30 Sep, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
locke said:
they still aren't as tolerant with source code as thoric of ftp.game.org


You're right, they are not. That would be because they are following copyright laws and the rules that are set on this forum. It kind of goes like with our naming policy on our MUD, your name may have been approved elsewhere but that does not mean that it will be approved here. You code may have been approved else where, but there are different rules here, therefore if you do not abide by them then your code will not be distrubited from here. It really is simple, if the admins say no, then either fix it or go find somewhere else to post it.
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
You're right, they are not. That would be because they are following copyright laws and the rules that are set on this forum.


Not entirely, they are making up their own version, and its basically 'up to Samson' – the hands-off approach used by Thoric is far more liberal, inviting, and thorough in its cataloging of MUD software.
30 Sep, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Then go find a site that uses that approch and bug them, instead of bugging all of us with your arguing about how Samson does it, and everyone agrees with upon signing up.
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't know about all the subtle loopholes and such in US intellectual Property law, but generally speaking I trust Samson's judgement and believe that I'd rather him err on the side of caution than allow something to be distributed here that could potentially ruin the site for all of us.
30 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
I certainly don't trust anybody's judgement but my own and only others after I have scrutinized it for error.
30 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
I believe that's the approach that Samson is taking, which is exactly why I trust his judgement, I've found it to my liking in the past and he seems to be exercising extreme caution in his decisions here. All of which I find enheartening.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
locke said:
Quote
You're right, they are not. That would be because they are following copyright laws and the rules that are set on this forum.


Not entirely, they are making up their own version, and its basically 'up to Samson' – the hands-off approach used by Thoric is far more liberal, inviting, and thorough in its cataloging of MUD software.


No. We are not making up our own version. We/I ( depending on who does the screening ) can read. It really is that simple. If codebase X says you have to have the credits for codebase Y in place, then that's what we expect to find in your submission. I/we believe the approach is legally sound in the USA. US law is what governs this site.

Thoric lives in Canada and ftp.game.org is based in Canada. Though I strongly disagree with how he's maintaining archives of packages which violate their licenses, it's entirely possible there is an aspect of Canadian law which we are not aware of that immunizes him against it. Or possibly he just doesn't give a shit. If he simply doesn't give a shit, then that's a really sad thing. If Canadian law doesn't give a shit, then that's a really sad thing for authors the world over when their work reaches Canada.

In any case. Even if US law said you can distribute in direct violation of your license, we would still refuse to accept anything which does not comply because that would go against the overt wishes of the authors in question. We will also not accept things which put us in questionable legal status, such as packages mixing GPL'd code with Diku licensed code.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
In a lot of cases when I created a new file and incorporated my new file into the existing source, I don't have to put Merc or Diku credits into it, period. That is considered my property and its my work. If you think that licenses and laws aren't up to interpretation, you're ignoring the reality of law. Copyrights start from the moment the pen hits the page or the finger hits the key. Its lame that you want to take some extreme stance that basically makes it look like Merc and Diku did all the work of the community. You can't really start the community, sure they built it, and people came, but it was them AND the people AND the thing that made it what it is today. And some of those people (a lot in fact) wrote many new lines of code and rewrote many underlying procedures. If you rewrite a procedure, its no longer the work of Diku or Merc, its your work.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
The collective package is still a derived work from the original starting point. The license doesn't say you can't add your own credits, or even that you can't place primary emphasis on your own credits, but it does require that they be there.

Claiming to have rewritten everything anew isn't going to cut it when a quick examination of a few places was instantly recognizable as Merc. Are you sure you want to put your Nim5 package up against that kind of public scrutiny?
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Find me percentages. I want statistics. All of your claims are vague. Compare each function, symbol and line of code. Put the files side by side and tell me how much is similar verse different. Show me exactly where. I printed NiMUD once, it took three days.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
And all of your claims are unsupported. We can do this dance all you like it won't change anything. Percentages don't make a damn bit of difference. I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "once a derivative, always a derivative" even if you've completely rewritten every last line of code and converted it into totally OO designed C++. As long as you originated from Merc, you're a Merc.

We've all been down this road with Vryce once before. As I said, are you sure you want to open yourself up to that level of scrutiny? I'm sure KaVir could perform the audit with what's out there without much trouble.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
My claims are not "unsupported" you have no claim. You just throw "you gotta credit them" in my face and then make up some stupid rule about it. Get real.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Suit yourself. I didn't invent any silly rule. The Diku and Merc teams are the ones who made that a condition in their licenses. Not me.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
That's not the issue. The issue is that you're a mindless follower who has no business regulating my software.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
BTW, just as an example of what I'm getting at, this is how I've done the credits for AFKMud. This is perfectly fine and follows the letter of the license, as well as the spirit.

/****************************************************************************
* ^ +—– | / ^ ^ | | +-\ *
* / \ | | / |\ /| | | | \ *
* / \ +— |< | \ / | | | | | *
* /—–\ | | \ | v | | | | / *
* / \ | | \ | | +—–+ +-/ *
****************************************************************************
* AFKMud Copyright 1997-2006 by Roger Libiez (Samson), *
* Levi Beckerson (Whir), Michael Ward (Tarl), Erik Wolfe (Dwip), *
* Cameron Carroll (Cam), Cyberfox, Karangi, Rathian, Raine, and Adjani. *
* All Rights Reserved. *
* Registered with the United States Copyright Office. TX 5-877-286 *
* *
* External contributions from Xorith, Quixadhal, Zarius, and many others. *
* *
* Original SMAUG 1.4a written by Thoric (Derek Snider) with Altrag, *
* Blodkai, Haus, Narn, Scryn, Swordbearer, Tricops, Gorog, Rennard, *
* Grishnakh, Fireblade, and Nivek. *
* *
* Original MERC 2.1 code by Hatchet, Furey, and Kahn. *
* *
* Original DikuMUD code by: Hans Staerfeldt, Katja Nyboe, Tom Madsen, *
* Michael Seifert, and Sebastian Hammer. *
****************************************************************************
* Low-level communication module *
****************************************************************************/


Every file in the codebase contains this, even those that we wrote ourselves. It's not really that hard a concept to grasp.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Well here's an example from my own source code:

Quote
theisles@gary:~/isles$ cd src
theisles@gary:~/isles/src$ grep Diku *
admin.c: * Adapted to Diku by Erwin S. Andreasen, <erwin@andreasen.org>
convert.c: * Loader for old Merc/Diku file formats
convert.c: * Processes a Diku file; adding vnum_base to its vnums.
door.c: * Original Diku Mud copyright (C) 1990, 1991 by Sebastian Hammer, *
grammar.c: * Diku code - search a block of memory as if it were a string.
grammar.c: * from Diku.
load.c: * Original Diku Mud copyright (C) 1990, 1991 by Sebastian Hammer, *
load.c:/* Diku support removed */
magic.h: * Ye Olde Diku/Merc spell functions.
props.c:* coders,area builders, and all the Diku,Merc,
track.c: * CircleMUD is based on DikuMUD, Copyright (C) 1990, 1991. *
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
locke said:
That's not the issue. The issue is that you're a mindless follower who has no business regulating my software.


Yes, you're quite right. I have no business regulating your software. I never said I did. I do however have the right to regulate how your software will be accepted on our site, and if you don't like it, go upload it somewhere else. Once again, either comply with the listed requirements or go upload it somewhere else.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
I've already requested of you a quantifable list of your supposed requirements. You're free to compile that list whenever you get your head out of the clouds.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
I will NOT put the Diku credits in files I have created myself. That is not the law, not part of the Diku or Merc license, and not even considerate of my group. You have no right to ask that of me. That's like me asking you to put my name in your IMC2 credits.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
That's like me asking you to put my name in your IMC2 credits.


This would be applicable if IMC2 was in any way derived from Nimud. But since it's not, that doesn't quite work.

Quote
I've already requested of you a quantifable list of your supposed requirements.


And I've given you the list. It's very very short:

1. Remove the GPL'd IMC2 code, or upgrade it to the current version.
2. Properly credit those whose work you've built upon as they require in their licensing.

How much clearer would you like it?
20.0/72