Threshold: Illegal Commercial Mud
George Reese
but it seems any simple investigation into the way the mud is run
demonstrates it is clearly an illegal mud.
Basically, Aristotle is using MudOS and TMI to make money for
himself. Anyone familiar with MudOS or TMI is aware that you
absolutely cannot charge money for services in connection with these
software products. Now, being the pseudo-lawyer he is, Aristotle
probably believes he has found some sort of loophole in the legal
wording of the license, but only a complete moron would believe
Aristotle's policy specified at this URL:
http://www.threshold-rpg.com/register.html
is in any way consistent with the ideals or intent of those who wrote
and contributed to MudOS and TMI.
Aristotle, how dare you call me a thief of code when you are so
blatantly sponging off the creative efforts of the authors of MudOS
and TMI. I cannot think of anything more morally reprehensible to
occur in the LPMud community than your illegal use of MudOS and TMI.
--
George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com)
http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
"The dead know only one thing: it's better to be alive"
-Joker in Full Metal Jacket
Robert M. Zigweid
Below follows the Copyright file extracted directly from the MudOS sources.
This game, LPmud, is copyright by Lars Pensj|, 1990, 1991.
Source code herein refers to the source code, and any executables
created from the same source code.
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to extend and modify the
source code provided subject to the restriction that the source code may
not be used in any way whatsoever for monetary gain.
******
The name MudOS is copyright 1991-1992 by Erik Kay, Adam Beeman, Stephan Iannce
and John Garnett. LPmud copyright restrictions still apply.
In addition, the entire package is copyright 1995 by Tim Hollebeek.
Below follows a post made to this newsgroup last October: (extracted
from Deja News)
Subject: Re: Less code theft in the LPmud world?
Date: 1998/10/18
Author: Aristotle@Threshold <thre...@threshold-rpg.com>
In article <18oW1.11$a6.1...@ptah.visi.com>, George Reese
<bo...@imaginary.com> wrote:
>To be fair, you are the only person who uses that definition of
>LPMud. Using LPC == being an LPMud and that is likely why you are
>being accused of denying that you use LPC since you do deny you are an
>LPMud.
1) I am not the "only person". True, my definition might be a bit
antiquated, but when I started mudding LPMUD did *in fact* mean you
were using the LPMUD mudlib. Nightmare, Lima, Discworld, etc, etc. ad
nauseum did not exist.
2) Just because that moron doesn't know the difference between LPC the
programming language and LPMUD the mudlib or an LP driver does NOT make
him any less wrong.
Threshold is an LPC mud, or a mud using an LP-driver (assuming Mudos
calls itself and LPdriver).
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, mature, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Normally I wouldn't include the advertisement, but in the evidense
given, I wouldn't want to be accused of trimming the article to suit
my malicious desires. In this same thread though I will point out that
Aristotle several times said he didn't deny using LPC. The same basic
restrictions hold with both the original LPMud package, Amylaar, and
MudOS, but really at this point it's academic.
Tigran@Lima Bean
Aristotle
>In the past, I have taken a charitable view of Threshold's practices,
>but it seems any simple investigation into the way the mud is run
>demonstrates it is clearly an illegal mud.
You are dead wrong in your legal analysis. I have consulted lawyers on every
operation I have ever engaged in, so its not just my own legal opinion.
However, thanks for the free press, and a negative post from you is some of
the best press I could ever ask for.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
Threshold was an exhibitor at Dragon*Con '99.
Dragon*Con Pictures: http://www.threshold-rpg.com/dcon/
==============================================================================
VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Fantasy Roleplaying Game. Player run clans, guilds,
legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a mature environment.
Ben Sollis
every
> operation I have ever engaged in, so its not just my own legal opinion.
>
> However, thanks for the free press, and a negative post from you is some
of
> the best press I could ever ask for.
>
> -Aristotle@Threshold
[Adertisement deleted]
Can you please explain to us all, how you are legally able to extract money
from individuals using a mudlib and driver that was coded by someone else,
and explicitly Copyrighted, and the use of it Reserved so as not to be used
for monetary gain?
Until you do, _successfully_, you are showing yourself to be nothing more
than a common thief.
And yes, you do have to prove yourself, if you don't you are simply
accepting the lowly title of 'thief'.
Ben Sollis
George Reese
: In article <luDB3.528$S5.4...@ptah.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@imaginary.com> wrote:
:>In the past, I have taken a charitable view of Threshold's practices,
:>but it seems any simple investigation into the way the mud is run
:>demonstrates it is clearly an illegal mud.
: You are dead wrong in your legal analysis. I have consulted lawyers on every
: operation I have ever engaged in, so its not just my own legal opinion.
You have consulted lawyers? You mean you don't give a fuck what the
intentions of Lars, Truilkan, Beek, and co. are? You are just gonna
scam money off them as long as you can find a legal loophole?
They have a word for that: scum.
Lars Duening
(Robert M. Zigweid) wrote:
>This game, LPmud, is copyright by Lars Pensj|, 1990, 1991.
>
>Source code herein refers to the source code, and any executables
>created from the same source code.
>
>All rights reserved. Permission is granted to extend and modify the
>source code provided subject to the restriction that the source code may
>not be used in any way whatsoever for monetary gain.
Oooh, this topic again.
Apparently Aristotle is the opinion that this copyright only applies
to the combination of LP-mudlib and LP-driver[1], whereas a lot of
people read 'LPmud' to mean anything using an a LP-driver.
Unfortunately the actual wording is ambiguous and would need a
clarification by Lars, however, being a driver hacker myself, I say
that it is safe to assume that Lars would support the latter.
Furthermore, arguments based on this copyright only ignore that the
copyright for the current drivers is not with Lars alone. When for
example MudOS says,
>The name MudOS is copyright 1991-1992 by Erik Kay, Adam Beeman, Stephan Iannce
>and John Garnett. LPmud copyright restrictions still apply.
>
>In addition, the entire package is copyright 1995 by Tim Hollebeek.
they apply the old LPmud restrictions to the (extended) driver alone.
And there is more to it. Around '94 Lars said that he doesn't care
about commercial uses anymore (don't ask for the exact quote before
January - that particular mail is currently on a CD in a storage house
in Oakland), so it's up to the other developers now to decide about
this issue.
I can't speak for MudOS, but for Amylaar/LDMud the situation is clear:
the driver contains contributions from third parties which also
require that the driver must not be used for monetary gain, including
selling gamefeatures in order to raise funds for the mud.
Personally I usually don't care how people use the programs I write;
but since I do such work as a community service, I expect people to
respect conditions such as 'no monetary gain' should I require them.
Of course I am a programmer, not a lawyer, and therefore the wording
is not legally watertight - but it is clear enough to state my
intention. And if somebody uses legal nitpicking to get around my
stated intention, he or she is an asshole.
[1] But assuming Lars' rules of use apply to the lib/driver combo
only, or just to the mudlib - doesn't that mean that there is no
permission to use the LP-driver (or a derivate) with any other mudlib?
:-)
--
Lars Duening; la...@bearnip.com
(Currently I can check my mail only occasionally)
Peter R. Sadlon
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, George Reese wrote:
> Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote:
> : In article <luDB3.528$S5.4...@ptah.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@imaginary.com> wrote:
> :>In the past, I have taken a charitable view of Threshold's practices,
> :>but it seems any simple investigation into the way the mud is run
> :>demonstrates it is clearly an illegal mud.
>
> : You are dead wrong in your legal analysis. I have consulted lawyers on every
> : operation I have ever engaged in, so its not just my own legal opinion.
>
> You have consulted lawyers? You mean you don't give a fuck what the
> intentions of Lars, Truilkan, Beek, and co. are? You are just gonna
> scam money off them as long as you can find a legal loophole?
>
> They have a word for that: scum.
Actully what needs to happen here is the copyright holders need to get a
2-bit lawyer (not Ari, get a good one) and take this to court. You get a
few, or a few hundred admins to show up and testify, yes $700 for a 1 room
house is definatly monitary gain.
Now I don't know what american law is like about this, but assmuning it is
the same as canadian, if found guilty of breaking the copyright then the
derived works, that is Threshold is now property of the copyright holders.
Call it the Trashold Lib and put it online for anyone to download and
modify. Sounds like a good idea. I am sure that there would be some
monitary settlement as well. Not so much that the copyright holders
become rich, but enough to hurt Ari's pocket book.
However thats assmuning american law on this is like canadian, but then
again we would have found OJ guilty the first time.
_Peter
Percy
other natable fantasy artists on his web pages - perhaps they would be
interested to know that someone is using their work for monetary gain
- I'm sure they would be more than willing to allow this.
As you (and many others) have said, nothing more than a common
thief...
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:44:49 +0100, "Ben Sollis" <sol...@cbsc.net>
wrote:
>> You are dead wrong in your legal analysis. I have consulted lawyers on
>every
>> operation I have ever engaged in, so its not just my own legal opinion.
>>
Darren Coffin
ego or his mud...the mere fact that he and 10 of his eager-to-please
cronies from Threshold haven't been raising a big stink and insulting
anyone even remotely related to this conversation points to his guilt to
me. Out of all of the messages calling him a thief, all Aristotle had to
say was that he talked to a lawyer and everything is fine? Granted, he did
put in a minor dig at George, but the last time I saw someone say something
bad about Threshold, Aristotle turned it into a 3-page ad.
Ah well. I just thought I'd point out that Aristotle has obviously been
present and reading the newsgroups(as he has been responding to other
messages), yet has been strangely silent on this issue. It's not like him
to let a subject drop unless he's wrong...(remember the Pathetic F*cking
Criminal thread? Oi, that one took a long time to die)
-Darren
Aristotle
>Normally, Aristotle would be all over anyone who dared to slight his mighty
>ego or his mud...the mere fact that he and 10 of his eager-to-please
>cronies from Threshold haven't been raising a big stink and insulting
>anyone even remotely related to this conversation points to his guilt to
>me.
Hehehehe I was waiting for one of these posts. I always love the hypocrisy of
those who love to flame me. If I post a lot of notes, they flame me for
spamming and accuse me of "just trying to get my ad seen". If I post only a
few short, concise, accurate notes, they say "aha! he must admit to all these
wild accuations" (regardless of the fact that I already explained the
situation). That must be very convenient for you. Since you can never win an
argument on the merits, I guess its best to fall back on a lame tactic like
that. Darren, I think I already made my point quite clearly. My mudlib is
totally custom and was written by me, I am not distributing copies of MudOS
nor violating any COPYright (nor have I ever tried to take credit for MudOS-
[the os/compiler]- I only take credit for my mudlib, areas, guilds, and all of
the code that actually makes Threshold what it is), and I consulted attorneys
regarding every business action I have ever taken (and there is absolutely
nothing wrong with anything I am doing).
>but the last time I saw someone say something
>bad about Threshold, Aristotle turned it into a 3-page ad.
[snip]
>(remember the Pathetic F*cking
>Criminal thread? Oi, that one took a long time to die)
Is that what you want? Then you better not *EVER* complain about a big flame
thread ever again since when a flame thread is short, you complain about that
too. Make up your mind and don't be a hypocrite.
Moclamoose
life?
Since when does silence point to guilt?
God damn that is stupid. I always thought you were innocent untill proven
guilty? So now by simply not saying anything he is codemned?
Wait I forget that you all "Know" he is guilty right?
Right?
Anyways, let me say this Aristotle was probably too freaking busy "stealing"
his original code to be bothered by such insolence and pointless comments such
as this one.
Wow, I've never heard anything so stupid before in my life.
You really do have some problems in your life dont ya?
Hey if you dont respond to this in 5 mins I think youre guilty of some
crime....Like
slander? perhaps?
Ilya
>
> Golly gee, that is the most assinine utterance that I have ever heard in my
> life?
>
> Since when does silence point to guilt?
>
> God damn that is stupid. I always thought you were innocent untill proven
> guilty? So now by simply not saying anything he is codemned?
>
I have read this thread with slight interest, but I thought it might
be fun to interject here:
1) "silence implies assent" is a long-established doctrine. It is not
at all farfetched to draw a conclusion from silence, and silence in
the face of accusations can quite reasonably be construed in the
manner suggested, absent other information
2) "innocent [until] proven guilty" is by no means a universal concept,
either in history or today. To disagree with this concept is hardly
stupid. I prefer no presumption of either innocence or guilt myself,
but there are modern non-totalitarian governments which move the
presumption to one of guilt.
That's all. Carry on!
--
Ilya (at) gamecommandos (dot) com a mud list & review site
www.gamecommandos.com for online roleplaying games
George Reese
point to POTENTIAL legal loopholes. First of all, I don't know what
crack your lawyers are on, but you have copied MudOS. You copied MudOS
for the sake of running your commercial mud. You don't have that
right. Period.
And let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is room for legal
wrangling in the wording of the MudOS license...
You don't see a problem with violating its spirit?
Asshole.
Aristotle <thre...@threshold-rpg.com> wrote:
--
Moclamoose
>point to POTENTIAL legal loopholes
How is he avoiding loopholes?
There need to be holes to loop around right? :+?
>You copied MudOS
>for the sake of running your commercial mud.
What proof do you have of this?
>You don't see a problem with violating its spirit?
Ok now it seems that youre loosing this argument so....you need to bring some
of your perverted ethics in and try to make everyone feel sorry for you.
>
>Asshole.
Well said well said...I like how you sign your own name
-=Frobozz=-
George Reese
:>You keep avoiding the question of the morality of your actions and
:>point to POTENTIAL legal loopholes
: How is he avoiding loopholes?
: There need to be holes to loop around right? :+?
English, mutha fucka, do you speak it?
:>You copied MudOS
:>for the sake of running your commercial mud.
: What proof do you have of this?
Are you brain dead?
He is running MudOS, correct?
If he is running MudOS, he had to have copied it. You cannot run
software without copying it.
He is charging money for services rendered using said software,
correct?
MudOS does not allow people to use it for monetary gain.
:>You don't see a problem with violating its spirit?
: Ok now it seems that youre loosing this argument so....you need to bring some
: of your perverted ethics in and try to make everyone feel sorry for you.
Dumbass, ethics is entirely the point. Or do you see absolutely no
problem with someone stealing another person's work and then making
money off of it? My argument has been an ethical one the entire time,
so it is unlikely I would resort to ethics to change the topic of an
argument on ethics.
Honestly, do you speak English? You don't seem to be able to read that
well.
Darren Coffin
>Hehehehe I was waiting for one of these posts. I always love the hypocrisy of
>those who love to flame me. If I post a lot of notes, they flame me for
>spamming and accuse me of "just trying to get my ad seen". If I post only a
>few short, concise, accurate notes, they say "aha! he must admit to all these
>wild accuations" (regardless of the fact that I already explained the
>situation). That must be very convenient for you.
First of all, I've never flamed you before...so it's not like I "love to
flame you." You've never been silent before when you thought you were
right and others were wrong...I guess I get so used to the usual ad hominem
attacks coming from you that it's conspicuous when they don't appear.
Perhaps I was judgemental in saying "by not flaming people, Aristotle must
be wrong." It certainly is out of character for you though, so I thought
there must be a reason besides the change of pace of saying "Aha! You're a
hypocrite for pointing that out!"
Yes, I would rather you stop the silly flaming altogether. However, I
don't think that your stopping the flames in this case is due to some grand
change of heart on your part. You haven't really addressed a lot of the
points that others have brought up. Saying "my lawyers say it's ok"
doesn't mean much. Tell us _why_ your lawyers say it's ok, and I might
believe you. Tell us _why_ it's ok in a message that doesn't insult
someone else in the same breath and I might think that you had fallen ill,
but it would also make your argument more believable.
>Since you can never win an
>argument on the merits, I guess its best to fall back on a lame tactic like
>that.
Pot...kettle...black.
Yes, it's poor form to say I think you're guilty because you didn't insult
people enough. I'll admit that. I still think it's a valid point I wanted
to bring forth that you've been totally out of your normal character on
this topic though.
>Darren, I think I already made my point quite clearly. My mudlib is
>totally custom and was written by me, I am not distributing copies of MudOS
>nor violating any COPYright (nor have I ever tried to take credit for MudOS-
>[the os/compiler]- I only take credit for my mudlib, areas, guilds, and all of
>the code that actually makes Threshold what it is), and I consulted attorneys
>regarding every business action I have ever taken (and there is absolutely
>nothing wrong with anything I am doing).
From what I've read from other peoples' posts, you're not allowed to make
money off of using MudOS. You're using MudOS. Your mudlib may or may not
be custom, but MudOS isn't. I may be interpreting the copyright snippets
wrong, but that's what I gathered from it. Can you explain how it is
alright to make money while using MudOS, regardless of what mudlib you use
with it? I don't care if you never took credit for MudOS...you're making
money off of it though.
>>but the last time I saw someone say something
>>bad about Threshold, Aristotle turned it into a 3-page ad.
>[snip]
>>(remember the Pathetic F*cking
>>Criminal thread? Oi, that one took a long time to die)
>
>Is that what you want? Then you better not *EVER* complain about a big flame
>thread ever again since when a flame thread is short, you complain about that
>too. Make up your mind and don't be a hypocrite.
No, I don't want it. I expect it. I'm surprised when it doesn't happen.
Remarking that "hey, the usual flames didn't happen" doesn't mean I want
them to. Making an observation doesn't make me wish for the thing I'm
observing.
-Darren
Darren Coffin
>Golly gee, that is the most assinine utterance that I have ever heard in my
>life?
>
>Since when does silence point to guilt?
_Points to_ guilt. As in leads one to believe the guilt. I never actually
said he _is_ guilty. I brought forth the point that someone who is usually
one of the most vocal of posters here, _particularly_ when he or his mud
are in any way slighted, suddenly shut up on this matter. Maybe I worded
it poorly, my last message I posted to Aristotle admits that I was wrong in
trying to equate the silence to guilt.
But it certainly points to it, in my mind.
>God damn that is stupid. I always thought you were innocent untill proven
>guilty? So now by simply not saying anything he is codemned?
It doesn't do anything to help his case. I wouldn't say this in a broad,
general statement. I don't think that by being silent you automatically
prove your guilt. I _do_ think there's something fishy when Aristotle,
probably the most renowned poster for flaming and flying off the handle at
the slightest provocation, is suddenly silent when a serious attack is
levelled at him.
>Hey if you dont respond to this in 5 mins I think youre guilty of some
>crime....Like
>slander? perhaps?
Uh-huh. I didn't mean it that way. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my
statement as meaning all people are guilty if they don't answer a question.
-Darren
Solmyr of the Azure Star
>
> He is running MudOS, correct?
> If he is running MudOS, he had to have copied it. You cannot run
> software without copying it.
>
> He is charging money for services rendered using said software,
> correct?
> MudOS does not allow people to use it for monetary gain.
>
What he *is* doing is offer players some *extra* things (that are not
required for playing) if they register. That's it, *optional* extras.
Nobody is forcing players to send him money to continue playing.
--
******************
Aleksei Andrievski
aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Azure Star
sol...@kolumbus.fi
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html
George Reese
: George Reese wrote:
:>
:> He is running MudOS, correct?
:> If he is running MudOS, he had to have copied it. You cannot run
:> software without copying it.
:>
:> He is charging money for services rendered using said software,
:> correct?
:> MudOS does not allow people to use it for monetary gain.
:>
: He is not charging money for playing Threshold. It's free.
Irrelevant.
: What he *is* doing is offer players some *extra* things (that are not
: required for playing) if they register. That's it, *optional* extras.
: Nobody is forcing players to send him money to continue playing.
Irrelevant. The fact is that he is using MudOS for monetary gain. The
fact that the initial bit is free is totally irrelevant.
Jon A. Lambert
>
>Only a complete moron would believe Aristotle's policy specified at this URL:
>
>http://www.threshold-rpg.com/register.html
>
>is in any way consistent with the ideals or intent of those who wrote
>and contributed to MudOS and TMI.
>
Based upon my reading of the web page, the MudOS license, and
a few minutes of reflection, I would have to file this activity into my
"Thou shall not steal" folder. No lawyer could convince me this would
be proper, ethical or moral without obtaining the permission of those
persons appearing in that license file. Then again that's not the
function of a lawyer.
--
J. Lambert
AsK
George Reese wrote in message ...
>:>You keep avoiding the question of the morality of your actions and
>:>point to POTENTIAL legal loopholes
>
>: How is he avoiding loopholes?
>: There need to be holes to loop around right? :+?
>
>English, mutha fucka, do you speak it?
>
>:>You copied MudOS
>:>for the sake of running your commercial mud.
>
>: What proof do you have of this?
>
>Are you brain dead?
>
>If he is running MudOS, he had to have copied it. You cannot run
>software without copying it.
>
>He is charging money for services rendered using said software,
>correct?
>MudOS does not allow people to use it for monetary gain.
>
>
>: Ok now it seems that youre loosing this argument so....you need to bring
some
>: of your perverted ethics in and try to make everyone feel sorry for you.
>
>Dumbass, ethics is entirely the point. Or do you see absolutely no
>problem with someone stealing another person's work and then making
>money off of it? My argument has been an ethical one the entire time,
>so it is unlikely I would resort to ethics to change the topic of an
>argument on ethics.
>
>Honestly, do you speak English? You don't seem to be able to read that
>well.
Do you ever tire of cutting people down? I mean hell, it must be one hell of
an ego boost to prove you are superior to them. Please, get a life.
Ask knows that this will be taken too literally.
George Reese
:> If he is running MudOS, he had to have copied it. You cannot run
:> software without copying it.
:>
:> He is charging money for services rendered using said software,
:> correct?
:> MudOS does not allow people to use it for monetary gain.
:>
: required for playing) if they register. That's it, *optional* extras.
: Nobody is forcing players to send him money to continue playing.
That is called CHARGING MONEY FOR SERVICES RENDERED USING THE
SOFTWARE. Why is it so hard for you to understand the concept? It does
not matter whether or not he charges money at the door. What matters
is whether or not he charges money *at any time* for services that
require the MudOS driver. It does not matter whether or not it is
compulsory. Though, from what I have heard, Aristotle does a good job
of forcing people to pay through peer pressure and other sorts of
coercion.
Jon A. Lambert
>
>He is not charging money for playing Threshold. It's free.
>What he *is* doing is offer players some *extra* things (that are not
>required for playing) if they register. That's it, *optional* extras.
>Nobody is forcing players to send him money to continue playing.
>
The thing I can't understand is what is so damn difficult about contacting
the original author(s) of MudOS and simply ask them?
There are a whole range of possible outcomes from absolutely no to
negotiating a license to yes we really don't care. Just because a
codebase has a restrictive public license, does not mean that the
authors can't or won't grant a private license.
Admittedly, in the case of using the latest incarnation of MudOS, the
chain of authors is rather long, so obtaining special license might
be difficult, expensive or nigh impossible. If determined to run a
commercial mud, obtaining another driver is probably the best
course.
Certainly a man has every right recruiting the opinions or services of an
army of attorneys and engage in legal argument and skirmishes.
The price one pays is loss of goodwill, loss of respect, and loss of honor.
Sadly there are many who consider this price too cheap.
--
J. Lambert
Lice
<jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>George Reese wrote in message ...
>>
um, what do the people who actually own the copyright have to say
about this?
Larnen
I think much of the argument is not whether its actually illegal par se, or
whether he could get permission if he wanted, so much as the morality
of just doing it without asking. Consulting lawyers (if indeed he did), may
cover your back legally, but asking the authors would be, to me, the
correct course of action.
I have to say that my personal view is that charging for perks like this
leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth. Many of us who runs muds could
make a quick buck by breaking the license terms, but whether we can
be prosecuted for it or not, we simply would not do it on principle.
$1,000 for a 'personal' item just boggles the mind and offends the
sense of decency.
Larnen
Jon A. Lambert
>
>$1,000 for a 'personal' item just boggles the mind and offends the
>sense of decency.
>
I don't have any problems at all with charging users to play a mud or
even charging them any price at all for special services. :)
Provided of course you are the author of all the software or have
explicit permission from the authors.
--
J. Lambert
Larnen
Exactly - Avalon, for example, are welcome to whatever profit they make.
But you have to earn it, not just take it based on the works of others.
Larnen
George Reese
: um, what do the people who actually own the copyright have to say
: about this?
Well, given that I have discussed this issue with Beek many times, I
know it would piss him off. Unfortunately, he has not been around in
the past two weeks to comment on this particular incident.
--
George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
On meurt toujours trop tôt -- ou trop tard. Et cependant la vie est
là, terminée; le trait est tiré, il faut faire la somme. Tu n'es rien
d'autre que ta vie. -Jean-Paul Sartre, Huis Clos
Lee Seymour
through it i was asked to donate, but I play other muds in which I don't
have to. I saw no difference from those muds as compared to threshold. I
did not see a need to go and send all of my money to aristotle. if it were
a top of the line product, maybe I would, but then again, the people that
logon there are not the highest class of society. it seems to me, that
people that play threshold are ones that buy into the scam.
When I finally had enough of the 'help donations' i left the mud. My
character stayed there for a little while longer, before i was removed from
my guild.
Also, what some may not know, is that high level characters, who finally get
fed up with the mud and leave....their characters are then roleplayed by
aristotle himself. I've heard of one such incident, but there may be
more...
kha...@my-deja.com
George Reese <bo...@imaginary.com> wrote:
> Lice <bl...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> : um, what do the people who actually own the copyright have to say
> : about this?
> Well, given that I have discussed this issue with Beek many times, I
> know it would piss him off. Unfortunately, he has not been around in
> the past two weeks to comment on this particular incident.
George, your posts and the very name of this thread are clearly
libelous, and intended to do nothing but harm an individual's
reputation. As soon as you were told that legal advice had been sought,
you shifted to the "spirit" and "ethics" of the MudOS use. Clue -
"illegal" does not mean "unethical", so you have CLEARLY shifted your
ground on this, and denying that you have is absurd. From someone who
claims to be a programmer, your use of language at best lacks rigor and
at worst is simply an attempt to defame someone by any means at your
disposal.
Whether or not the copyright holders for MudOS have been around for the
last couple of weeks, Threshold has been an advertised, operational
entity for YEARS. Given that information about it, and it's policies,
has been public knowledge for quite some time, and that these
claims recur repeatedly with NO action being taken, one must assume that
in fact nothing actionable has occurred. If this is in fact the case,
then you seem to be knowingly lying about the situation.
Libel, distortion, evasion, and possibly conscious lying are a wonderful
combination when accusing someone of being unethical. Perhaps you might
want to post the rest of your replies in pot.kettle.black
Greg Burton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kaerin
Khalid/Greg
This is disheartening... I always saw you as a player with an
intelligent head on his shoulders. Now you make several allegations
with so little ground to stand on it's, frankly, amazing.
I'm not a George Reese fan by any means, but he shouldn't be
chastised for accepting the fact that there could possibly be a legal
loophole that Aristotle has slipped through. Would you rather he
debated and argued as Aristotle does--with a shut trap for a mind and
plugs in his ears? It is extremely difficult to see how the
registration process at Threshold DOESN'T break the law, but that
doesn't mean it's not possible, somehow. However, Aristotle sheds no
light on how, exactly, he doesn't break the MudOS license other than
saying he's consulted people. Given Aristotle's reputation on Usenet
and in the mudding community, this is just plain unacceptable. You
can't expect people to be satisfied with that answer from a man who, in
virtually every post, argues with little intelligence, rationale, or
acceptance of being wrong. The fact is the license Aristotle agreed to
by using MudOS states a user may not use MudOS for monetary gain.
How you can say that the registration process has been known to all
for a long time is beyond me. Aristotle himself hides the registration
from new users and makes no reference to it on the main Threshold
webpage. Yes, the topic has come up in MudConnector a few times, but I
gather from the astounded responses of most of these people, they a:
don't read MudConnector, and b: didn't know about this registration.
You've read reviews of Threshold in a few forums so you know that none
of them include the registration process in their reviews. Why is
this? Because as non-biased reviewers they've never played the game
and so are newbies. Thus, the registration is hidden from them. Help
registration (last I knew) wasn't even able to be read until level 3 or
4.
Not only that, but his Mud Connector listing did not include MudOS
as part of the code until Icculus made the change, and no mention of
MudOS is/was made available anywhere within the the mud environment or
on the webpage. Not denying a fact doesn't mean it's public knowledge.
You employ Aristotle's own tactics, ignoring the heart of the
matter, attempting to distort the issue, and making baseless
accusations which are so clearly wrong it's astounding. Whether or not
it's illegal, Aristotle IS being very unethical in his use of MudOS and
gaining monetary compensation from players without permission from the
authors/creators. However, you obviously see no problem with this in
your continued patronage and support of Aristotle's practices. How do
you justify that? I await Beek's response to this issue eagerly.
Sadly,
Kaerin
--
--Kaerin
Peter R. Sadlon
> George, your posts and the very name of this thread are clearly
> libelous, and intended to do nothing but harm an individual's
> reputation. As soon as you were told that legal advice had been sought,
> you shifted to the "spirit" and "ethics" of the MudOS use. Clue -
> "illegal" does not mean "unethical", so you have CLEARLY shifted your
> ground on this, and denying that you have is absurd. From someone who
> claims to be a programmer, your use of language at best lacks rigor and
> at worst is simply an attempt to defame someone by any means at your
> disposal.
>
> Whether or not the copyright holders for MudOS have been around for the
> last couple of weeks, Threshold has been an advertised, operational
> entity for YEARS. Given that information about it, and it's policies,
> has been public knowledge for quite some time, and that these
> claims recur repeatedly with NO action being taken, one must assume that
> in fact nothing actionable has occurred. If this is in fact the case,
> then you seem to be knowingly lying about the situation.
Ahh I see your logic here.... a woman gets raped but doesn't press
charges, therefore no crime was done. Pull your toung out of Ari's ass
and realise that just because the authors of TMI and MudOS havn't pressed
charges doesn't mean that the copyright has not been broken.
As for George changing his ground I don't think he has.
1) Ari copied MudOS so he could run his MUD
2) The licence says you cannot use it for monitary gain
3) Ari is using it for monitary gain
Now I am sure that Ari somehow beleives he is not breaking any law, but it
is clearly unethical and immoral to anyone in the field of computer
science and I doubt the IEEE commity on ethics or any other such commity
would sanction his actions.
_Peter
George Reese
: In article <p%9D3.1515$S5.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
: George Reese <bo...@imaginary.com> wrote:
:> Lice <bl...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
:> : um, what do the people who actually own the copyright have to say
:> : about this?
:> Well, given that I have discussed this issue with Beek many times, I
:> know it would piss him off. Unfortunately, he has not been around in
:> the past two weeks to comment on this particular incident.
: George, your posts and the very name of this thread are clearly
: libelous, and intended to do nothing but harm an individual's
: reputation.
It is only libelous if I am knowingly posting incorrect information. I
clearly believe everything I am saying. I am doing it for the sake of
bringinng public attention to some very immoral and likely illegal
behavior on the part of someone in the community as it relates to
muds.
: As soon as you were told that legal advice had been sought,
: you shifted to the "spirit" and "ethics" of the MudOS use.
Hey, dumbass, I did no such shifting. From my original post:
"Now, being the pseudo-lawyer he is, Aristotle probably believes he
has found some sort of loophole in the legal wording of the license,
but only a complete moron would believe
Aristotle's policy specified at this URL:
"http://www.threshold-rpg.com/register.html
"is in any way consistent with the ideals or intent of those who wrote
and contributed to MudOS and TMI."
I think it is quite clear that the fundamental basis of my raising
this issue is an ethical one. On top of that, however, I also clearly
believe it to be illegal. And, in spite of Aristotle's claims that "he
has spoken to lawyers on the issue", I still believe it is illegal.
How can I believe it illegal?
Just because Aristotle says he spoke to lawyers does not mean:
a) he has actually spoken to a lawyer
b) he has actually retained the professional legal council of a
lawyer with respect to this issue
c) he has in fact provided the lawyer with all relevant evidence
Normally, I would disbelieve a) is even the case, given that Aristotle
is a well-known liar. However, I find it hard to believe he has never
spoken to lawyers on this topic since he has attended law school.
However, idle chat with lawyers about any given topic is a FAR CRY
from actually hiring them to do due diligence and research and
particular issue. That means reading the MudOS license, the LPMud
license, the DR license, and the TMI license. Then the lawyer would
minimally have to research existing case law. So, I seriously doubt
that (b) is the case.
: Clue -
: "illegal" does not mean "unethical",
No shit, dumbass.
: so you have CLEARLY shifted your
: ground on this, and denying that you have is absurd.
How is absurd? From the very first post I made, I presented a moral
argument. While the title is about the practice being legal, my entire
argument has been an ethical one.
: From someone who
: claims to be a programmer, your use of language at best lacks rigor and
: at worst is simply an attempt to defame someone by any means at your
: disposal.
You clearly are just an Aristotle lacky, equally unconcerned about his
horrible unethical behavior.
: Whether or not the copyright holders for MudOS have been around for the
: last couple of weeks, Threshold has been an advertised, operational
: entity for YEARS. Given that information about it, and it's policies,
: has been public knowledge for quite some time, and that these
: claims recur repeatedly with NO action being taken, one must assume that
: in fact nothing actionable has occurred. If this is in fact the case,
: then you seem to be knowingly lying about the situation.
This is absurd. While I have known that Aristotle has collected
donations from players (I do this on Nightmare), I never knew until
recently he actually charged for services. I assumed (and I think most
people I know assumed) that Aristotle was not some dumb mud kiddy off
the street and knew damn well that MudOS could not be used
commercially. I was literally dumbfounded when I was pointed to the
URL I referenced above.
Furrthermore, dickweed, a copyright is not like a trademark. You do
not lose your copyright by failing to act on it. So, if Aristotle's
use of MudOS is, as I claim, using it in violation of the MudOS
license, then it is irrelevant who knew what when.
: Libel, distortion, evasion, and possibly conscious lying are a wonderful
: combination when accusing someone of being unethical. Perhaps you might
: want to post the rest of your replies in pot.kettle.black
Point to a single sentence that is libelous. Remember, in order to be
libelous, a claim must be made "without justification or lawful excuse
which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing
him to hatred, contempt or ridicule." (http://www.cyberlibel.com from
Parmiter v Coupland). I clearly am justified in my claims. It could be
that Aristotle does in fact have a legal loophole. But I am certainly
justified in believing he has not. Furthermore, this issue is very
relevant to this forum and thus is not an attack out of left field
simply designed to injure him.
Point to a single place where I have evaded an issue. In this post,
you attack me for switching from the legal to the ethical
argument. Note that this is not evasion, this is switching the
topic. Nevertheless, as you can see from my quote FROM MY FIRST POST,
I have been concerned with the ethical argument the whole time. You
have just selectively chosen to ignore it.
And please point to one line that is an outright lie. Or even one that
looks like it might be a lie.
In fact, it looks like you are being libelous here. You have no
justification for believing any of the above things. Furthermore, you
are clearly engaging in accusing me of these things to do my
reputation harm.
Oh, by the way, how the hell can you defend Aristotle's actions? Let's
assume Aristotle is totally right and I am totally wrong. What
charitable interpretation is there of what Aristotle is done? Keep in
mind, not only is Aristotle using someone else's property against
their wishes, this state of affairs would mean that he has
specifically sought council to *find a way to deprive someone of their
intellectual property rights*.
Aristotle sounds like one hell of a pig fucker to me.
rchri...@my-deja.com
kha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <p%9D3.1515$S5.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
> George Reese <bo...@imaginary.com> wrote:
> > Lice <bl...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> > : um, what do the people who actually own the copyright have to say
> > : about this?
>
> > Well, given that I have discussed this issue with Beek many times, I
> > know it would piss him off. Unfortunately, he has not been around in
> > the past two weeks to comment on this particular incident.
>
> George, your posts and the very name of this thread are clearly
> libelous, and intended to do nothing but harm an individual's
sought,
> you shifted to the "spirit" and "ethics" of the MudOS use. Clue -
> "illegal" does not mean "unethical", so you have CLEARLY shifted your
> ground on this, and denying that you have is absurd. From someone who
> claims to be a programmer, your use of language at best lacks rigor
and
> at worst is simply an attempt to defame someone by any means at your
> disposal.
>
the
> last couple of weeks, Threshold has been an advertised, operational
> entity for YEARS. Given that information about it, and it's policies,
> has been public knowledge for quite some time, and that these
> claims recur repeatedly with NO action being taken, one must assume
that
> in fact nothing actionable has occurred. If this is in fact the case,
> then you seem to be knowingly lying about the situation.
>
wonderful
> combination when accusing someone of being unethical. Perhaps you
might
> want to post the rest of your replies in pot.kettle.black
Bullshit. A thief is a thief.
And truth is a defense against libel.
ne...@ogham.demon.co.uk
>"http://www.threshold-rpg.com/register.html
This page has like a lot of other people astonished me. Setting aside the
legal issues you have to wonder what utter buffoon would want to pay $1000
for an "autoloading artefact weapon" on an online text game??! Either
aristotle has managed to tap into a previously undiscovered source of online
idiots or he's living in his own little virtual world where reality barely
gets a look in.
NJR
pick...@my-deja.com
Unfortunately, the prior choice is true. Aristotle has seemingly
managed to tap into a horn-o-plenty of idiots. I know a few
people who have donated that much money to Threshold. Without broaching
the subject of whether the mud is illegal or not, you can't blame
Aristotle for taking advantage of morons whose lives are so empty that
they send 1000 dollars to a text-based mud. That stupidity is theirs
and theirs alone.
Niilo Paasivirta
>the subject of whether the mud is illegal or not, you can't blame
>Aristotle for taking advantage of morons whose lives are so empty that
>they send 1000 dollars to a text-based mud. That stupidity is theirs
Then there are also morons whose lives are so empty that they spend years
coding such muds...even more lame :)
--
<A href="http://www.co.jyu.fi/~np/> Niilo Paasivirta (n...@co.jyu.fi) </A>
GreenMan00
The thing that amazes me is....
If Threshold can do it, why not someone else.
If there is no penalty, why not spam out a pyramid
scheme to all those "get rich quick" folks, and have them
"borrow" the MudOS also?
Soon everyone would have a copy of MudOS (or Threshold),
and could tap in to the $1000 per idiot market.
Threshold runs MudOS, like many free muds.
The Admin Charges money for in game "perks".
This could happen to YOUR code.
Thank GOD for the GNU copyleft.
Dev
Greg Albright
to Ebay and type in "everquest" for your search expression. Some of the
higher level charcters have been going for thousands of dollars.
pick...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7s65rr$1i8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <937735323.12621.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> ne...@ogham.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> George Reese <bo...@imaginary.com> wrote:
>> >"http://www.threshold-rpg.com/register.html
>>
>> This page has like a lot of other people astonished me. Setting aside
>the
>> legal issues you have to wonder what utter buffoon would want to pay
>$1000
>> for an "autoloading artefact weapon" on an online text game??! Either
>> aristotle has managed to tap into a previously undiscovered source of
>online
>> idiots or he's living in his own little virtual world where reality
>barely
>> gets a look in.
>>
>> NJR
>
>Unfortunately, the prior choice is true. Aristotle has seemingly
>managed to tap into a horn-o-plenty of idiots. I know a few
>people who have donated that much money to Threshold. Without broaching
>the subject of whether the mud is illegal or not, you can't blame
>Aristotle for taking advantage of morons whose lives are so empty that
>they send 1000 dollars to a text-based mud. That stupidity is theirs
tel...@xenon.triode.net.au
> The thing that amazes me is....
> If Threshold can do it, why not someone else.
To my knowledge, online idiots have not been in short supply
for quite some time. Online idiots with cash are more useful
but at the moment there are plenty of those around too.
Go for it...
> If there is no penalty, why not spam out a pyramid
> scheme to all those "get rich quick" folks, and have them
> "borrow" the MudOS also?
I haven't read the licence on MudOS (never intending to use it)
but I believe that it only holds if someone is willing to
actively defend it... who is defending it?
> This could happen to YOUR code.
> Thank GOD for the GNU copyleft.
But GPL does not prevent this, in many ways the GNU project is
encouraging commercial usage of GPL code. Firstly, the GPL only
attempts to control distribution of the code, not usage of the
code (though in some cases it is a fuzzy distinction). Secondly,
so long as you distribute complete source and don't go altering
the terms of the license, you can demand as much or as little
money as you feel appropriate.
In the long run, the money doesn't matter, it will be spent and
will be forgotten. What is important about GPL is that the code
(including source) will be available forever to its users and
can form the foundation of further GPL projects.
- Tel
Steven Lucas
> In the past, I have taken a charitable view of Threshold's practices,
> but it seems any simple investigation into the way the mud is run
> demonstrates it is clearly an illegal mud.
>
> Basically, Aristotle is using MudOS and TMI to make money for
> himself. Anyone familiar with MudOS or TMI is aware that you
> absolutely cannot charge money for services in connection with these
> software products. Now, being the pseudo-lawyer he is, Aristotle
> probably believes he has found some sort of loophole in the legal
> wording of the license, but only a complete moron would believe
> Aristotle's policy specified at this URL:
>
> http://www.threshold-rpg.com/register.html
>
> is in any way consistent with the ideals or intent of those who wrote
> and contributed to MudOS and TMI.
>
> Aristotle, how dare you call me a thief of code when you are so
> blatantly sponging off the creative efforts of the authors of MudOS
> and TMI. I cannot think of anything more morally reprehensible to
> occur in the LPMud community than your illegal use of MudOS and TMI.
Anyone shelling out $1000.00 a pop for some sort of character upgrade
when there are many many many other muds that don't is wasting their
money and should visit a shrink for obsession disorders. And frankly,
this whole thread has been a laugher, considering how bad Aristotle's
public relations are with the rest of the mudding community. Was kind of
surprised to find out Threshold is an LP mud and not a MURPE as
advertised.
--
Crimefighter Co-Creator, Promised Land MUD
The COMPLETE Abermud List http://promisedland.mudservices.com
http://members.xoom.com/smlucas sml...@flashmail.com