22 Feb, 2010, Tonitrus wrote in the 22nd comment:
I don't want to add to the drama here, but since I don't care at all about the political aspects of this, I thought my views might pass for objective.
Unless I am mistaken, licenses are also revokable by default.
I think the precedent is that political considerations affect the rights to FUSS code. I'd been considering returning to using SmaugFUSS since my objections to the diku license were apparently due to my being misinformed. Pulling a site's right to distribute is not particularly different from revoking any other right to utilize your code, and doing so as a result of political issues strikes me as acting in exceptionally bad faith. I find this deeply unsettling. Also, as a complete asshat myself, I don't need the added responsibility of having to get along nicely with SmaugFUSS developers. I don't find your assurances that you won't revoke a user's right to use the codebase for such reasons particularly reassuring, nothing actually prevents you from doing so. The reasons you gave for revoking distribution rights are pretty questionable as well. I never considered mudbytes vaguely associated with SmaugFUSS, and I'm pretty sure your reputation would never be a priority of mine either. It would be incredibly stupid of me to put possibly years of work into FUSS code under these circumstances.
In short, having learned about this, I have to say that I consider this a complete deal-breaker as far as using any FUSS code goes.
Kayle said:
A website that allows user submitted content for hosting and distribution is not bound by the license of the codebase in question because they're not using it. So the questions about the licensing are moot. The issue here is that as an agent of the copyright holder, or as a copyright holder, the right remains to pull that right to distribute if there is any kind of feeling of ill will.
Unless I am mistaken, licenses are also revokable by default.
Kayle said:
The objection here is that Samson and I are not afraid to use our rights under copyright law to defend our work however we see fit.
Kayle said:
The precedent is this.
We (Samson or I) have NEVER pulled an individuals right to use the codebase(s). We HAVE pulled a site's right to distribute. The reasons for that, in both cases have been the same. The admin(s) were acting like complete asshats and we decided that it was detrimental to our project to remain associated with that kind of behavior. As I stated earlier in the discussion, I have not, and will not, EVER pull a users rights without a SUBSTANTIAL amount of evidence of license violations. I WILL, however, pull a sites right to distribute, if I feel in any way, that any sort of harm (either in reputation, or physical tampering with the code) could come to the project by remaining associated with that site.
We (Samson or I) have NEVER pulled an individuals right to use the codebase(s). We HAVE pulled a site's right to distribute. The reasons for that, in both cases have been the same. The admin(s) were acting like complete asshats and we decided that it was detrimental to our project to remain associated with that kind of behavior. As I stated earlier in the discussion, I have not, and will not, EVER pull a users rights without a SUBSTANTIAL amount of evidence of license violations. I WILL, however, pull a sites right to distribute, if I feel in any way, that any sort of harm (either in reputation, or physical tampering with the code) could come to the project by remaining associated with that site.
I think the precedent is that political considerations affect the rights to FUSS code. I'd been considering returning to using SmaugFUSS since my objections to the diku license were apparently due to my being misinformed. Pulling a site's right to distribute is not particularly different from revoking any other right to utilize your code, and doing so as a result of political issues strikes me as acting in exceptionally bad faith. I find this deeply unsettling. Also, as a complete asshat myself, I don't need the added responsibility of having to get along nicely with SmaugFUSS developers. I don't find your assurances that you won't revoke a user's right to use the codebase for such reasons particularly reassuring, nothing actually prevents you from doing so. The reasons you gave for revoking distribution rights are pretty questionable as well. I never considered mudbytes vaguely associated with SmaugFUSS, and I'm pretty sure your reputation would never be a priority of mine either. It would be incredibly stupid of me to put possibly years of work into FUSS code under these circumstances.
In short, having learned about this, I have to say that I consider this a complete deal-breaker as far as using any FUSS code goes.
22 Feb, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 23rd comment:
Do you chaps also do this with the QSF Portal code? Revoke licenses of users who attempt to copy and distribute it because you don't like them or what they are doing, as opposed to violating the license?
You really didn't answer the question of permission being required to do this being removed from the AFKMud license and never present in the SmaugFUSS license, yet you stated users had to seek your permission to make copies and distribute it.
What if Thoric revokes your license?
You really didn't answer the question of permission being required to do this being removed from the AFKMud license and never present in the SmaugFUSS license, yet you stated users had to seek your permission to make copies and distribute it.
What if Thoric revokes your license?
22 Feb, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 24th comment:
Tonitrus said:
I think the precedent is that political considerations affect the rights to FUSS code. I'd been considering returning to using SmaugFUSS since my objections to the diku license were apparently due to my being misinformed. Pulling a site's right to distribute is not particularly different from revoking any other right to utilize your code, and doing so as a result of political issues strikes me as acting in exceptionally bad faith. I find this deeply unsettling. Also, as a complete asshat myself, I don't need the added responsibility of having to get along nicely with SmaugFUSS developers. I don't find your assurances that you won't revoke a user's right to use the codebase for such reasons particularly reassuring, nothing actually prevents you from doing so. The reasons you gave for revoking distribution rights are pretty questionable as well. I never considered mudbytes vaguely associated with SmaugFUSS, and I'm pretty sure your reputation would never be a priority of mine either. It would be incredibly stupid of me to put possibly years of work into FUSS code under these circumstances.
You're actually a prime example of why it's completely safe to use SmaugFUSS. I don't like you. I haven't liked you since you showed up on SmaugMUDs complaining about how SmaugFUSS uses g++ as a compiler, and asking if there was a way we could undo it. And yet, I never did anything to you except for laughing at you, and explaining how you could possibly get around the issues you had with us moving the base forward in time instead of sitting frozen in 1980.
[Edit:] This thread is the one I'm referring to.
Tyche said:
Do you chaps also do this with the QSF Portal code? Revoke licenses of users who attempt to copy and distribute it because you don't like them or what they are doing, as opposed to violating the license?
I don't work on QSFP.
[Edit2:] Also, Tyche, if you have questions regarding QSFP or AFKMud. Maybe you should ask Samson, and stop making innuendo on a forum he can't even access.
Tyche said:
You really didn't answer the question of permission being required to do this being removed from the AFKMud license and never present in the SmaugFUSS license, yet you stated users had to seek your permission to make copies and distribute it.
It's called courtesy, Tyche, you should try it. I'd ask your permission to place something up for distribution that you worked on whether it was in your license or not. I'd expect the same courtesy from you. And as for the AFKMud bit. I would assume it was removed when Samson declared that development would be limited to fixing bugs from this point on and nothing major would happen.
Tyche said:
What if Thoric revokes your license?
Then we stop working on it. See how simple that is?
22 Feb, 2010, Tonitrus wrote in the 25th comment:
Kayle said:
I haven't liked you since you showed up on SmaugMUDs complaining about how SmaugFUSS uses g++ as a compiler, and asking if there was a way we could undo it.
Except I never asked that or cared what you chose to use, as I've mentioned at least once. I asked how hard it'd be to change it back for my own purposes, I never had any interest in keeping my code similar to the FUSS tree. This isn't complicated, I don't see why you have so much trouble understanding it. It seems pretty clear to me from my first post, or post #13 at the least. I don't really care if you dislike me or not, but try to dislike me for something that actually happened, it's not like I don't give ample opportunities.
22 Feb, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 26th comment:
Tonitrus said:
Except I never asked that or cared what you chose to use, as I've mentioned at least once. I asked how hard it'd be to change it back for my own purposes, I never had any interest in keeping my code similar to the FUSS tree. This isn't complicated, I don't see why you have so much trouble understanding it. It seems pretty clear to me from my first post, or post #13 at the least. I don't really care if you dislike me or not, but try to dislike me for something that actually happened, it's not like I don't give ample opportunities.
So I used the wrong word. Sue me. Doesn't change the fact that I don't like you, haven't liked you, and because of the piss poor reasoning against a language won't ever like you, and yet I still haven't done anything to you with regards to the codebase.
22 Feb, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 27th comment:
Kayle said:
It's called courtesy, Tyche, you should try it. I'd ask your permission to place something up for distribution that you worked on whether it was in your license or not.
Tyche said:
You really didn't answer the question of permission being required to do this being removed from the AFKMud license and never present in the SmaugFUSS license, yet you stated users had to seek your permission to make copies and distribute it.
It's called courtesy, Tyche, you should try it. I'd ask your permission to place something up for distribution that you worked on whether it was in your license or not.
I never asked a single person whether I could put their code in my repository. I just read their license and complied with their wishes. Neither did I seek permission to use them. That was in the license too. I suppose you send an awful lot of courtesy emails to software authors asking them every time you perform an action already clarified in the license. "I'm running it now is that okay?" "I'm altering the mud now is that okay?" "I'm now making a copy of it, is that okay?" "I'm giving a copy to a buddy now, is that okay?" I bet you get a lot of "Yes! Please stop sending these stupid emails. It's in the bloody damn license!" responses.
No, what I get from you is that you view the license as pretty much meaningless from your end, so it's no wonder you view something as common as simply performing an act allowed by the license to be less than courteous, because you appear to require something more (see Locke). And you have certainly shown that you'll abrogate it even if a user complies, for something as petty as "ill will". You do nothing here but justify the point I made… just warning a user to stay away from it. It's a trust and integrity issue.
http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627048148...
22 Feb, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 28th comment:
Tyche said:
I never asked a single person whether I could put their code in my repository. I just read their license and complied with their wishes. Neither did I seek permission to use them. That was in the license too. I suppose you send an awful lot of courtesy emails to software authors asking them every time you perform an action already clarified in the license. "I'm running it now is that okay?" "I'm altering the mud now is that okay?" "I'm now making a copy of it, is that okay?" "I'm giving a copy to a buddy now, is that okay?" I bet you get a lot of "Yes! Please stop sending these stupid emails. It's in the bloody damn license!" responses.
No, what I get from you is that you view the license as pretty much meaningless from your end, so it's no wonder you view something as common as simply performing an act allowed by the license to be less than courteous, because you appear to require something more (see Locke). And you have certainly shown that you'll abrogate it even if a user complies, for something as petty as "ill will". You do nothing here but justify the point I made… just warning a user to stay away from it. It's a trust and integrity issue.
http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627048148...
No, what I get from you is that you view the license as pretty much meaningless from your end, so it's no wonder you view something as common as simply performing an act allowed by the license to be less than courteous, because you appear to require something more (see Locke). And you have certainly shown that you'll abrogate it even if a user complies, for something as petty as "ill will". You do nothing here but justify the point I made… just warning a user to stay away from it. It's a trust and integrity issue.
http://popup.lala.com/popup/432627048148...
No, I don't send emails every time I do something. But if I am going to add something to a code repository, I do get permission from the author, even if it is covered in their license. And as I said, a website isn't covered by the license for USING a codebase, since they aren't USING it. They're HOSTING it for distribution. No where on MudBytes is SmaugFUSS running for people to try it out. They were hosting it. That would be like Linode being reestricted to the Diku license because they host someone running a Diku MUD. And then there's the fact that it was submitted by a user (the former chief maintainer of the base, at that). Davion and Kiasyn didn't come to our site, download it and put it up there. WE put it up there. Meaning, WE control how long it stays there.
And for the record, courtesy isn't required. But it is preferred. But since you're not one for courtesy, I'm going to go back to ignoring you getting your panties in a wad and being overly grumpy about something nonsensical.
22 Feb, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 29th comment:
Kayle said:
But if I am going to add something to a code repository, I do get permission from the author, even if it is covered in their license.
The licence is there to grant permission, that's why the author included it.
Kayle said:
And as I said, a website isn't covered by the license for USING a codebase, since they aren't USING it.
There no explicit "using" right under copyright law, but the rights granted by the licence will certainly apply to a website (unless there's some specific limitation stated in the licence). The right to distribute is what allows website owners to make the codebase available for download (and is the right that's been pulled in this case). That's the same right that allows mud developers to release the source code for their derivatives back into the community. Without that right, a mud becomes an evolutionary dead end that'll vanish forever when the developer loses interest.
22 Feb, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 30th comment:
KaVir said:
The licence is there to grant permission, that's why the author included it.
Kayle said:
But if I am going to add something to a code repository, I do get permission from the author, even if it is covered in their license.
The licence is there to grant permission, that's why the author included it.
And the Diku license only places restrictions, not grants permissions. It details what you CAN'T do. Not what you can.
KaVir said:
There no explicit "using" right under copyright law, but the rights granted by the licence will certainly apply to a website (unless there's some specific limitation stated in the licence). The right to distribute is what allows website owners to make the codebase available for download (and is the right that's been pulled in this case). That's the same right that allows mud developers to release the source code for their derivatives back into the community. Without that right, a mud becomes an evolutionary dead end that'll vanish forever when the developer loses interest.
Kayle said:
And as I said, a website isn't covered by the license for USING a codebase, since they aren't USING it.
There no explicit "using" right under copyright law, but the rights granted by the licence will certainly apply to a website (unless there's some specific limitation stated in the licence). The right to distribute is what allows website owners to make the codebase available for download (and is the right that's been pulled in this case). That's the same right that allows mud developers to release the source code for their derivatives back into the community. Without that right, a mud becomes an evolutionary dead end that'll vanish forever when the developer loses interest.
But we're not pulling everyone's right to distribute it. Only MudBytes. [Edit2:] More specifically Kiasyn and Davion's rights to distribute SmaugFUSS, SWRFUSS, SWFotEFUSS, and AFKMud.
[Edit:] Fucking preview button being too close to the submit button.
23 Feb, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 31st comment:
Kayle said:
No, I don't send emails every time I do something. But if I am going to add something to a code repository, I do get permission from the author, even if it is covered in their license.
I take it you think The MudBytes staff (which included Samson) was rude to copy all the software hosted by mudmagic.com and game.org into their repository without courtesy emails to all of the authors. And Kyndig and Thoric were rude to copy much of it off each other and college sites without courtesy emails to the authors. There's at least three mirrors that trawl my ftp site on a regular basis. I highly suspect they don't send emails out to the authors either. Now rather than going down the path of accusing everyone who went before as rude, let's just say that I don't believe most people even think about it. And it's quite likely that these people downloading from your site also have no clue about your odd view of software sharing and mirroring etiquette. If you really thought it was important you'd inform your users by way of the license, just like Samson did at one time with the AFKMud license.
Kayle said:
And as I said, a website isn't covered by the license for USING a codebase, since they aren't USING it. They're HOSTING it for distribution.
A website ain't a legal entity, it's a distribution mechanism. It has owners and those owners (Davion and Kiasyn) have to follow the license in distributing the code. They are users who happen to make use of two of the copyrights you granted (copying and distribution). They don't allow even uploads unless the license allows them to distribute the code.
Pardon most users for thinking they could distribute the code. The license says they can. If you don't want them to do it then change the license.
What you ought to do is go after the guy who uploaded it and deceived them into thinking they could distribute it under the license.
23 Feb, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Kayle said:
And the Diku license only places restrictions, not grants permissions. It details what you CAN'T do. Not what you can.
No, of course it grants rights - with restrictions on those rights. That is the very purpose of the licence.
Kayle said:
But we're not pulling everyone's right to distribute it. Only MudBytes.
I believe it's the precedent that concerns people.
However one could also argue that you've pulled everyone's right to distribute their SmaugFUSS derivatives via the MudBytes repository.
23 Feb, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 33rd comment:
Kayle said:
And the Diku license only places restrictions, not grants permissions. It details what you CAN'T do. Not what you can.
Simply wrong.
23 Feb, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 34th comment:
KaVir said:
However one could also argue that you've pulled everyone's right to distribute their SmaugFUSS derivatives via the MudBytes repository.
I haven't. I've pulled the rights for MudBytes to host the stock distributions. Not anyone's derivative work.
Tyche said:
Simply wrong.
Kayle said:
And the Diku license only places restrictions, not grants permissions. It details what you CAN'T do. Not what you can.
Simply wrong.
And I bet you've sent your email to the Diku team informing them that you have copies of their work and derivatives in your repository like their license demands?
23 Feb, 2010, kiasyn wrote in the 35th comment:
Kayle said:
The admin(s) were acting like complete asshats and we decided that it was detrimental to our project to remain associated with that kind of behavior.
Likewise?
23 Feb, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 36th comment:
kiasyn said:
Likewise?
Kayle said:
The admin(s) were acting like complete asshats and we decided that it was detrimental to our project to remain associated with that kind of behavior.
Likewise?
Oh, so I'm an asshat for exercising my legal rights now? Nice.
Why don't you just change my password in the Database without telling me like you and Davion did to Samson so I can't access your site if you think that I'm being an asshat.
23 Feb, 2010, donky wrote in the 37th comment:
Kayle said:
Oh, so I'm an asshat for exercising my legal rights now? Nice.
I don't know that you're an asshat for it, but you're definitely something for the way you invent legalities like having to notify people about distributing or hosting something they created. Or that there are special distribution rights that exist.. somewhere.. you can just pull away from people.
23 Feb, 2010, Runter wrote in the 38th comment:
I consider all of my posts on this site intellectual material and as such subject to possible revocation of license to distribute in the future. This is all.
Revoked.
Revoked.
23 Feb, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 39th comment:
23 Feb, 2010, Kayle wrote in the 40th comment:
donky said:
I don't know that you're an asshat for it, but you're definitely something for the way you invent legalities like having to notify people about distributing or hosting something they created. Or that there are special distribution rights that exist.. somewhere.. you can just pull away from people.
Kayle said:
Oh, so I'm an asshat for exercising my legal rights now? Nice.
I don't know that you're an asshat for it, but you're definitely something for the way you invent legalities like having to notify people about distributing or hosting something they created. Or that there are special distribution rights that exist.. somewhere.. you can just pull away from people.
Yes, I'm an asshat, and I've invented the whole scenario. They weren't being asshats, we just decided to be pricks and make them pull the stuff off the site for no good reason. There, the trolls win. Happy now? Good.
Runter said:
I consider all of my posts on this site intellectual material and as such subject to possible revocation of license to distribute in the future. That is all.
I know you're joking, but that might actually stand up in court. Hell, it might even stand up to the Admins. I mean, they pulled Graham's name off all his posts that made him look bad. Maybe I should do the same.
if you keep picking at it it'll get infected
It already is.