01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Because 2 is already taken care of to the extent we (the NiMUD group) intend to credit those people. There will be NO CHANGE in the way we credit people in that respect, except perhaps adding credits to one or two files only because the names are similar (parser.c, mud.h and handler.c), even though the contents of those files is only remotely similar.

IMC2 will be removed.
01 Oct, 2006, Remcon wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, so if everyone out there follows your thoughts on giving credit where it's due, all they have to do to strip your credits for stuff is rewrite all of the functions/lines and even if it continues to look a little similar they are still free to strip your credits out of it…. Suit yourself, but don't complain about it later.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
That's fine. As long as they leave my credits in untouched files.

You don't own a phrase… it says so in the law. So, why would I want to claim I own completely rewritten software just because it is marginally similar?

The Diku credits and Merc credits appear several times in the source code, and in the help files (because it is a derived work).
01 Oct, 2006, Remcon wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
I didn't include their names in the header of each source of mine because they did all the work. Consider it an easy way for someone to simply open up any random source file and see the whole credits for the entire source. It is the main reason I went out of my way to put it in each file. The credits aren't something they should have to nit pick each file for that is just stupid and so are the times when you can do a grep for someone's name and see it 50-100 times in a single file. Personaly, I think doing it once at the top of each file is one of the best ways of doing it and it ensures that no matter what file they open they will see the proper credits. A simple copy and paste works great for it (aside from the things that are different per file that is normaly right below the credits).

Good then so you can get off your give us credit crap and move on. I've never even looked at the nimud code and the more you demand credit from others while not doing something as simple and respectful as most just makes me glad I haven't.

If you have the old imc code that was in violation with the license for the codebase that alone would have been enough reason to validate the uploads being denied. If Samson or someone else feels like takeing hours to go through and check every single part of your code to make sure it's complient more power to them, but chances are they will do a quick skim over random files and look for credit being given where it should. If you aren't willing to meet them on their grounds when they point things out don't complain about it and don't try submitting it again until it is in complience.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Remcom as a MUD programmer, how often do you open source files to read credits?

That's your personal opinion, not the opinion of the law, the Diku group or the Merc group. It says not to remove credits. This was in place so they wouldn't discover copies of their source code distributed without their names in it. Well, this isn't their source code, it's not Merc or Diku, its NiMUD, its own thing, and only parts of it contain Merc or Diku code.

As for the give us credit crap, of course, if you use Olc, you must give me and Chris Woodward credit.

If you use source code taken from NiMUD, which is owned by me, you must give me credit.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
NiMUD is still a Merc derivative, and it requires compliance with the Merc license terms. Which in turn dictates compliance with the Diku terms as well. They don't make any exceptions to credit being in the source. It doesn't matter if you claim to have rewritten every file. Renaming functions hardly counts. As I said, a quick exam of a couple of your files proves beyond a shadow of doubt that it's Merc code. Furey's name is even still scattered through some of the source where you forgot to strip it out. Oops. Are you sure you're not really Vryce?

It's not Remcon's job to validate your upload. So he has no reason to worry about it. In fact, he's got some expectation that what he finds here will be legally compliant and thus won't cause him any problems 3 years down the road when you show up to claim you invented his MUD and haven't been properly credited for it.

Validating the uploads is our job. Myself, Davion, and Asylumius. Remcon's job is to make the best MUD he can.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Renaming functions hardly counts


Who renamed functions? I wrote new ones.

Quote
Merc derivative…


Yes but it does not say:
"You must put our names in every source file you write from now until the end of time if you derive from this work." It says "Don't remove them" – well, in the cases where the files are similar, they are not removed! Period.

Quote
Furey's name..


It's where appropriate. Where the code has not changed, period.

Quote
Remcom's job is to make the best mud he can


Probably not! Remcom's job (if he is even old enough) probably pays him less than $20/hour and has nothing to do with MUD development.
01 Oct, 2006, Remcon wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
If I was over a site which allowed uploads of code you can bet I would go through and look at credits in source files. It wouldn't make much sense for credits to be put else where now would it?
You can't say if you use Olc you must give me and Chris Woodward credit since there are alot of different Olc's that you very likely had no hand in createing. I doubt anyone would ever consider creating something without creating a way of editing it online in one way or another.
Changes are that after all of this if anything people will be more inclined to rip any work of yours out of their codebase and do it theirselves. Had you been more inclined to listen to reason they might have kept it and simply gave you the credit you deserve.
I know that personaly NONE of your code is in mine and after all this I would actually go more out my way to keep from useing your work then anyone elses. So far aside from stock stuff in SmaugFUSS and my own work nothing else is in mine. So far I've considered tossing in two things that others have created none of which are yours. I haven't done so yet, but in the event I do they will be notified and asked for permission before it's included as well as any kind of agreement on what and where they would like their credits to be put will be all discussed before I use the first line of code. Of course I have already discussed it with both authors and have their permission and everything and I've still not done it yet, but I like to plan ahead :)
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
This has been debated, but no, Olc is primarily ours. I'm afraid that we are the most popular and many have been derived from our work. Tyche pointed out its in over 1100 online games.
01 Oct, 2006, Splork wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
I would avoid anything Locke has any part of, period.

And no, according to your own theory, olc is not yours. Since most olcs have been changed drastically since your bug infested original.


You forgot how you created earth, wind, and fire…
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Almost impossible since the Hummer 3, water sustainability and MUDs are all things I've contributed to, and aside from boycotting my source code, or something equally lame, you'll probably encounter several features of Windows 98, XP and Vista which I contributed to, not to mention the growing field of Interaction Design of which I am a pioneer.
01 Oct, 2006, Remcon wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Please, Your Olc might be yours, but you have no rights to everyones Olc. Had Thoric or the others used your Olc you would no doubt have been given credit for it. They even gave credit out sometimes just for someone giving them an idea/bug report on something. So guess what you have no claims on Smaug's Olc. As for others chances are if they used your work they would naturally give you credit for it, if they didn't then it's likly not your work.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
We agree: but Thoric wrote a poor version of it that is used in his mud. So he's a copycat.

This is a private message from me quoting Samson:
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Your problem with Nim5 isn't the help entries. Those are fine. It's the lack of credit in the source files and the IMC2 license conflict. That's all.


regarding this: many of the files will not include a diku reference, since those files are my original work. you can't expect me to cite diku or merc when the work is my own or the work of myself and chris woodward.


I can when the collective work is a derivative of them. There are plenty of files which are clearly derived from Diku/Merc but fail to credit. The Medievia argument doesn't work here.


Well, so you've passed the bar exam, changed the way the government works as a Senator, had new laws created to give you personal power over the copyright laws and the ability to be a sanctioned vigilante? Kudos.
01 Oct, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
locke said:
Remcom as a MUD programmer, how often do you open source files to read credits?

That's your personal opinion, not the opinion of the law, the Diku group or the Merc group. It says not to remove credits. This was in place so they wouldn't discover copies of their source code distributed without their names in it. Well, this isn't their source code, it's not Merc or Diku, its NiMUD, its own thing, and only parts of it contain Merc or Diku code.

As for the give us credit crap, of course, if you use Olc, you must give me and Chris Woodward credit.

If you use source code taken from NiMUD, which is owned by me, you must give me credit.


I have never looked at NiMUD and now I never will because of all this give me credit shit. If your credits were where they were suppose to be, then you would of gotten credit for it, if they are not then no one knows if it was your work or someone elses. I would never give you credit for anything because of all this crap and will make sure that we never bother to even look at your shit. It is not worth it, I am sure it could easily be rewritten and be even better.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
Well you might fall in love with it if you gave it a look. Download the latest copy:

(Link removed in accordance with Rule 5)
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
So you are basically saying that because you *THINK* i'm wrong you'll BE wrong. Well that's hypocritical. I guess it "takes one to know one" or something to that effect. That's like saying "because I think you jumped off a bridge, I will and never say you did!"
01 Oct, 2006, Splork wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
5. No signature or profile links to sites belonging to known violators/code thieves/etc.

I believe there is a link in Locke's signature which violates rule 5…
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
Do you have a patent on "Online creation tools as used by an online multiplayer text game"? No. So Thoric was free to do exactly what he did. Write himself a custom OLC to avoid the problems your code has and to avoid the constant argument over "You stole my uber OLC!" you've become world famous for. Well he was at least half right since you're still accusing him of stealing your code.

I for one am glad he took the effort. Because if he hadn't, then it would have become necessary for someone else to do so just to disassociate themselves from you. That someone might well have been me given the length of time I've worked with Smaug based code over the years. Which means I'd be the target of your constant whining, bitching, and moaning. And I can guarantee you I don't have the same level of patience for your kind that Thoric does.

I'm also glad that your constant bitching, whining, and moaning is finally leading to a new OLC system for Rom which is better than the bug ridden mess you lay claim to. It's long overdue and I have every confidence that Darien's alpha versions will probably be better than what you're calling a final release.
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Patents aren't really for software, more for improvements on algorithms, but I do have copyrights on the original Olc and I own most of the work in Ilab/olc, Ivan's Olc, ROMolc and that other one I keep forgetting.

A trademark would be more appropriate for the words "online creation"
01 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
Splork said:
5. No signature or profile links to sites belonging to known violators/code thieves/etc.

I believe there is a link in Locke's signature which violates rule 5…


Yes. You would be quite correct.
40.0/72