding
cash for maintaining it, to say the least.
> > The "donations" are for in-game items only. These items are of a great
> > beneficial aid to the player,
>
> Medievia's player base is diverse. You only come from the perspective
that
> people want stats. Do you not realize that there are many people that
view
> Medievia as a large chat room to talk to friends?
Thank you for replying here. I look forward to your next Vryce-esque
rebuttal. You didn't address my point at all.
Danwar
> "You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in
> any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for
> distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge
> for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc.
> By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the
> University, and hence will be sued."
>
Excellent this is the part of the Diku license to which I am contending is
outdated. I offered for comparision reasons that of the GPL that alows one to
charge for distribution costs. Licences are not set in stone they can be
changed. To not accept change or adapt to today's commercial based business
models in my opinion is silly. This is only my opinion take it as you may.
Fredfish posted my comments I am defending my point of view.
[snip]
Danwar
Sarenthalanos
So?
Now you are implying that since the license is "outdated", or doesn't follow
another licencing (GPL), that it's OK to go contrary to the licensing
because others do it - or should be changed to allow it. Again, it looks
like you are saying that it's ok to charge for distribution costs (as you
keep replying to those certain aspects of posts), and then keep saying that
he's taking donations for it. So which story are you going with next post?
Fact is, it's a licensing agreement, and they wrote it the way they wanted
it to be. If they don't want people to charge for "distribution costs",
then that is their right (like how many other software packages can be
exploited through that term, using $30 or more for 'distribution').
Danwar
[snip]
> Just about everyone who makes free to use programs have a licensing
> agreement on giving proper credit of "based on", or "original author".
Yep I agree I an not contending giving credit. I am contending the funding
aspects to which the Diku license refers to.
> Mr. Scarecrow, you need to understand
I see you are dragging this conversation down to a base level of insult. I have
been programming since 1984. I have as much right to have a perspective on this
issue than you do. From this point on I will not answer your posts. You
obviously cannot discuss a topic in a mature manner.
[snip]
Sarenthalanos
> Sarenthalanos wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Just about everyone who makes free to use programs have a licensing
> > agreement on giving proper credit of "based on", or "original author".
>
> Yep I agree I an not contending giving credit. I am contending the funding
> aspects to which the Diku license refers to.
So how is that "very oppressive and restrictive" of them to wish that there
was not any distribution costs, which have in the past been used to actually
SELL pieces of modified software and loophole through the licensing
agreement.
> > Mr. Scarecrow, you need to understand
>
> I see you are dragging this conversation down to a base level of insult.
I have
> been programming since 1984. I have as much right to have a perspective on
this
> issue than you do. From this point on I will not answer your posts. You
> obviously cannot discuss a topic in a mature manner.
Actually, no, it isn't.
That's just the term commonly given to those who have to resort to straw-man
arguments.
I've been getting sick of your method of saying that a pot is cookware, and
then when someone replies, you insist that the cookware is not a pot.
You've been skirting around things and dancing around the points so much,
it's hard to tell where exactly you stand or if this is some long, drawn-out
troll on your part.
If you don't want to reply, that is your choice. However, I will still
insist that the straw-man reference continues to be applicative towards your
methods of discussional ambiguity.
-Sarenthalanos
Danwar
> Violating the trust of the entire MUD community is not an 'alternative method to solving
> problems'.
In no way did I offer that the violation of trust is an alternative method to solving
problems. I did offer another perspective and opinion. You are welcome to take this opinion
as you wish.
[snip]
> Well gee, then I've exercised my legal and moral right to control the distribution of my
> work. Whether or not you or anyone else likes it.
Yes and to that I would question why you did not just release the complied binary and insure
your legal rights and control.
[snip]
> Does it matter? No. It's my work. If my licence says, 'you may use this software only if
> your name is Bob, you have a black cat, and your login screen says 'pook' at least 57
> consecutive times' then you must abide by this licence, or not use the software.
Yes I agree then just release the compiled binary then. I contend that a license that does
not allow for cost recovery only promotes clone like muds that will never progress out of
the mud community and challenge such games as Diablo 2 or EverQuest.
[snip]
Fredfish
Danwar wrote:
> Fredfish wrote:
>
> > Violating the trust of the entire MUD community is not an 'alternative method to solving
> > problems'.
>
> In no way did I offer that the violation of trust is an alternative method to solving
> problems. I did offer another perspective and opinion. You are welcome to take this opinion
> as you wish.
Excuse me, calling something an 'opinion' does not negate any criticism of it. Besides, that
wasn't an opinion, that was a deliberate, snide attempt at setting up a straw man. Again, you
are dancing around the issues here.
> > Well gee, then I've exercised my legal and moral right to control the distribution of my
> > work. Whether or not you or anyone else likes it.
>
> Yes and to that I would question why you did not just release the complied binary and insure
> your legal rights and control.
I guess I was naive and hadn't accounted for unethical jerks ripping off my work. I kind of
figured it would be better to allow others to customize my work to suit their needs. How silly
of me.
> Yes I agree then just release the compiled binary then. I contend that a license that does
> not allow for cost recovery only promotes clone like muds that will never progress out of the
> mud community and challenge such games as Diablo 2 or EverQuest.
>
> [snip]
What you snip here is far more important then what you try to refute.
I said, 'if someone wants to make money off a MUD, fine, just don't use [DIKU] code!', and
later, 'The expectation when code is released to the public is that the wishes of the authors be
respected. If someone has a problem with the authors' terms, they can write their own piece of
software.'
I offer these arguments again, and if you chose to ignore them, I will assume you have no
refutation of them, and we can end the debate.
It is not the responsibility of the DIKU authors or anyone else to cater to the opinion of me,
you, Vyrce, or anyone else. They can distribute their software how they want. If you don't like
it, well gee, too bad. Write your own MUD.
::: Fredfish :::
None
The evidence has already been brought. Whether or not people get into a
flame war over it doesn't change the fact that it's solid and undeniable
evidence. Aside from that, Vryce himself engages in these flame wars, if
not outright stoking them. Again, doesn't impact the evidence one way or
the other.
Medievia is a DIKU. It's as simple as that.
Put the credits up. It's as simple as that.
Adhere to the license and stop earning money off gameplay. It's as simple
as that.
It's not going to kill Medievia to do either of these things. Vryce is
already a joke in the mudding community, and his players aren't going to
char that much if they suddenly see some additional credits in the game;
it's not like it's going to tarnish his reputation any further.
I'm amazed at the extent to which someone will go to not only turn a blind
eye to the evidence, but then try to nevertheless argue the whole situation
away and seem flabbergasted that the MUD community at large feels animosity.
What has Medthievia returned to the MUD community? Let's see. It ignores
the DIKU license, not only acting like it's not a DIKU, but by earning money
off DIKU code. It's behavior helped deprive the MUD community of additional
releases of DIKU. It competes against other MUDs that *do* follow the
license, and the money it inappropriately takes in helps assure it of an
extreme competitive advantage. And so far as I know it has never released
its own goodies, or even parts of it, to the MUD community at large for use
on their systems. (not that it has to, I'm simply covering all the bases)
Of course if my code were as poorly written and obviously as integrated into
DIKU as Med's is, and I was unwilling to admit it was DIKU, I'd balk at
sharing it too.
Yes, Med is a pretty neat game from the player's side. I enjoy some of the
other giant MUDs better, personally. But it's pretty neat. That has
absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's a Diku, it violates the
licensing agreement, and it's lied about it.
Sarenthalanos
I was harping on about the credits because I was really hoping you could put
the parallel together of asking for credits being left in, and the asking
that nobody takes your work to have money made off of or a distribution cost
being incurred. Programs (the actual codebase, NOT THE SERVICE) can be
d/led for free. So there should not be a distribution cost in any case.
Yet again, that still doesn't explain why you are trying to maintain that
they should have it so that people could charge for it by giving them the
service, and then trying to say that Vryce is not making money off of the
'donations' for the service.
Why I said you had a crippled definition or understanding, is that you
cannot clearly understand the terms and definitions of the internet and how
programs work through it. From ARPANET, if you wish to pull out some years
of creds, and from military experience as well.
Distribute/Distribution relates to a program, either the actual passing out
of the program or referring to the actual build of the program itself.
Service refers to the allowing of others to use a (duh) service that you are
providing. In this case, allowing others to use your program.
To insist that the two terms are synonymous is really stretching reality,
much less the actual definitions those words have become to be known by.
Danwar
I stand by my opinions.
I did not expect to change the views of people on this newsgroup.
None
How in the *hell* do you figure the Diki license is oppressive? Funny,
everyone else - even those who create significant derivatives - seem
perfectly capable of keeping up with it. Countless MUDs have no problem
keeping up with it. Why can't Medievia keep up with it? Well, because
Vryce wanted to make money off of it, and he couldn't do that by keeping
with the license, so he just said, oh, well, it's not a Diku. Doesn't
matter that it was PAINFULLY obvious even to players for quite some time
that it was a Diku, regardless of the recent revelation of Med code that
itself was clearly Diku.
The license does NOT prevent you from modifying the living hell out of the
code and doing whatever the hell you want with it. It simply says you have
to include credits for its source (why the hell is that such a hardship for
some people), and you can't make money off of it. The *only* thing that's
going to keep you from doing with your mad coding skills is making money off
of the game, and if you want to make money off of the game just *code the
damned thing from scratch yourself*.
> Not really this issue is much more complicated. For example lets say that
you
> release a codebase for public usage. However you include a very oppressive
and
> restrictive license with the codebase. This license would call into
question your
> initial intentions of why you ever wanted to release the codebase? Did
you infact
> ever want to release the code for development and for the betterment of
the
> community or did you just want recognition by having clone like games with
your
> name plastered on the front of it? Why then release the code to the
Myles L Skinner
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
>
> For your benefit I will state again that examples such as the GNU General
> Public License are yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU
> license.
Who is this "we" you are presuming to speak for? The GPL and the DIKU license
are two very different things, presumably established under different
circumstances and for different things. We can compare the two, certainly, but
I don't necessarily buy into the premise that the DIKU license should somehow
aspire to be the GPL.
> This newsgroup has only focused on the point that Vryce may or may not
> have broken the spirit and nature of the DIKU licence and not the
> appropriateness of the contents of the DIKU license itself.
The appropriateness of the contents of the DIKU license is not discussed
because it has been the general consensus of the MUD community that the
license *is* appropriate.
For those who don't like the license but want to run a commercial MUD, why
would they be use DIKU in the first place? There are other types of MUDs that
can be used for commercial purposes--GameCommandos used to have a feature on
such MUDs before they decided to shut down.
ms
--
Covenant MUD: "Our Silent Supporters Can Beat Up Your Silent Supporters!"
Jon A. Lambert
>
> Someone said it below, but it bears repeating. If the DIKU license
> stated that in order to use the software, you needed to agree that Coke
> was better than Pepsi, and provide a 3 page essay on a yearly basis
> attesting to this, then that's what you need to do. If you don't want
> to, then don't use their code. As far as the contents and
> appropriateness of the actual DIKU license, they want you to give them
> credit for their work, and prohibit you from making money off it in
> several specific ways, due to the fact that the code was developed
> while at university, and those were the terms of the agreement THEY HAD
> TO SIGN. Now, is it appropriate for them to want you to follow the
> agreement they had to sign? Yes. Is it appropriate for them to want
> credit for their work? YES. There is no moral or ethical issue in
> that - they have every right in the world to ask you obey the rules
> they had to obey, and that you give them credit for their work.
Well said and excellent examples!
And commenting on what Danwar stated....
The GNU general public license IS NOT a yardstick by which licenses SHOULD
or MUST be judged for content, quality and purpose.
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--
Sarenthalanos
Danwar
I dont have all day answering these posts. I have stated my opinion for the record.
Thanks now I am gonna go play med. Thanks
Lee
> I still stand by my judgement in that I judge people as innocent until
> proven guilty in the appropriate forum. I know some people may see this as
> naive however my society operates by certain rules. Futher I do not
> condone code theft or licence violation. And if Vryce is proven guilty
by
> a court of law I will request Danwar to be removed from Medievia. My
ethics
> and morals are held in standing due to these aforementioned beliefs.
> [snip]
court of law? I can prove to you that two triangles are congruent, do I
have to show you in court? I fail to see why you refuse to believe the
evidence brought forth by the ng and KaVir's site. Please enlighten me on
this subject. I'm kind of confused.
[snip]
> I do not justify the ethics. I have not even talked about ethics. I am no
> perfect human being and I am not one to judge. I stand by my initial
> arguement that is centered around the approptiateness of the Diku license
> in today's commerical society. Not if Vryce has broken it, that is not for
> me to judge.
Okay. This bugs me a lot. It's not your place to say that the DIKU license
is not appropriate anymore. If the DIKU team thought that their license was
outdate/inappropriate for today's word, they could issue a separate license
and/or amend the current one. It's _their_ code and _their_ license. They
can do whatever they want with it. So, yes, I believe you ought to ask them
about why their license is not agreeable to you and express your views to
the DIKU team. Maybe they'll change it. But you _cannot_ say: "This
newsgroup has only focused on the point that Vryce may or may not have
broken the spirit and nature of the DIKU licence and not the appropriateness
of the contents of the DIKU license itself." You cannot say that, because
the license is set in stone and until it is changed, anyone who wishes to
use DIKU must follow the license. That's partly why the ng is focused on
Vryce violating the license and not whether or not it's appropriate. The
other part is because most people here (from what i've read and personal
experience) do not mind the license and do not feel it is 'oppressive',
hence the large amount of diku and diku derivatives out today compared to
custom or ripped-off codebases. Btw, what's oppressive about having to
inclu. the credits and not make money off of the codebase? It is their work.
Please enlighten me on this too.
> I agree and I understand and I do not believe in theft. I work 9-5 as a
> programmer and hated all those kids in school looking over my shoulder
> trying to copy my programs.
Hehe, I'm in school and I can't believe how often that can happen.
Lee
None
You're joking here, right? How do you explain the other MUDs of comparable
size to Medievia that seem to be able to develop robust code bases (code
bases which have even been released to the public, yet still comply with all
the licensing agreements of all the code bases up on which they were built
no less) and run for years without ever taking in donations? And who do you
think this money is going to for "development of code" at Medievia? As far
as I am aware, the bucks stop at Vryce.
> Thanks for adding this to the conversation. Here we see that indeed the
> DIKU license states 'not for profit'. Does the license anywhere state
> collection of donations? Does the license anywhere state the collection of
> donations for the further development of the code base? Medievia does not
> charge money for playing the game and creating profits. It accepts
> donations to help defray the costs of running the game and developement.
Danwar
Whatever that is your opinion.
Myles L Skinner
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
>Sarenthalanos wrote:
>>
>> He is making a profit off of it. A BIG profit.
>
> This is an allegation that is only supported through a back of the napkin
> analysis. Do you know the exact outlay? Have you inspected his
> hardware/software resources? No you are speculating.
If Medievia is using significantly more resources than our "back of the
napkin" calculations have projected, then the programming there must be
colossally incompetent. The rough calculations that have been done assume
an expensive machine with lots of memory and bandwidth. The assumptions
were on the high side; even a MUD of Med's size should not need the amount
of power we've graciously allowed them in our estimates. If they are using
*more* than that, then something is wrong with the software.
Now, we've seen some poor programming (such as hard-coding VNUMs) in fragments
that have been posted here, but even so, I have a hard time believing that
Vryce and Co. are such abyssmal programmers as to have exceeded our over-
estimations of their hardware requirements. Therefore they are making a
large profit.
Danwar
I just offered some alternatives wherein maybe the license can be seen as more
flexible to meet a variety of needs. I know they dont have to change it. I know
that people do not have to use the code. I am against theft of any kind. Credit
should be given where due. However can a mud get truly big without large
investments of money and move out of the realm of muds and challenge games like
Diablo 2 or Everquest? Under licensening agreements like this I dont think so.
my two cents... take it or leave it.
Thanks :)
Myles L Skinner
Lee <mud...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay. Cool, but you don't consider KaVir's site proof? Why must it be in the
> court of law? I can prove to you that two triangles are congruent, do I
> have to show you in court?
I'm sorry, the two triangles aren't congruent, but my triangle (MedTriangula)
is designed to be outwardly compatible with triangle ABC. I've totally redrawn
two of the angles and one of the sides.
Myles L Skinner
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
>
> I see you are dragging this conversation down to a base level of insult.
And next he'll tell us he doesn't like capital letters either. ;)
Myles "Odd feeling of deja vu" Skinner
Fredfish
> I dont have all day answering these posts. I have stated my opinion for the record.
> Thanks now I am gonna go play med. Thanks
So you're conceeding?
::: Fredfish :::
Danwar
You have a right to your opinion. For the record I think Kavir has done an
excellent job in obtaining evidence. However I do not think that a newsgroup is
the forum where final judgement should be made. Again this is my opinion. Take
it as you will. :)
[snip]
> Okay. This bugs me a lot. It's not your place to say that the DIKU license
> is not appropriate anymore.
ok that is fine. Free speech :)
[snip]
Danwar
I don't believe you ! show me show me :)
Jon A. Lambert
> missa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> No you have not established anything. Giving credit for previous work is a
> must. As I have stated at the onset of this post I believe the DIKU license
> to be outdated with regards to contemporary public code release licenses.
>
But so what? Licenses don't become "outdated" until the author(s) of the
license say so.
> I am not contesting or discussing the issue of if the DIKU license applies
> to Medievia. Once again for your benefit, I am calling into question the
> inadequacies of the license with regards to contemporary business models.
Wrong. It is completely appropriate. The authors of both Merc and Diku
have implicitly and explicitly expressed that their work IS NOT to be a
part of ANY BUSINESS model. And that license was issued at a time when it
was far far more expensive to run a mud than it is today.
If an author's intention is to PREVENT others from turning a work into a
commercial venture, they have every right to establish those conditions
in a license. The GNU license is wholly inadequate to express those
intentions.
I'm not saying that I agree with those intentions, but that the author(s)
certainly have that right. And if I intended to release public not-for-
profit code, I certainly wouldn't release under the GNU GPL because my
intentions would be undermined.
Danwar
Danwar
Danwar
and everquest without investments of money?
Myles L Skinner
in light of the sorts of arguments I've seen lately.
In article <8orot5$a55$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <missa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Case 1.
> A friend gives me a game that he's gotten tired of, but still has
> installed on his computer in exchange for a pack of cigarettes. I
> install that game on my computer at my house, and proceed to play it.
> Meanwhile, my friend has played it a few times since it's still on his
> harddrive anyway. The EULA that came with the game says that you can't
> resell the game, and that you need to buy a copy for each machine. Are
> my friend and I doing something wrong?
ANSWER: I'll give you "double-nicotine" days so that you can satisfy your
cravings twice as quickly if you'll say nice things about the cigarettes.
> Case 2.
> I downloaded an email client that said it was "postcard ware" from
> TuCows. The creator of the program has a little note in the "about"
> saying that he/she would like a postcard or letter from anyone who uses
> the program. I don't really have time to hunt up a stamp, and I don't
> buy postcards anyway, but I'm gonna use the software. Am I doing
> something wrong?
ANSWER: You're obviously jealous because the author gets more postcards than
you do.
> Case 3.
> I downloaded some game code to use in an online game that I run. Since
> the code didn't fit flawlessly with my existing code, I had to debug it
> and rewrite large setions of it. Since I had to spend my time doing
> this, I don't feel that it's necessary to give credit to the author(s)
> of the module. As far as I'm concerned, it belongs to me now because
> of all the time and effort I had to put in to making it work. Is the
> license agreement (which requests that I give credit on my "help
> credits" screen) that came with this code still valid?
ANSWER:
So, do I win?
ms
[1] i.e. none whatsoever
AxL
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
>No I contest that there are many perspectives at which to attack this problem.
>Fredfish posted comments made by myself and I commented. I did not wish to be
>included in this newsgroup. I am attempting to defend my perspective in a
>mature manner.
I don't care how many ways you may wish to paint this picture,
but there's only room for two colours; black and white. One either
runs a Diku-derived mud and adheres to the license, or one runs a Diku-
derived mud and breaks the license. There is a vast amount of evidence
to prove that Medthievia is a Diku-derived mud, and is breaking the
license; evidence that Vryce can not and will not counter.
>> If
>> Vryce did not wish to follow the Diku licesning agreement, then he
>> should not have chosen a Diku-derivitave (Merc) to base Medthievia on.
>
>To my knowledge I have heard of no civil case to which Vryce has been charged
>with violating any license or ordering him to follow a license.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. This has not gone to any trial,
criminal or civil. Until such time that it does, our only option is
protest and calling as much attentino to the matter as possible.
--
-AxL, a...@wpcr.plymouth.edu "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion
a...@mail.plymouth.edu Come into contact with reality at any point."
http://mindwarp.plymouth.edu/~axl - Nietzsche
Sarenthalanos
> Points taken. I pose this question to you then. Can a mud challenge
games like Diablo 2
> and everquest without investments of money?
>
A counter question.
Could the Critters series challenge The Matrix without investments of money?
(Hey, it's amost as a ridiculous comparasin!)
Do you know what you are talking about? Honestly?
MU*s have just about been free, always have been since BBS days, and most
likely always will. They aren't there to make a profit. The other games
*are.
UO, EverQuest, Diablo II, AC, etc. are shit as far as game quality, I'll say
that first and foremost. Why? Because they draw the cattle in like crazy
with all their glamorous special effects and such. Those who like a great
game, and mental imagery prefer MUDs. MUDs have been a minority for the
last few years, as far as user-base. MUDs are there for free, or were
always meant to be at first.
As someone else pointed out, and you should put this through your
programming expertise, Quantity != Quality.
Big != Better.
AxL
This brings to mind a classic snippet from the Unix fortune:
(via -o flag, of course)
"Here's the holiday schedule for Monday's observation of Martin Luther
King Jr.'s birthday, when the following will be closed:
* Governmental offices
* Post offices
* Libraries
* Schools
* Banks
* Parts of Palm Beach
and the mind of Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina."
-- Dennis Miller, "Saturday Night Live"
Danwar
status quo. If that makes you happy more power to you. :)
Myles L Skinner
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote:
>
> However can a mud get truly big without large investments of money...
Yes. (A few notable examples spring immediately to mind, but for a few minutes
with TMC you could find them for yourself)
> ...and move out of the realm of muds and challenge games like Diablo 2
> or Everquest?
I don't seriously consider either of these to be competition for what I am
trying to accomplish with a MUD, nor do I think that trying to be "Everquest
Lite" is really a desirable goal.
Fredfish
> Whatever you want to believe. :) ob la de ob le da :)
Well hey, you choose not to respond, it does kind of give the impression you're conceeding.
...but OK. You've stated your opinion, and i've stated mine. Now we can move on from this
thread, which i'm both slightly embarrased and slightly happy I started.
::: Fredfish :::
Danwar
Sarenthalanos
> Whatever you say obviously you don't shoot for the stars and just want to
remain
> status quo. If that makes you happy more power to you. :)
>
Wow...your method of thinking is really a bit incomprehendable.
So I guess you'd rather have a game populated by a large amount of assholes
like UO than have a nice themed game that is moderately-sized and well-made,
rather than a continued bug-hunt like most MMORPG (graphicals) are. I guess
you'd rather have a game that is just merely big because people are
attracted to the features, than the people and community itself.
I guess you haven't run a MU* before, have you?
AxL
>obviously cannot discuss a topic in a mature manner.
Folks, I ask you all to take a very close look at this statement
from Mr. Danwar. Does it look familiar at all? Yes indeed, it looks
like good ol` Dan has "pulled a Vryce".
Fredfish
> from Mr. Danwar. Does it look familiar at all? Yes indeed, it looks
> like good ol` Dan has "pulled a Vryce".
>
You know, it occured to me that Danwar WAS Vyrce for a second there, but I
dismissed it as paranoia. More likely it's just the influence of the Medievia
personality cult again...
::: Fredfish :::
Danwar
Nuutti Kotivuori
> Fallen wrote:
>> It's irrelevant as far as the fact that this 'is' the license,
>> outdated or not.
>
> I contend it should be the focus of attention. Why not try to solve
> this issue from the perspective of modifiying the license. How
> about a royality system? Joint Business partnership?
The DIKU code was written for a school project. I believe this fact
specifically forbids gaining money from the code.
The DIKU people didn't force the license to be non-commercial because
they were mean, they did it because they had to. Or atleast they had
to do it, I don't know if they wanted to be mean.
And I think modifying the license to allow commercial things is out of
the question because of the original affiliation with the school
project, even if it was wanted.
-- Naked
Danwar
know from Medievia. Oh I see ALL the people on UO are assholes ok ... put away
that big paintbrush now.
At this point it is obvious (and I can claim this cause AxL dubbed me Captain
Obvious) that any form of discussion that does not conform to the belief system
of this newsgroup is not up for discussion.
Nuutti Kotivuori
think I am out of context.
"Danwar" == Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> writes:
> Sarenthalanos wrote:
[snip]
>> By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the
>> University, and hence will be sued."
[snip]
> To not accept change or adapt to today's commercial based business
> models in my opinion is silly.
[snip]
Um, note the word 'University'. This is not a DIKU matter entirely, it
also involves the original agreement with the University. I think that
agreement was of the likes that code made for a school project cannot
be used commercially or something, I dunno. So I think that pretty
much rules out changing the license.
And ofcourse, if the DIKU people wanted to be a buncha assholes and
require everyone using their code to wear red hats, they could do
it. If the license is 'unfair' then it is unfair, that doesn't affect
the situation (legally, copyright wise) a dingo's kidneys worth. But
you already knew this part.
-- Naked
Danwar
themselves bound by a further license and thus not have the ability if
they wished to change it. I had a idea that this might be the case as is
the same at my university.
Cheers
Sarenthalanos
> No I would love to have a truly world-wide mud populated with great people
I
> know from Medievia. Oh I see ALL the people on UO are assholes ok ... put
away
> that big paintbrush now.
And you accuse others of putting words into YOUR mouth.
I siad there was a large amount of assholes.
Thank you for reaffirming my conclusion that you have a very fleeting grasp
of the English language.
In fact, YOU wre the one that brought out that paintbrush, but I know from
experience that there is a lot of jerks on there because at one time I had
the misfortune of being a Counselor there.
> At this point it is obvious (and I can claim this cause AxL dubbed me
Captain
> Obvious) that any form of discussion that does not conform to the belief
system
> of this newsgroup is not up for discussion.
Well, if you ever could learn to debate without having to resort to straw
man arguments and mouth-stuffing, then I believe that you could be accorded
a bit more respect.
Nuutti Kotivuori
If you mean in popularity, I'd say no. But even with investments of
money, I doubt a text-based adventure would beat EverQuest in the eyes
of the masses.
If you mean in quality, I'd say yes. We see free software working
better than commercial software every day. I don't see muds any
different.
But, all in all, I don't think that text based interface, even if
exploited to the fullest extent imaginable, will ever be more popular
than a graphical interface. People are dumb and don't appreciate
text. And if we go for graphics, well we've got EverQuest already,
which is nothing but a mud with graphics.
-- Naked
Nuutti Kotivuori
> I just offered some alternatives wherein maybe the license can be
> seen as more flexible to meet a variety of needs. I know they dont
> have to change it. I know that people do not have to use the code. I
> am against theft of any kind. Credit should be given where due.
> However can a mud get truly big without large investments of money
> or Everquest? Under licensening agreements like this I dont think
> so.
Um. If someone is going to write a mud that's gonna challenge games
like Diablo 2 or Everquest - I don't think they should be using stock
Diku code - not even as a base. Or any other freely available engine I
think (I'm an LPMud guy so I really don't know). I think it needs to
be built from the scratch up, properly. And that is something none of
us has anything against, right?
-- Naked
Sarenthalanos
> Thank-you for the reply. I was not aware that the Diku team was
> themselves bound by a further license and thus not have the ability if
> they wished to change it. I had a idea that this might be the case as is
> the same at my university.
>
> Cheers
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
OMG....another clinical case of "open mouth, insert foot".
Which I think you neglected to take THAT into account when you wrote your
review or spewed forth all over this ng.
How's it feel to be presented with a bit more of the story when you've been
screaming and operating on only half the facts?
FYI, and a note for future trolls, Diku is a University in Denmark!
(Datalogisk Institut Københavns Universitet)
Which you probably could deduce if you looked at the licensing agreement, or
have known a bit more about the whole story.
Congratulations. You've just made yourself look like more a fool than I
ever could have.
You have my sterling and profound respect for that.
Next time, I would suggest you do a bit of research before tasting the toe
jam.
Yours truly,
-Sarenthalanos
Sarenthalanos
> themselves bound by a further license and thus not have the ability if
> they wished to change it. I had a idea that this might be the case as is
> the same at my university.
And yes, it might be a good idea to check with your University. I can just
about guarantee that 90% of all Universities require that anything made for
an assignment and directly under the professor's tutelage be for non-profit.
In some cases, not released at all outside of the University.
That I knew from my own experiece working and even being under schooling at
various Universities, including the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, which
happens to be a pretty good school for computer sciences. I also know of
many other countries where that is common practice, sometimes even becoming
the direct property of the University where it was authored (kind of like
turning in a thesis to pass a class).
Yours truly,
-Sarenthalanos
Danwar
maybe the license could be changed to allow for cost recovery. Nuutti Kotivori
aka Naked and another post pointed out that it was not within their ability to
do this and infact they were bound by a university agreement. And this
disqualified my line of arguement. I have acknowledged this fact. However people
then started to take my statements out of context and misquoting me. This is
what I expected a few individuals on this newsgroup to do for they have done
this before in previous posts.
For the record I would like to state:
1. I don't believe in breaking licenses or in code theft.
2. Credit should be give where it is due.
3. I am not a brainwashed troll. I am actually a nice guy.
4. I respect the choices made by Oma/Thranz-Zartan/Iskandar-Daedaus .
None
Um, yes. There are MUDs of comparable size to Medthievia (haven't I said
this before) that are at least as old, *do* following licensing agreements,
and have even developed their code base to a sufficient degree to release it
as a full-featured derivative.
And they don't seem to need to take in tens of thousands of dollars per year
to do any of it.
Danwar <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote in message
news:39B1B832...@crossroads.com...
> [snip]
>
> I just offered some alternatives wherein maybe the license can be seen as
more
> flexible to meet a variety of needs. I know they dont have to change it.
I know
> that people do not have to use the code. I am against theft of any kind.
Credit
> should be given where due. However can a mud get truly big without large
> investments of money and move out of the realm of muds and challenge games
like
> Diablo 2 or Everquest? Under licensening agreements like this I dont
think so.
>
> my two cents... take it or leave it.
> Thanks :)
>
Danwar
chat environment and place where people can meet prospective partners?
Silly idea? I know of many people who have met significant others on
muds. Just throwing up ideas here that have probably been visited before.
Cheers
Danwar
conversation but took the high ground when you started flaming me. I attempted
to reply to everyones reposts in a mature and timely manner. I offered a
alternative view. Further I did not post on this newsgroup because of people
like you.
Nuutti Kotivori aka Naked pointed this fact out not you.
Sarenthalanos wrote:
[snip]
> FYI, and a note for future trolls
ah the flame congratulations.
[snip]
Sarenthalanos
Or don't you know what trolling means either?
"Danwar" <ax...@crossroads.com> wrote in message
news:39B1DCC7...@crossroads.com...
> [snip]
>
> Ah the troll reference. Next time you leave Kingston and venture over
Toronto
> way look me up. I would like to prove to you I am infact no troll. Oh
wait I
> am coming to Queens next week wanna show me around your comp sci lab?
>
> > HAND, please go back to your troll hole.
>
Jerry Gilyeat
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Danwar wrote:
>
>
> kast...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [snip]
<snip>
> No this is not irrelevant for examples such as the GNU General Public
> License are
> yardsticks by which we judge the qualities of the DIKU license. Precedence
> and
> exemplars allow us to question and contrast in an educated manner without
> delving
> into immature flame wars that prove nothing except the stupidity of its
> authors.
> My argument is based on the contents and appropriateness of the DIKU
> license
> and not based on moral or ethical issues. Once again I do not adhere to
> the court of public opinion or the many attempts of character
> assassination. I will wait to judge
> when the evidence is brought to the appropriate forum.
How many times do you have to be told?
The DIKU/MUD Community does -not- use the GPL as it's yardstick to judge
the appropriateness of the DIKU/MERC/etc licenses. The GPL, in fact,
would not even -apply- due to an agreement signed by the authors that
apparently prohibits even distribution cost recovery.
This is a totally different beast than the "average" piece of GPL'd
software, where credit and cost/profit aren't really cared about. DIKU
isn't, and never was, meant to be a "FREE" license. It is -meant- to be
restrictive, and in the manner that it -IS- restrictive. I firmly believe
that MUDs would have even -less- development had the original source been
GPL'd, as the scene would be dominated by one or two code bases, each
running a handful of MUDs. As it is now, we have a -vast- amount of
diversity in the DIKU world, and one only need to follow the branching and
forking of code over the last ten years to see this.
GPL'd software, by and large, is homogenous. There IS NO forking or
branching (that lasts for very long), since the changes made must be
republished if the modified code is ever redistributed.
Homogenaity in the gaming world is literally death for the entire society
that is built around the diversity of it's offerings. One can look to the
Commercial game indistry to see just how shitty the games have become by
catering to the lowest common denominator. They have to in order to make
money. We don't have to because we -DON'T- make money, and by and large,
don't wish to, even if we were allowed by the license agreement that we
agreed to once we started using the code governed by that agreement.
Vryce -also- agreed to the DIKU license. He has since decided (and for
many of the same reasons that you, Danwar, have pointed out) not to
continue following the agreement. He is absolutely incorrect in this
decision, just as you are incorrect in telling us that our license is
outdated because the GPL is better.
Paitre.
Jerry Gilyeat
Tha abject ignorance (and possibly stupidity) of this poster has finally
gotten too much for me after this post:
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Danwar wrote:
> Sarenthalanos wrote:
>
> > "You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in
> > any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for
> > distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge
> > for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc.
> > By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the
> > University, and hence will be sued."
> >
>
> Excellent this is the part of the Diku license to which I am contending is
> outdated. I offered for comparision reasons that of the GPL that alows one to
> charge for distribution costs. Licences are not set in stone they can be
> changed. To not accept change or adapt to today's commercial based business
> models in my opinion is silly. This is only my opinion take it as you may.
> Fredfish posted my comments I am defending my point of view.
As Jon Lambert said: The GPL is NOT, nor SHOULD it be the yardstick. You
seem to be in that crowd of folks who believe that the GPL is the be-all
and end all of software licenses. It's not. For a lot of software, yes,
it's appropriate. In cases, like this one, where the original authors
wanted -no- legal possibilites of a business plan to be built on their
work (due to contractual obligations with their university), the GPL is
woefully inappropriate.
Paitre
flet...@post.queensu.ca
>> no, it is /OPERATED/ via the Internet, as a /SERVICE/. So hence, it's
>> considered a /SERVICE CHARGE/ in this case, *not* a "distribution cost".
> I would suggest that Medievia is distributed via the internet. And Vryce
> accepts donations he does not charge.
Distribution refers to the source code being distributed for use by
others. As source. Not as a server or a binary. A Mud is a server run
on one machine (or several in the case of a couple of neat muds out there,
but that's another story entirely). Medthievia does _not_ distribute the
source so the distribution clause doesn't even cover this situation.
Also, regardless of how outdated you think the license is, it still
applies. Once something is licensed it stays under that license _until_
the copyright holders _all_ agree to lessen the restrictions. As such,
it doesn't make a whit of difference how it compares to _any_ comtemporary
license. DikuMud (and its derivatives) is _not_ truly open source as per
the current open source definition.
HAND, please go back to your troll hole.
Ae.
Sarenthalanos
> I think this post makes you look like a fool infact. I in no way degraded
the
> conversation but took the high ground when you started flaming me. I
attempted
> to reply to everyones reposts in a mature and timely manner. I offered a
> alternative view. Further I did not post on this newsgroup because of
people
> like you.
> Nuutti Kotivori aka Naked pointed this fact out not you.
>
Perhaps you could refresh my memory...
Who was it that went out of their way to bash DikuMUD in a Medievia review?
Then you come on here and start up with the straw-man arguments, running on
half the facts.
I know Nuutti posted that fact, but I was hoping you would finally do your
homework sometime on your own, but instead soemone had to point it out to
you.
Nice "alternative view", in fact this whole mess would have been avoided
simply if you knew what you were talking about.
Truly yours,
Sarenthalanos
Sarenthalanos
DikuMUD bashing than an actual review of the Medievia MUD):
Danwar from Toronto, Ontario on 8/25/00 10:07:50 AM
Purchased At: home built
Hours Played: 5000 Others rated this review: 2.333333/4
Number of Ratings: 15
Summary:
Overall: 5
Gameplay: 5
Graphics: 5
Sound: 3
System:
CPU: Overclocked Mineral Oil Supercooled Dan. V2.
RAM: 128mb
Video: ATI (hey they Canadian)
General/Summary: I have played many games since 1984 of varied platforms and
engine types (i.e. graphics, text and internet based). No game in my opinion
comes close to Medievia. It is immersive, exciting, and nothing beats
challenging and befriending people from all over the world.
With regards to the allegations of a few outspoken and immature detractors
of Medievia I dismiss them entirely. Personally I feel the Diku Licence is
outdated and handcuffs any developer who wishes to expand a MUD to a truly
outstanding status. The development of any silicon baby takes money and to
deny this fact is naive and absurd in todays society. The whole idea of
publicly releasing code yet handcuffing potential developers with ridiculous
repressive licenses is counter productive and contradictive. And yes I am
fully aware of the current upsurge (and history) with regards to source code
release in such areas as webservers, OS, etc.
Gameplay: Nothing beats Medievia. I cannot explain the many facets of Med.
Please refer to the outstanding webpage for Medievia (www.medievia.com).
Graphics: It is a text based game. Imagination rules the day.
Sound: This is an area of potential development within the whole MUD
community.
=============================
"Sarenthalanos" <Sarent...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CMks5.12893$MS4.1...@news1.onlynews.com...
Danwar
Ah the troll reference. Next time you leave Kingston and venture over Toronto
way look me up. I would like to prove to you I am infact no troll. Oh wait I
am coming to Queens next week wanna show me around your comp sci lab?
> HAND, please go back to your troll hole.
Jon A. Lambert
> Points taken. I pose this question to you then. Can a mud challenge games like Diablo 2
> and everquest without investments of money?
>
It depends on what you mean by challenge. I'll assume that you mean
"size of playerbase", which in the case of both games is probably close
to 100K or so. The answer then is obviously NO. Without a sizable
investment in hardware, bandwidth and/or personnel and continuing
maintenance, no mud will be able to challenge EQ or Diablo in
regard to playerbase size. So obviously, if that is someone's goal,
it would be completely inappropriate for them to select a Diku-derived
server to run as they would have no reasonable expectations of ever
recouping the cost of their investment.
If that is someone's goal, I would suggest that they develop their own
mud server software or run one that CAN be used commercially. And there
are MANY of them out there. And most are not under GNU GPL anyway
and some are at no cost to license.
I don't even think the GNU GPL is even appropriate for commercial
mud servers. One of the primary purposes of the GNU GPL is to
facilitate free distribution. Commercial mud servers have very
little to gain through distribution. There is no commercial secondary
market model behind mud server distribution. Not like a word processors,
mail client, or operating systems for instance. And there is very little
to gain in terms of publicly available bug reports and fixes. The primary
commercial market is in selling the actual service time or game access.
Yes there are secondary markets associated with the "service" but none
associated with distribution. So even if one runs a GPLed commercial
mud server, one gains little to no benefit from those distribution rights
because the code within a mud server that drives the "game" or entertainment
is NOT going to be re-distributed, shared, integrated back into the publicly
available base anyway by someone running a pay to play mud service.
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--
rr...@lanminds.com
>Points taken. I pose this question to you then. Can a mud challenge games like Diablo 2
>and everquest without investments of money?
>
It depends on what you mean. I've mudded, on small (30-player) muds,
pure text, no ascii. And I liked it. I've seen Diablo and EQ, and
didn't like them. I don't like graphics-intensive games. I don't
like ones with hundreds of people on at a time.
Your question is along the lines of "Can books challenge movies? Can
radio challenge concerts?" It depends entirely on what you are trying
to accomplish. If I want lots of pictures and sounds, I'm going to go
to a movie over reading a book. I want to hear good-quality sound, I
will listen to the radio over going to the concert. However, the
concert wins out for the "live experience".
Does making something like EQ take a lot of money? I'd say so. But
does that make it better than something made out of pure love for the
game? I can't say. Would a paper-and-pencil RPG be a better
experience if you paid the DM? Maybe, if it freed up the DM to
concentrate on the game. Maybe not, if the DM felt he was just doing
it for the money.
Kira Skydancer