> and I find it extremely unlikely to the point of the absurd to think that anyone would do that, or go through that much trouble to write their own codebase from scratch, but then copy, word for word, most of the messaging strings throughout another codebase.

I think you may be totally wrong on that. I for one would totally do that for many reasons:
1-> I already thought about swapping the engine of my game to another one cause I cannot stand coding a text gam in C (but ultimately I was too lazy to do it)
swapping the engine but keep the gameplay word for word would totally imply to copy every message/command there is as it is.
2->I am not a native english speaker and using an already good base would be far better than come up with my own grammar errors.
3->Presenting a known "user interface" to new players is better anyway.

Even down to the: "Alas, you cannot go that way." messaging?

I mean, really?

That level of wholesale messaging copying in, of itself, ought to constitute a derivative work. It could be argued you took a codebase, stripped everything but the strings that are presented to the player, and rewrote the code around it.

Even within the context of a known user interface, I don't buy it. It'd be one thing to maintain typing something like "autoloot" or maintaining the "gossip" command so that way people familiar with MUDs would have one less barrier to entry to play the game, it's another thing entirely to have your complete game's response to these commands be identical in every way.

Of course, I recognize and acknowledge this is just my opinion on the futility of it, and maybe someone out there is crazy enough to do just that, but again, I just don't see it. I also recognize what people say about opinions, too…

I've been wondering about that myself. Not that it will be too difficult to rewrite, but I have carried over several hundred socials from CircleMUD, for sentimental reasons. I don't even know which come from stock, and which were added later on. I totally see how most strings would be protected under the license (though some would be too generic), but I'm still hoping that by crediting CircleMUD as inspirational I can continue to enjoy some of these socials in a new engine.




This made me raise a few eyebrows. If I were reverse-engineering open source code, why wouldn't I be looking at the code itself but just the strings? And if I only look at the strings and I'm not familiar with the actual code, I will most certainly end up with something vastly different. So then why not spend another 0.1% of the time you already spent to rewrite the strings as well…



Rarva cited not being a native speaker. There's also not being interested in writing as such. A lot of people here tinker with code because they love coding. Writing socials and combat messages may not be very pleasurable for them. And I've told you my reason. I will be sad on the day I have to give up the tiefighter social.

It is. In general, prose has stronger legal protections than code.

Tie fighter social?

I don't see how message copying could or should make anything a derivative work at least not with regard to code. Granted, that it would be somewhat unethical and reprehensible to claim that you wrote them if you copied them and a brief credit in the MOTD or version info or some other place indicating the source of the text seems reasonable to me. Really, that's plagiarism though at some level, though. With regard to reusing them, I imagine that coder/player nostalgia and or actual fondness for those particular messages is as a valid a reason as any to use them.



If your claim is truly reverse-engineering and not simply inspiration then I think that at some level you might need to justify that claim with proof. There is no reason to retain credits if you truly reverse-engineered something. At that point it is all YOUR own work, hence the "engineering" part. Just because Diku may have pioneered certain concepts does not mean that they own them. It's not like they have exclusive rights to turn based/real time combat or something. If you reverse-engineered something then it is not derived from the other thing at all unless I grossly misunderstand.

You cannot arbitrarily separate the two. Both form the body of the work. There are over 3800 strings in the original Diku.
That's around 20% of the body of the work. And that's just in the code and not even counting what might be loaded into memory from the files.
Without that textual expression Diku would be nothing.
Copyright infringement occurs when a specific fixed expression is copied. And that does include sentences and significant sequences of words.
I would note that Diku is very much based on the 2nd AD&D system, yet you will find that not a single sentence was copied verbatim from the AD&D books.
That's not by accident.

Actually you can, quite simple really. Just swap out the strings with AN EMPTY STRING. It would be a real disservice to the player to be treated to no response at all from the system despite input and presumed action, but the strings themselves do not make the CODE a derivative work. They are a changeable element that has little to no effect on the functionality of the game.

Hundreds, maybe thousands of lines of code do not simply become nothing and worthless simply because you removed the words one person chose to use to inform you about bad syntax, area descriptions, etc. You can just replace them with your own words. The mere fact that you can do so without causing the code to fail is proof of a sort.

Perhaps there is something I misunderstand, but I don't see any validity in what you have said.

I believe you've misunderstood what Tyche is saying. He isn't saying it's not physically possible to separate the strings from the code, he's saying it's not possible to separate the strings from the copyrighted work, because both the strings and the code "form the body of the work".

In other words, if you copy either the strings or the code, you create a derivative work. The copyright covers and protects both. It doesn't even need to be an identical copy - translating the strings into another language, for example, would still result in a derivative works. Likewise, basing the game on a novel or movie may constitute a derivative work (i.e., fan fiction).

Tyche and KaVir are right.

Luckily for me, I checked and the tie fighter social is not stock :) Nothing else matters to me!

When I created Alter Aeon, I used a lot of the same strings as were found on Hidden Worlds, as that was the only other mud I had really played and I liked the way it felt at the time. We actually do have the 'Alas, you cannot go that way' string. I obtained those strings from my own memory, as the original server was dead at that time.

Keeping that look at feel caused this question to arise several times in the earlier years. Between our credits page and not being a jerk when defending, we never actually had a problem with it.

These days, we're well established and a lot of those initial strings are gone. AA still has a lot of the look at feel of a Diku, but pretty much any experienced player should be able to tell the difference pretty quickly. Prompting and combat are the two most obvious places.

Alter Aeon MUD
http://www.alteraeon.com

Actually yes.
As Plamzi said, I am not interested in typing messages that I know will contain either grammatical errors, bad styling, or just not feeling 'right' etc.
Most of the time I ask a player or a fellow imm what the output should look like.
And anyway, those can be changed later, it is not like the code cannot run without them.
The code would not be derivated in any way, but all messages are copyrighted as well, since they are being part of it, so you would need the credits mention for them though.

You could externalize the messaging code as well (would be a good idea if you want something that works for many langages as well). Hence only need to mention the Diku license when in english.

There is still an issue in that the example message used could have been come up with independently, there are after all only a certain number of words in the english language and a limited number of ways to arrange them with valid grammar. That said, there is probably a threshold number of similar messages you'd have to use as criteria for suspected copying. Otherwise it might be very difficult to prove anything conclusively without jumping to conclusions or making assumptions.

Honestly, I think our "intellectual property" laws have a pretty major flaw. As the number of people creating stuff increases, they are bound to break down because there seems to be an implicit assumption that the only way I could get substantially similar work/results/etc is to copy someone else's stuff. However, given the limited number of words in the english language and the relatively limited number of pertinent themes/settings, if enough people write stories they will eventually have written similar stuff somewhere. It's probably worse in technology because the very laws of physics probably favor certain designs in the same way as there is certain optimal computer code. At some point there are only a few optimal designs and that would seem to break down another implicit concept, that there is always the opportunity for a better design. It would hardly be fair to award eternal exclusivity to one person for something that is the only, or one of the only, efficient ways to do something.

—

At the end of the day, it's somewhat stupid to suggest that anything beyond physical property can really belong to any one person. Particulary when it gets to the idea level. Not suggesting anyone should go around doing illegal things, just that the world, particularly the US, really should revise it's laws and rules to be more in line with reality.

A single phrase, or even a handful of ones being identical would, of course, raise reasonable enough doubt by itself. I don't think anyone would suggest that the "Alas, you cannot go that way." paired with a handful of other messages used by Diku would be enough to suggest.

Whenever almost every command you check out of dozens, however, contains the exact same phrasing across a variety of different places, locations, and files, it ceases to earn the benefit of the doubt of a coincidence. This doesn't conclude, of course, that the game in question is Diku based, but it certainly removes the argument that it wasn't at least intentional.

I'm always up for debate, but based on the examples we've been discussing, this "it could be coincidence" argument with regards to them, I don't feel has any place in the discussion at all. A MUD with that many similarities has either purposely copied "stuff" from an existing codebase, or they ARE an existing codebase. There's not much middle ground there.

And on behalf of anyone who has ever created anything that you couldn't tangibly touch (from artists, to musicians, to authors, to programmers), thank GOODNESS you aren't calling the shots :)

You are never 'always up for debate' because there are implicit exceptions like 'except when I'm not'. Also, this discussion has gotten quite a bit beyond specific examples. Maybe it should get closed as it has definitely gone from 'Is this MUD a Diku?' to 'When is a MUD a Diku?'. Maybe it's me, but I think it would be a good thing if there were a specific guide beyond one's personal convictions or the say-so of some "reputable person" to make a decision. I feel like there is an arbitrary element as to what constitutes "too many similarities".



I'm not entirely sure we should be happy with those who are calling the shots, which clearly you are in favor of. There is, without a doubt, some degree to which the current system is broken beyond easy repair.

My problem is that if someone comes along and writes a book or a song that just happens to seem "too similar" that they can be shutdown without a second thought because the first guy has more power than the latter guy. It's clear that you are ok with that to preserve the "rights" of the very first person to /ever/ do something. Anyone who writes a piece of music and wants to make money via performing it or selling it has to worry about whether it's too similar to some artist they've never heard of or listened to. Also, there is a difference between ownerships/rights/etc to a particular program and someone insisting that for every scrap of code, no matter how small the unit or insignificant the purpose, that they alone have the exclusive right to say that no one else can use that code or anything like it without crediting them.

"Maybe it's me, but I think it would be a good thing if there were a specific guide beyond one's personal convictions or the say-so of some "reputable person" to make a decision. I feel like there is an arbitrary element as to what constitutes "too many similarities". "

The specific guide is that if a single line of Diku is used elsewhere? It falls under IP law as a derivative and is thus subject to the license.

It's rather clear cut, and there's no benchmark or "a threshold number of similar messages" that makes something count or not.

The license, the only thing that legally gives anyone ANY authority to use, modify, or run ANY part of Diku MUD, specifies that to use, modify, or run ANY part of Diku MUD you are bound by the terms of the license.

"My problem is that if someone comes along and writes a book or a song that just happens to seem "too similar" that they can be shutdown without a second thought because the first guy has more power than the latter guy."

This is a gross misinterpretation of the intent and application of copyright or IP law. Sure, it may get abused, but everything does and nothing is perfect. But to suggest that anything beyond physical property shouldn't be bound by the laws or notions of ownership is ridiculous.

"Anyone who writes a piece of music and wants to make money via performing it or selling it has to worry about whether it's too similar to some artist they've never heard of or listened to."

Gross exaggeration, and speaking as a musician (shameless plug: facebook.com/criticalfailureus reverbnation.com/criticalfailureus youtu.be/nGmoaG-Ww-s), not actually something that you have to really worry about. There may be a conception that everything that can be done already has been done, or that any new music is just reinventing the wheel, but that's coming from either the uncreative, the uneducated, or the lazy. Besides, "cover bands" are very prolific and unless they are recording and selling other's songs, they can perform them as much as they want without any concern. 90% of the performing musicians or bands in the Shreveport area are cover bands.

"Also, there is a difference between ownerships/rights/etc to a particular program and someone insisting that for every scrap of code, no matter how small the unit or insignificant the purpose, that they alone have the exclusive right to say that no one else can use that code or anything like it without crediting them."

If I wrote that scrap of original, never-before-seen/written code, both legally and ethically, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to place whatever limits on the code as I see fit. If someone doesn't like it… go write their own code, or find someone who has released their code under less restrictive terms. It's a simple thing.

>The license, the only thing that legally gives anyone ANY authority to use, modify, or run ANY part of Diku MUD, specifies that to use, modify, or run ANY part of Diku MUD you are bound by the terms of the license.

Considering a lot of message string in the code are perfectly common sentences you can find pretty much anywhere else and prior to the Diku license, this is obviously not true.
The license cannot cannot get the ownership on some english langage sentence just cause it says so.
Even though some gaming compagny actually try those kind of stupidity regulary. With a very low rate of success….(but still, they try)
Apple even tried (and suceeded at start…or is is totally settled, I stopped caring about such nonsense a long time ago) the 'round courner' copyright design..after all….

I'm sure there's a difference between claiming ownership of a phrase, and claiming ownership of a phrase within relation to a specific game mechanic and its response, especially considering we are discussing text specifically and the entire entity bound by the license and the game itself is pure text itself.

When it boils down to it, though, if you lift a social from Diku or decide "hey, I like all of the weather messages" or whatever else, I doubt anyone is going to get on your case about it. The topic has drifted from very real, tangible examples into the realm of the absurd technicalities, and while there is probably some use in discussing the minute technicalities of what is or isn't bound by a license, I don't think anything specifically productive comes from it, and more often than not, it distracts from the specific incidents that spurred the discussion to begin with and that may still have something productive that can come of it.

Why would a group of individual messages (which are NOT a body of prose) be treated any differently than button layout on a web page, or patterns applied to an interface element?

I don't think it's reasonable to pretend a few terse messages should be treated the same was as a narrative. Let's face it, there are only so many ways you can say "You can't go that way." in various one-line messages, in English.

We keep seeing cases in court where one (greedy) company tries to stop a rival from using the simplest or easiest GUI interface widget, because they came up with it first. So far, it looks like the courts have struck down most of these suits as frivolous, because copying my blue buttons isn't the same as copying my entire game design.