Ah. Another simple solution, then. Put a disclaimer on the upload page stating that, "MB admins are uninterested in working up the motivation to remove your stuff, so if you later ask us to do so, we reserve the right to refuse. While your work is still your own, you agree that we probably won't remove it without a really really good reason." You can armchair lawyer that phraseology up if you prefer, but that's good enough to hold up in court and avoid any future frustrations.

i'll do it when i get around to it….. :P

The question was quite specifically: "what's to stop them?" The answer to that question is, quite specifically, completely unrelated to whether or not there's a history. If you are to make any argument here, it is only that history might be an indication of future actions. But the likelihood of an event does not affect the mere possibility of the event; the fact of the matter is that basically any of these licenses could be revoked for completely arbitrary reasons. Heck, given how the MudBytes terms of service currently stand, any poster could issue a take-down notice for their own posts.

Perhaps a better way of saying this is simply that you should not be asking yourself the question "is it a possibility at all, i.e. is there anything to stop them?"; you should be asking yourself the question "how likely of an event do I think this is?". If you want to eliminate the possibility, you need to play your legal game correctly. If you want to evaluate likelihood, you might consider history. But don't get your questions mixed up. If you play the legal game, play it correctly, because specifics actually matter. (And we'll all have oh-so-much fun doing so…)


Heh, actually, "defense by laziness" really isn't good enough, but ok. :wink: It's quite clear what needs to happen for MB to be able to actually refuse to take down something for which they don't own the IP.

For fuck's sake. Here we go with the attempts to require a de facto irrevocable right to distribute in order to upload to MudBytes. Didn't we go over this already back in, I dunno, 2007 in one of the earlier 'zomg new rules' threads? I'd link to specific posts, but the thread's been 'unpublished' and apparently a lot of people are too stoned to remember it was a bad idea. DikuMUD's license doesn't, and therefore none of its descendants can (barring separately negotiated licensing terms with the original Diku authors), grant an irrevocable right to distribute it. This means that the threat of having distribution rights revoked is always going to exist, and if you demand otherwise in order to distribute those derivatives via MudBytes, you're going to be shit out of luck for a good many more codebases than just SmaugFUSS and AfkMUD.

You can demand that, or you can alternatively ignore or deny an author's right to revoke rights, and either one will mark you squarely as a dick. Kayle, Samson, and/or whoever is involved in the removal of SmaugFUSS/AFK from the mudbytes repository is also a dick, but that doesn't really justify the above. It's bad enough that some twisted panties is greatly inflating the risk associated with two of the better Smaug distributions, but I'd like to not see an entire family tree poisoned in the process.

Edit: Davion was kind enough to re-publish the 2007 thread mentioned above. It has more sane discussion than I can bear to repeat here. Hopefully I won't be linking to THIS thead in 2013.

It's also quite clear that the world would end were I to make a post in such a thread without digging into my snark reservoir. The fact remains that a disclaimer on all uploads would solve the problem. If you honestly think anyone would try to sue the forum admins over something like that, then sure, a "real" legal disclaimer would be the way to go. If you trust that a judge would see the spirit of the disclaimer even if that did happen, then there's no harm. Also, since there's no harm (in that real monetary sense) that comes from the site not removing your stuff after you voluntarily uploaded it, there's really no point in initiating a lawsuit in the first place.

PS: Until a real lawyer posts here, none of us have anything worthwhile to say about this matter. Kthx.

Well, I see you aren't going to drop this flawed argument. So, just to be clear, I don't concede any of what you said. "What's to stop them?" — The answer to this is actually quite simply that most people wouldn't do it. Most people don't feel it would be good form. Because it's not. And if they do feel it's in good form that probably isn't something you want to be associated with.

Also, This would be like saying it's not valid to question your safety more around someone with a history of committing murder. You know, cause anyone can murder at any time. Apparently, to you, it's all just random anyways. Or you just are conflating the two to suit your needs today.

Sorry, you are simply not making sense. :smile: You are asking the question: "What's to stop them?" but answering the question: "will they do it?" My statement here has nothing to do with the correctness of your statement, but simply that you are answering the wrong question.


If you were to ask me what is to stop any random person from attempting to commit murder, the answer is simple: nothing, really. If you were to ask me what I think the likelihood of any random person is to attempt to commit murder, the answer changes dramatically!

The only reason I brought it up is that people are asking one question and answering it by examining a different question. This is a logical mistake, and that's really not up for debate. If the question is "what's to prevent 2 + 2 from being 4", you don't answer it by saying "well actually 2 + 3 is 5". The correctness of the answer to one question does not change the fact that it is an incorrect answer to another question.

Perhaps you are confused into thinking that I am saying your statement that history matters is incorrect. This is false: I have actually said a few times now that history does matter – it simply matters when answering a different question. This is utterly simple: nothing prevents anybody from doing this stuff unless the license makes that explicitly clear. Whether or not certain people are more or less likely to actually exercise this legal right is an entirely different question. People should be worrying about the likelihood of the exercising of that legal right, not the mere possibility.

I looked at the license, and it states: "This document contains the rules by which you can use, alter or publish parts of DikuMud." which in itself is vague as it doesn't implicitly give you the right, just details how you should go about it. Near the end it does however state: "You are allowed to alter DikuMud, source and documentation as long as you do not violate any of the above stated rules."

I guess most people feel that use and distribution are implied.

Now that I've calmed down a bit about things, and blown off some steam, a less emotionally charged response to the entire situation seems to be in order.

Samson originally requested the removal of the bases after his forced retirement from the site, and it was only later that we realized that Davion/Kiasyn had failed to remove the FUSS packages at the same time. It wasn't until after Samson realized that he could not log in to the site at all, and after the recent round of Administrative Moderation (a situation that Samson and I both viewed, based on the reasons and information provided to him after his removal from administration from the site, that resembled those reasons in their entirety.) that the issue was further pushed for them to uphold the original request for the removal of all content. I took care of this second request because Samson was unable to log into the site to send a PM. It was then pointed out in the comments on Samson's blog post about the licensing that even after the second request for removal, that they had still left yet more of the content that had been requested to be removed in the repository. Samson then sent an e-mail with links specifically to the content still in the repository, and only after a THIRD request is everything now removed.

Several people have stated that they understand that we have the right to revoke the right to distribute, but that they feel it was unwise to do so. Given that those people understand that we have that right, and that we are free to exercise it, and yet still feel compelled to insinuate that we made some kind of mistake is slightly beyond me. If you think we were unwise in making our decision, say so and move on. Don't continue to hound at the point over and over and over.

There have also been several remarks made by the Administrators here, that were in just as much poor taste as our admittedly emotionally charged request for the removal of our content. This is unfortunate, but given the administrations responses, both here and on IMC, it does not appear to be something resolvable in a mutually beneficial fashion. Suggestions, opinions, and views have been given from third person parties, that appear to have been largely ignored by those involved in the discussion, and there appears to hang over certain posters in the discussion a mere need to destroy the reputation of the FUSS Project, and AFKMud projects simply because we've exercised our rights under US Copyright law, even if, admittedly, they were done in a rash and unthinking manner. Given that it's taken three requests for the content to be removed, and the Administrations rather poor conduct within this very thread, the revocation will remain in effect for the SmaugFUSS, SWRFUSS, SWFotEFUSS, and AFKMud distribution rights of MudBytes. This revocation is only for the Stock packages hosted at SmaugMuds.org in the files section and covers older releases as well as future releases unless or until the Administration here wishes to open discussions to come to some kind of mutually beneficial solution to the issue.

As BBailey pointed out, both parties are to blame here, and both parties were in the wrong. I've had to read, and re-read comments here that happened to be overlooked in my emotionally charged state to come to this realization, and it was only further driven home by BBailey's response above. Hindsight is inevitably 20/20, and in retrospect, I should have listened to that little voice in my head and ignored Tyche's initial comment that started all of this until I was in a much calmer state of mind.

I'm sure most of you are aware that I have issues controlling my emotions most of the time, this is an issue I've been working on, and have taken several small strides in lately, and this thread is unfortunately the result of one of my slip ups. What many of you might not be aware of is that I've recently found out I'm going to be a father come August, and it's not something I've been able to handle very well. This thread is one such example of something occurring in conjunction with something alongside something in life that in essence pushed all the wrong buttons at all the wrong times, and where normally I would have been able to hold my tongue until I could conduct myself in a more professional manner, the combination of things made that all but impossible. There have been several instances like this lately, one resulted in my leaving MudBytes entirely, until a conversation with Asylumius several hours afterward made me realize the haste and rashness with which that decision was made. The decision to revoke MudBytes right to distribute occurred at much the same time, because both Samson and I were emotionally charged at the time, Him from discovering that his account password had been changed without his knowledge, and mine because of the actions of the Administrators at the time.

Reading back over all of this calmly, and as detached as possible, it appears to me that many people expect the community to adhere to the standards of the GPL without actually using the GPL, which is to say that once you release it, you can't take away anyone's rights to anything. It also appears to me that people have different interpretations of the Diku license. This is undoubtedly due to the vague wordings of the thoughts of a foreign entity. People apparently feel that distribution is inherently implied in the license, when it is in fact never stated explicitly that distribution is alright. It is stated that you are allowed to use and alter DikuMUD as long as you adhere to the rules set forth in the License. Use and Alteration do not imply distribution to me. I believe distribution is something that certain people feel is implied. And that's fine. Until a real live lawyer, or a member of the Diku Team shows up, and clarifies whether or not the right to distribute was implied, all we're left with is our individual interpretations. Further, a web host/repository/site, like MudBytes, would not fall under the Diku License because they are in no way making use of the codebase. The only license governing them is the implicit license between them and the submitter. A website like this one, where content is submitted by the users and handled automatically by the code behind the website, is not restricted to the license, that burden falls upon the submitter. The only license governing the website, is the implicit license between the Submitter and the Website. In this case:

This is the license that governs content submission to the website, NOT any licenses on the submitted content. A individual making use of software, is not the same as a website, mirror, or repository hosting that software for people to download and use. Saying that MudBytes is restricted to the same license as someone who uses the software is comparable to saying that Amazon is restricted to the terms of the EULA of software they sell to people. It's the same principle. We place our work in the repository here for people to download and use. Softare Publishers give copies (sell may be more appropriate…) to Amazon to distribute. But Amazon is not restricted by the EULA of the Software. They're restricted to a separate agreement between the Publishers and them. The same principle applies here, given that it's the same situation without any form of monetary exchange.

Now, I know you're all going to shout TL;DR but whatever. I said what I felt needed to be said, and if you don't read it, that's not my issue.

tl;dr

Can't access and chooses not to associate with are not the same.

No, Fizban. They changed his account password, and Samson doesn't know what it is. He really can't access his account.

Making a new account is not difficult.

And how many people are going to believe some random account, claiming to be Samson?

Samson is more than welcome to submit a password change request to me (via email, he has my address).

His password was originally changed after his account was compromised and someone logged onto it posting content that would've hurt Samson's reputation. The content was removed, and his password was reset.

He was sent a notification, however upon review it appears I accidently did not tell him I had reset his password. His reply however, was that of not even wanting to participate in the site.

Most people. Writing style gives away a poster. I don't even need to read authors to know who posted most posts here.

I can only find 2 requests. If there was a third by Samson, then it wasn't in writing as stated in the rules.

The first request I found was from you which was very vague, and didn't provide links to offensive content. No offense, but I just don't care enough to dig through every file in the MB archive to find the ones you are describing.

The second request was from Samson via email, upon within an hour of recieving it the linked content was removed.

You haven't even said what we did to offend you so badly, you've just said 'differences with the administration'.

The first was sent to Davion.

If you read the whole post, you'd know it was Samson that initiated all of this after you fired him. I merely initiated second contact after it was discovered that content was still in the repository after his initial request, and Davion informing him it was done.