21 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
You'll forgive me if I don't take Locke's past claims at face value given his massive credibility problem. There's enough information floating around out there to suggest Surreal did all the work and Locke is just assuming credit for it now because he's not around to counter the claims.

And you can take your nazi shit and shove it out your ass. That kind of thing isn't going to be tolerated here. So you better decide quickly if you can have this debate without resorting to the personal attacks and calling people nazis because you don't like what they have to say.
21 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
cbunting said:
You make some pretty big claims…
OLC from DIKU…
Code:
void do_zname (CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument, int cmd)
void do_rlink(CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument, int cmd)
void do_rexit(CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument, int cmd)


The above code is taken from Shadows of Isildur, released by Traithe on July 2004.

cbunting said:
-snip-
This looks more like OLC, But it's not Lockes..

bool save_zone_file( AREA_DATA *pArea )

void do_dig( CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument )
..snip..


That was taken from SwordQuest by Robert Peckham which was first publicly released in October 1998. Furthermore…
Quote
On Tuesday, Jan 23 1996 Robert L. Peckham wrote:
"Since my OLC hasn't been released, I hardly think you are a good
judge of my OLC. (wont be either since SQ doesn't use diku format
area files anymore.)"


cbunting said:
You never can tell anymore who wrote what or anything else.


Apparently despite this handwaving, we can and do know who in fact wrote the code you posted and when they first were publicly released.

Again what is your basis for asserting that Locke failed to give credit for code that was publicly released many years after the TheIsles OLC? Are you seriously suggesting that Locke or Surreal are actually TimeLords who travelled into the future and stole/borrowed/based their code on and failed to credit future authors? If so, you are a far bigger crank than Locke.

cbunting said:
I said one or the other "Did Not" give any credit to anyone else as I
posted originally and mentioned multiple times. I never said they stole
it either. I just said that OLC for DIKU and MERC 1.0 was released 1 - 2
years before Locke released the ISLES!


Here's what YOU said, "The point that I was trying to make is that Locke wants everyone to give him credit for the olc editor but I don't see where Locke is giving credit to the original authors who's code that The Isles OLC is based on.. Locke was only a Co-Author.. Not the full author."

I've never read anywhere that Locke said he was the full author and not the co-author. You like to make shit up don't you. So WHO did Locke fail to credit?
21 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
cbunting said:
Locke was 15 years old when OLC was released. I, to this date have not seen any complete code additions to any mud that was written by someone who hadn't taken any sort of programming class, not part of a thesis or while in college.


Dan Brumeleve was 14 years old when he wrote Armageddon's OLC in 1992.

cbunting said:
And the one that Locke based his OLC on, that codebase was online at one time too.. On the same site that had the Rot (Addarian Realms) source code. I did have all of these..


Locke and Surreality wrote TheIsles OLC. They didn't take the code from anyone else's codebase.

cbunting said:
This discussion can go on for ages.. But the problem is that no one can prove that Locke did in fact write OLC.


Anyone who adopts the standard that someone must prove their innocence when not a single shred of evidence has been proffered as to their guilt needs to be first prove themselves not to be an imbecile.

cbunting said:
And I am not coding on Linux so I don't have to have all of the braces in the right places..


Statements like the above…well…there's just no way to politely call them anything but completely idiotic.
21 Dec, 2006, cbunting wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
It has been mentioned many times that Locke wants any and all users to add credits to their muds 'Credit Page'. I've even seen at times where he requested that the credit be added to the login screen or MOTD.

Instead of just bashing people, why not read "WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN so that you can understand what is being said..

Quote
Locke and Surreality wrote TheIsles OLC. They didn't take the code from anyone else's codebase.


Thats crap..

Quote
I've never read anywhere that Locke said he was the full author and not the co-author. You like to make shit up don't you. So WHO did Locke fail to credit?


Thats crap too! How do you figure Locke was a co-author? Of the Isles, partial code, not any of OLC.

Quote
Anyone who adopts the standard that someone must prove their innocence when not a single shred of evidence has been proffered as to their guilt needs to be first prove themselves not to be an imbecile.


Here is an excerpt from the Orignal Isles Release… What more proof do you need that Locke had nothing to do with it? So from today on through the rest of this lifetime, Locke can't claim or take credit for OLC nor can he tell people to give "HIM" credit in thier MOTD's or credits files.

Quote
I (Locke, coder of everything else) can be reached at:
locke@telerama.lm.com

Surreality (coder of the Online Creation) can be reached at:
surreal@telerama.lm.com (he rarely replies, send mail to above)

8/10/94


and

Quote
*Added online creation (as per Surreality's coding!).

Yes, folks, we now have OLC.


So all in all, Locke was a part of the project, The Isles but that doesn't mean anything in regards to OLC. Locke DID NOT inherit OLC.. All i've tried to say since the beginning is that Locke doesn't have a foot to stand on when it comes to OLC.

Locke was working on the Nimud in 1993, Surreality was working on the Isles until the two got together.. Surreality was already a builder on a mud and knew about OLC or Online Creation before Locke.. But that is all beside the point anyway.

Quote
Locke and Surreality wrote TheIsles OLC. They didn't take the code from anyone else's codebase.


Back to the original quote again.. There is code in the original isles release that has code by other authors. Not just Locke and Surreality..

But still, the reason I posted the first reply in regards to olc was because "No one" has to give credit to Locke if thier mud uses OLC. For one, there was never any copyright info or mention of doing this from Surreality. And Locke isn't the author of OLC in the Isles.. Locke just inherited that simply because he and surreality were working on the codebase together. But at far as having to include Locke in any credits. Locke has no right or legal boundries to do so.

And to those who have been confronted by Locke or told to add credits to thier mud, or else you'd be breaking some license is bogus. Locke can't demand anything in regards to OLC. Someone with your knowledge should know that. But instead, you're attacking me because I have replied strickly about Locke.. Not once did I say anything about Surreality.. I guess common sense tells you that if Locke will take credit for OLC which he didn't write, Then I'm pretty sure he would do it in regards to other code as well.
21 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
cbunting said:
Thats crap too! How do you figure Locke was a co-author? Of the Isles, partial code, not any of OLC.


Because the only person we know of besides Locke who talked to Surreality that we can quote is Jason Dinkle who wrote:
Quote
This online creation system was ported to EnvyMUD 1.0 by Jason Dinkel
from The Isles running NiMUD Revision 2-60 (8/11/94) written by Locke
and Surreality. Surreality originally wrote this online creation
system for Merc 2.2 and submitted it to Locke for inclusion with The
Isles. I mailed Locke and he told me that 85% of the OLC(online creation)
code was by Surreality and that I should get permission from him to publish
it. Locke only wanted to know what code base I was using and also he wanted
to see the MUD running when I got the code ported.


Locke and Surreality are clearly co-authors of TheIsles OLC.

No you said… "I've mentioned the variations of OLC because of the lies spead around by Locke. Locke doesn't even give proper credit to Surreality on his own web sites. Nimud, mercmurv or any others. I wouldn't put it paste Locke to take credit for other peoples code.. He's been doing it for years claiming and demanding credit for an OLC system that he didn't write."

I said… "I've never seen that Locke didn't give credit to his co-author"

And you've proved that Locke does credit his co-author by finally for the first time actually quoting him.

cbunting said:
But still, the reason I posted the first reply in regards to olc was because "No one" has to give credit to Locke if thier mud uses OLC.


Locke and Surreality are clearly co-authors of TheIsles OLC.
Doesn't matter what percentage of code either of them wrote.
So unless you can identify and strip the 15% percent out that Locke wrote, you'll have to pull a Vryce if you remove Locke's name from the credits.
21 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Surreality originally wrote this online creation system for Merc 2.2 and submitted it to Locke for inclusion with The Isles.


I think the relevant portion of that credit clause is pretty clear. Surreal wrote the OLC. He submitted it for Locke to include in The Isles. Tyche, you've just proven our case whether you realize we had one or not. Further, the statement posted there by Jason says he emailed Locke, not Surreal, about the code. So if you're using Jason's statement about it as your proof, remember it was based on Locke's response. And since Locke's credibility is already worthless, anything said by him that is offered as proof of anything is also worthless. That's a bit like asking the murderer on trial "did you kill the victim" and trusting him when he says no.
22 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
I think the relevant portion of that credit clause is pretty clear. Surreal wrote the OLC. He submitted it for Locke to include in The Isles. Tyche, you've just proven our case whether you realize we had one or not. Further, the statement posted there by Jason says he emailed Locke, not Surreal, about the code. So if you're using Jason's statement about it as your proof, remember it was based on Locke's response. And since Locke's credibility is already worthless, anything said by him that is offered as proof of anything is also worthless. That's a bit like asking the murderer on trial "did you kill the victim" and trusting him when he says no.


One thing that is clear is in the posters' attempt to maliciously libel a fellow coder in the mud community is that they've fallen far short of that utterly despicable and disgraceful goal.

In recap, two posters claim Locke stole code from other OLC authors. Both claimed they could prove it and had seen it. One poster, cbunting, has attempted to deliberate deceive the forum by posting code that was released 4 and 10 years after the release of TheIsles OLC in his attempt to libel Locke. That poster has apparently backed off the stolen code allegation by insisting that what they meant by Locke's failure to credit "other authors" (his plural) was that he doesn't properly create his co-author, Surreality. Obviously that's a lie as the poster would have never even mentioned the other OLCs at all, nor would have attempted to even post code if their argument was with Locke properly crediting Surreality. No, instead they then post quotes from TheIsles documentation that were written by Locke (and I also quote from the documentation written by Jason Dinkel) which both show Locke giving almost total credit to his co-author Surreality! Quite clearly that proves the claim that Locke doesn't properly credit his co-author to be another disgusting malicious lie and libel. Not being content with that (or more likely just stupidly not realizing it disproved that claim), cbunting now argues a new libel, that none of the code was written by Locke. The really disgraceful conduct of cbunting (a license violator himself BTW) is in immediately exhorting and encouraging people here to violate their OLC licenses by pulling a Vryce and stripping out one of the co-authors names.

And now Samson the great Satan (aka Father of Lies) jumps in and invokes the liars fallacy by claiming that proves "our case"; that Locke did not write the OLC code at all…. since the quotes are Locke's, and Locke is a liar with a bad rep, then he must have lying to Mr. Dinkel. But in order to advance that ridiculous theory, you've got to call Jason Dinkel a liar too by asserting that he never talked too or got permission from Surreality, because if Locke lied about his contribution then Dinkel has to be complicit in it by not talking to Surreality. No, I'm really not sure what you mean by "our case" Samson unless you mean that you are a willing to go to any lengths to be a party to libeling Locke.

The problem and utter hypocrisy with your so called reputation argument is that it is not relevant to the charge, and since YOU have reminded us earlier that Locke accusing Thoric of code theft. Let's look at tthat using the same standards you've outlined. There are no posts on Usenet regarding Locke stealing code versus guess how many posts about Thoric stealing code and violating the Diku license? Nearly a hundred. So much for reputation. Locke is apparently squeaky clean versus Thoric (at the alleged time of that theft). And secondly I've noticed that you have not invoked your reverse standard of disproving a negative by not demanding that Thoric prove he did NOT steal Locke's OLC code. Nor have you demanded that Thoric prove he wrote it either. In spite of Thoric's past reputation. Hypocrisy.

Obviously nobody should follow that line of argument that you've advanced unless they are intellectually dishonest. No everyone should rightly laugh at Locke for asserting it and never once even attempting to provide a code comparison or a shred of evidence to support it. The same goes for you, cbunting and Darien claiming Locke stole the code, did not properly credit someone, did not write it, or whatever new allegation you pathetic muckrakers wish to bring up.

Provide evidence rather than malicious innuendo.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accusers.

Now I don't like Locke. I have read the original code. The thing is TheIsles OLC isn't particular challenging technically. The parts of the original TheIsles code Surreality apparently did not touch are in fact more technically challenging (see src.c for one example). So Locke was clearly a very competent programmer then (at age 15) and in my professional opinion far more competent than most of the posters here. Finally I have read the later code, the code that is was impossible for the dead fellow to have written, and it is the same style as the earlier code and clearly written by the same person.


Edit… Oh yeah
samson said:
…He submitted it for Locke to include in The Isles…


I never received a submission that I didn't have to modify to make work on my old ROM mud. The difference in the NiMUD structs vs. Merc 2.2 structs make it clear that it would have been impossible for Locke NOT to modify code Surreality supposedly coded to/for Merc 2.2. Dinkel used Locke's TheIsles OLC code and Locke demanded credit/permission, rightly (as in it IS his right to do so - whether those changes were 1%, 15% or 80%).
22 Dec, 2006, Omega wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche, I would like to retract my previous claim, i sat down with the code and picked through it, I was wrong, i have no excuses for why I am wrong, I remember working with it and seeing it, but I feel that I have been mistaken, therefor i retract my statement on the issue of OLC and Locke.

However, i still stand by the fact that Locke is a Douche :)
22 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
And now Samson the great Satan (aka Father of Lies) jumps in and invokes the liars fallacy by claiming that proves "our case"; that Locke did not write the OLC code at all…. since the quotes are Locke's, and Locke is a liar with a bad rep, then he must have lying to Mr. Dinkel. But in order to advance that ridiculous theory, you've got to call Jason Dinkel a liar too by asserting that he never talked too or got permission from Surreality, because if Locke lied about his contribution then Dinkel has to be complicit in it by not talking to Surreality. No, I'm really not sure what you mean by "our case" Samson unless you mean that you are a willing to go to any lengths to be a party to libeling Locke.


Obviously you've missed the point, deliberately or otherwise. Jason's credit statement tells it pretty flatly that Surreal wrote the code for Merc 2.2. He emailed Locke. Locke responded claiming that he wrote 15% of it. Jason based his statements on Locke's claims. Locke's credibility has already been established to be crap, and has been shown to be that going pretty much back to the beginning. I'm not calling Jason a liar. No. I suppose I'm saying Jason was duped BY a liar. It is on this information that I base my case that Locke's claim is invalid. You haven't done anything to convince me that this assessment is wrong in any way.

What becomes less clear is updates which came along after this. Locke released several versions of his codebase since the original Isles code came out. No doubt he did improve upon it and add more to it as time went on. So any claims he lays to those versions are in fact valid. But there's no clear trail of evidence to suggest that once Jason forked it to Envy that he ever went back to pick up the improvements and merge them in as time went on. Then Ivan came along at some point and ported it again for Rom. There is also no clear trail of evidence that he merged any of the later improvements into his version either.

As far as Thoric is concerned, the OLC he wrote for Smaug is right there for the inspecting. Grab a copy or something and have at it. You'll find out pretty quickly that it doesn't descend from anything Locke had a hand in.

As far as I can see, nobody here is advocating the violation of anyone's license. Rather, we are attempting to establish exactly who should get what credit. So getting a clear view of the situation is necessary for that. It requires more than blind trust in a proven liar ( Locke ) to go on. So if that once again reinforces the label of "The Great Satan" that you gave me once before, then so be it. You can yell, scream, shout, and fling all the ad hominem attacks against me you like but I'm not going to back off from my skepticism over this. Hurling insults only reinforces the belief that you've already lost your argument.
22 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Darien said:
However, i still stand by the fact that Locke is a Douche :)


I apologize and retract any and all insults I may flung your way.
Yeah I personally think Locke has some serious mental issues.
22 Dec, 2006, Omega wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
no harm to me Tyche, I honestly remember seeing code, but after going through it (with a very fine tooth comb mind you) i couldn't find any trace of what i thought was a rip from other bases. I tend not to make claims unless I can back them, and I was quite sure that I could. I was wrong, and happily admit it.
22 Dec, 2006, kiasyn wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
it is very possible that locke changed olc for nimud, even just a little bit. we cant prove whether he did or didnt but i know if i install code i constantly change and tweak it.. and i bet most of you do too.

edit: honestly this has turned into a crying wolf case.
22 Dec, 2006, Omega wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
i'd love to say that locke did change things.

But, the code i was using was an un-adulterated copy i had from years ago when it first came into public use, and i couldn't find it.

personaly, i say we forget about locke, we move on, if he continues to stake claims to things that are blaintently not his to claim, we run him out on a rail, if he chooses to play nice and not claim that OLC as a whole is his demon, and all that rot, we just carry on our marry ways without the stress of having to think about him.
22 Dec, 2006, Remcon wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Well it's like this, if someone is useing anothers code they should give credit to them or remove the work in question. The problem is that Locke is wanting to request credit for others work (like he wants credit for the Diku OLC etc…) and he has no rights to any of it and should just shut the hell up plain and simple. If someone is useing the olc modified by him then yes they should give him credit.

With that said I agree with Darien it's past time to just leave the subject alone and let it die already.
23 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
samson said:
Obviously you've missed the point, deliberately or otherwise. Jason's credit statement tells it pretty flatly that Surreal wrote the code for Merc 2.2. He emailed Locke. Locke responded claiming that he wrote 15% of it. Jason based his statements on Locke's claims…


You miss that Jason writes that Locke told him to get permission from Surreality. One must assume that Jason did indeed contact Surreality and got his permission. And since Jason does not write that there's any dispute or objection from Surreality, we must conclude that the statement is accurate, as there is no evidence to the contrary.

And you ignore that Jason quite clearly sources his work to the TheIsles.
dinkel said:
This online creation system was ported to EnvyMUD 1.0 by Jason Dinkel
from The Isles running NiMUD Revision 2-60 (8/11/94) written by Locke
and Surreality.

One might postulate that there exists some OLC code solely written by Woodward, but it doesn't appear to exist outside of incorporation into TheIsles. So you are stuck with Locke as you cannot tell which code Locke wrote and which Woodward wrote. And even if you could identify it, you are not going to be able to get permission from Woodward to use it and would have no license to use it.

samson said:
As far as I can see, nobody here is advocating the violation of anyone's license. Rather, we are attempting to establish exactly who should get what credit.


No actually…
minivryce said:
…"No one" has to give credit to Locke if thier mud uses OLC. For one, there was never any copyright info or mention of doing this from Surreality. And Locke isn't the author of OLC in the Isles.. Locke just inherited that simply because he and surreality were working on the codebase together. But at far as having to include Locke in any credits. Locke has no right or legal boundries to do so.


*sigh* I'm really tired of pointing out copyright myths versus copyright law.
I think I'll let Samson argue for the above as it would be funnier.

JasonDinkel said:
These people helped make this software possible. I am eternally
grateful.

Kahn, Thelonius, Kith, and Hatchet for the base code system that
is clean.

Locke for releasing The Isles to the public and permission from
him to let me use it to develop this code on EnvyMUD.

Surreality for writing the online creation routines and his
permission for me to share them with you.

If you plan to publish any of this work please be sure that you inform
these people:

Locke: locke@telerama.lm.com
Surreality: cxw197@psu.edu
Jason Dinkel: jdinkel@mines.colorado.edu
23 Dec, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Darien said:
But, the code i was using was an un-adulterated copy i had from years ago when it first came into public use, and i couldn't find it.


This is the original code from August 94:
ftp://ftp.game.org/pub/mud/diku/merc/nimud/The...

Usenet announcements support the above and a 1.0 release in July 94. The changelog in the above release catalogues the differences which aren't many.
23 Dec, 2006, Omega wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
when i said i couldn't find it, i was refering to the part of the code that I thought was taken from another. though thank you for the link :) it is useful :)
23 Dec, 2006, Guest wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
…"No one" has to give credit to Locke if thier mud uses OLC.


This statement is true if your mud uses OLC and Locke had no hand in creating it.

Quote
And Locke isn't the author of OLC in the Isles.. Locke just inherited that simply because he and surreality were working on the codebase together.


This statement has merit because of the comments you quoted from Jason which indicate Surreal was the author and he offered the code to Locke to include in The Isles.

Quote
For one, there was never any copyright info or mention of doing this from Surreality.


This statement taken literally is crap because the code was copyrighted the day it was written.

Quote
This online creation system was ported to EnvyMUD 1.0 by Jason Dinkel
from The Isles running NiMUD Revision 2-60 (8/11/94) written by Locke
and Surreality.


This one is open to interpretation. Jason could literally be saying Locke and Surreality wrote the OLC. Or, as I read it, he could be saying he ported the OLC code from The Isles, and that The Isles is what was written by Locke and Surreality. Only Jason is capable of clarifying this statement's real intent. Until that happens we are left to speculate since it isn't crystal clear what was being said.

Quote
But at far as having to include Locke in any credits. Locke has no right or legal boundries to do so.


Again, this is absolutely true if your OLC was not written by Locke. I'm sure that's what cbunting meant. Obviously if you *DO* use The Isles OLC then you should be crediting the people who wrote it in the manner they request. The main reason so many people get pissed when Locke fanatically insists on this is because Locke is a hypocrite since he strips credits from the Diku and Merc teams, insisting he doesn't have to go by what they've requested.
20.0/38