23 Oct, 2007, Fizban wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Basically they cannot take away a right that the law gives you already. Extreme cases would be things like you can't sign yourself into slavery because a license says so; you can't sign away your right to habeas corpus and so forth. Less extreme cases are things like the liability waivers I mentioned.


Really now?

Student Sold on eBay

Looks to me like you can sign yourself into temporary slavery at least.
23 Oct, 2007, Tyche wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Then let's answer this question. What rights do users have in the absence of a EULA? The only one I can think of would be the implied right to install and use the program, provided it was sold legally.

As it applies to Diku, the availability of it for download gave people the implied right to install and run MUDs with it.


No they don't even have the right to run it without license simply because they downloaded it legally. The only reference to implied license is that relating to standard community practices (no that doesn't mean the mud community's consensus - it's a legal term). Because of the nature of the internet technology, in order to read a published web page for example, one literally downloads a copy onto your machine for viewing. Sometimes this page is cached either on your host, or by your browser. In any event the right of making a copy, normally reserved to the author, is given implicitly to the user for the specific purpose of viewing the page or screen. It doesn't give the user publication, performance or distribution rights. Computer source code is treated like literary works. That is just because you can read it or view it, you don't have a right to run it or republish it.

While it may sound odd, I have several computer books here that contain code examples that prohibit the reader from using the code in their own programs.

Samson said:
The clause stating you need to provide proper attribution if you publish an "article" about Diku, I'm not entirely sure on. Fair Use seems to come into play here. The second part of the clause where you need to obtain permission prior to doing so indicates a lack of understanding of how Fair Use works. Commentary on the codebase would fall under Fair Use, and at least here in the US, that's not something they can stop you from doing.


Pick up any book and read the license which is normally found on the back of the title page. Almost without exception you will find a license that prohibits publishing any part of that book without permission, and no mention of "fair use". The Diku license is no different in that regard. "Fair use" in the U.S. is an affirmative defense for copyright infringement. That a license doesn't mention "fair use" or doesn't include the full text of copyright law doesn't invalidate it. A license is grant of some of the authors rights that you would not normally have under copyright law.
23 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
PS Hope that doesn't challenge your authority. I'd hate to see my disagreement
with an admin get another thread locked.


You do yourself no favors by continuing to act in a hostile and childish manner. I'd hate to see you get punished because you didn't have the good sense to know when enough was enough. As we are humans here and not cold unfeeling machines, we have limits on what we're willing to put up with. Do yourself a favor, drop it.
23 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
Sounds like you think I could take a copy of Alsherok, release it and it would therefore be everyone's right to use it as it was available for download. Being available for download would entitle you to download it most likely, but not to run it, at least not in a capacity that allowed other users to connect to it externally.


I really don't think I should have had to specify that I meant legally downloaded. Hacking into my server, stealing the code, and then putting online for others to download would involve a few orders of criminal activity. The copyright problems being the least of them.
23 Oct, 2007, Cratylus wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Cratylus said:
PS Hope that doesn't challenge your authority. I'd hate to see my disagreement
with an admin get another thread locked.


You do yourself no favors by continuing to act in a hostile and childish manner. I'd hate to see you get punished because you didn't have the good sense to know when enough was enough. As we are humans here and not cold unfeeling machines, we have limits on what we're willing to put up with. Do yourself a favor, drop it.


Well, yknow, I was kidn around, but I can see there are
Just Some Things Not Joked About Here. Sorry for challenging
your authority or whatever.

What can I say, I'm slow to notice some things, I
guess. But now that I've seen Samson's behavior
when he's kidded on his own turf, I understand
what Tyche meant when he used historical references
to refer to Samson's habits.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
23 Oct, 2007, Fizban wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
Who said anything about hacking into the server? A better example, I look for a coder position on a mud hiring coders. I get the position, and am therefore given the shell password and the right to log into the shell and edit code. Does that therefore give me the right to download the file via a FTP Client and run it not as a test port to code changes in on but as an actual MUD that seeks staff and players all of its own? I think not.
23 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Samson said:
Cratylus said:
PS Hope that doesn't challenge your authority. I'd hate to see my disagreement
with an admin get another thread locked.


You do yourself no favors by continuing to act in a hostile and childish manner. I'd hate to see you get punished because you didn't have the good sense to know when enough was enough. As we are humans here and not cold unfeeling machines, we have limits on what we're willing to put up with. Do yourself a favor, drop it.


Well, yknow, I was kidn around, but I can see there are
Just Some Things Not Joked About Here. Sorry for challenging
your authority or whatever.

What can I say, I'm slow to notice some things, I
guess. But now that I've seen Samson's behavior
when he's kidded on his own turf, I understand
what Tyche meant when he used historical references
to refer to Samson's habits.


Being slow to notice things is an understatement. Surely you can see that even if you were kidding with that jab that right now might not have been the best time to do that?

I'm more than willing to discuss this, but I'm not going to continue dragging out in public. If you have anything further on the matter, please take it to PMs or email.
23 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
Really now?

Student Sold on eBay

Looks to me like you can sign yourself into temporary slavery at least.

I sure hope you are being facetious. There is a huge difference promising to work for somebody for a week (we do that every time we are hired by somebody) and selling yourself into slavery. Selling a week's labor to the highest bidder is hardly slavery. You do not own the person who works for you.

KaVir said:
I don't know of any court cases where a decision was made one way or the other. However to once again quote Eben Moglen:

Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but unless you dispute that it is actually the courts that decide what is legal in the end of the day, all that is still speculation. Also, his remarks are specific to the GPL and the restrictions it makes. I haven't claimed that the GPL has restrictions I would consider invalid. Regardless, we've been over that track before, and I'm sure neither of us desire to repeat it without addition.

Fizban said:
It's technically impossible for a EULA to restrict your rights.

Your statement is technically false (you go on to say "Even if the specific things you're agreeing not to do are generally considered rights" so I don't understand why you say this) but that's ok, I know what you mean (I think you used the word 'technically' wrong). What I'd suggest is that you look up the cases of EULAs being invalidated due to having improper restrictions in them.

Fizban said:
DavidHaley said:
Quote:
I sue, but any reasonable person would say it was unreasonable to demand the first-born child in the first place.


I wouldn't.

I might have to refine my opinion of you as a reasonable person. :wink: (Seriously, though, you go on to say how it adversely affects the child and all that, so it seems that you actually agree, you're just not willing to say so??)
23 Oct, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Yes, yes, that's all well and good, but unless you dispute that it is actually the courts that decide what is legal in the end of the day, all that is still speculation.


It's the verifiable opinion of the Free Software Foundation's attorney, who also happens to be a professor of law, and who is primarily responsible for a software licence that he's enforced "dozens of times over nearly ten years". And the reasoning he gives applies to the Diku licence, for exactly the same reasons.

"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL"

As I said before: If the Diku team were to take legal action, it would be for copyright infringement, and if you don't have a valid licence to hold up and say "This lets me use DikuMUD!", you're not going to have much of a defence. Or, as the Free Software Foundation's attorney phrases it, "If you violate the terms of this license, all permission is withdrawn.'"
23 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Now, now, be fair; he said: "That's why I've been able to enforce it dozens of times over nearly ten years, without ever going to court." In other words, the license was not validated in court: the party with whom he was enforcing the license agreed to do whatever it was he said without going to court.

Look, this is getting really tiresome and I'm sure we both have better things to do with our time. Therefore I'd like to submit a motion with you to agree to disagree on this topic.
23 Oct, 2007, Exodus wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
Wow, this question always gets off-topic so quickly.

I know it's late in the game already, but as Samson suggested earlier, we can debate interpretation of the DIKU license until the cows come home and it doesn't mean it'll ever get in the clear until someone goes too far (Medeiva has already made a good example of the fact that nobody ever will, short of decorating their games with "I viol8 licen$e term$ like I viol8 ur mom" slogans plastered everywhere) and a judge sends them packing with their tail between their legs.

Quote
"You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way"


This has too many interpretations. As is, this basically states that you can't profit off of the DikuMUD portion, and that if you generate revenue off of the DIKU portion, you must not generate a profit. It makes no indication whatsoever that profit can't be made off of your work, (as long as it does not involve DIKU content concerning more than the non-copyright ideas such as "Mage" or "Elf".

This becomes gray any time you don't explicitly violate the license terms. What if I created an account system to replace the character login process and charged a small, one-time fee to register your account that gives you access to the game, forums, wiki and all sorts of other content? Sure, this was my code, my idea (though not an original one) and goes on to cover things that are not attached (for the most part) to the mud itself. Morally this is wrong because the Merc/Diku folks have kindly clarified that charging to play a game based on their codebase or a deriv that follows their license is a violation.

Now, what if we skipped the first part and went into a situation like what was discussed earlier? What if anyone could play the game for free, but you created a custom client/website/forums/wiki/gallery/ect. to use in conjunction with the MUD? Does it fall under the same terms since it provides content that is related and/or based directly on a Merc/Diku derivative?

As was discussed in another thread, what if you merely facilitated something that produced profit, but was not related to the game? The idea was to create an online auctioning house website where players could buy/sell/trade/auction in-game items for real/game money, whichever was more valuable to them. You charge a small percentage for the player using your website to trade. You, as the administrator, are directly subject to the license terms, whereas players are not. At its most basic, this is no different than if I, as a player, went and sold my max-level character or uber-item on eBay. Now, if I were to, as an Administrator, (meaning you are, or you aren't - no dual-roles here) sell characters or items on eBay, then I am directly violating the license and should have my happy ass sued.

Note that these are all valid questions and though they may sound somewhat rhetorical, I'm curious as to your thoughts. This has been discussed and argued (flamed) about enough that I think we need a definitive answer.
23 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
Exodus said:
This has been discussed and argued (flamed) about enough that I think we need a definitive answer.


Then the only way we're going to get a definitive answer is is someone gets their "happy ass sued" as you put it :)

Until such time as it happens, we're left in a situation where known violators are going to continue to violate, and the people who apparently own the IP are going to continue to do nothing about it. This isn't just limited to the Diku team. The Merc, Rom, Smaug, and other 3rd and 4th generation teams have all failed to pursue legal action in the courts to resolve violations. There are scattered folks, myself included, who have pursued the use of DMCA takedown notices to deal with violators. I've had 100% success with that so far, but I suspect even that simple option hasn't been used by the Diku team. It costs nothing more than mailing a letter.
23 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
Better to have a happy ass sued then a sad ass sued, I say. :rolleyes:

It seems to me, in any case, and as somebody mentioned, the real cost isn't legal but social, regardless of whether the actions are in fact right or wrong.
25 Oct, 2007, Fizban wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I might have to refine my opinion of you as a reasonable person. (Seriously, though, you go on to say how it adversely affects the child and all that, so it seems that you actually agree, you're just not willing to say so??)


Not at all, demanding anything is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. I wouldn't consider that you can't use the software and not give them your first born child. I would consider it to be software w/o a valid license and therefore could not be used by anyone at all without it being illegal. Why? You can't sell children, and neither can you give them away (I'm not speaking of adoption, that's something else entirely.) and signing yourself into doing so is assuredly illegal.
25 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
So you're saying that something is invalid and illegal but otherwise quite a reasonable thing to ask? :thinking: Okiedokie…
25 Oct, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
I would consider it to be software w/o a valid license and therefore could not be used by anyone at all without it being illegal.


Right. A more realistic example would be when the IMC snippet (designed for installation within Diku derivatives) was released under the GPL. Because of incompatibilities between the GPL and the Diku licence, people who installed the snippet could no longer legally distribute their mud.
26 Oct, 2007, Fizban wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
So you're saying that something is invalid and illegal but otherwise quite a reasonable thing to ask? :thinking: Okiedokie…


You're trying to make things say what you want them to so bad it's not even funny. I never said that it was reasonable to sell your first born. I said it was reasonable to create a license demanding such and therefore be able to sue ANYONE who used the software because they couldn't legally agree to the license. There's a difference between it being reasonable for a piece of software with an invalid license to be illegal for anyone to use and it being reasonable to sell your own child.
26 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 78th comment:
Votes: 0
You are telling me that it is reasonable to ask something that's not a reasonable thing to do. Seems to be self-contradictory to me. :shrug: I mean, maybe it's just me and all, but if I knew it would be unreasonable for the person I'm talking to to do something, then it would not be reasonable for me to make the demand in the first place because I know it would not be fulfilled. Maybe you think it's reasonable to demand things that are never going to be fulfilled; it's your prerogative I suppose.

But hey, since you subscribe to the argument: is it reasonable for me to ask you to magically agree with me? :rolleyes:
26 Oct, 2007, Tyche wrote in the 79th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
You are telling me that it is reasonable to ask something that's not a reasonable thing to do.


Sure, it happens all the time. Just for example…

Come and play our DragonballZ mudz!!!!!
26 Oct, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 80th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
DavidHaley said:
You are telling me that it is reasonable to ask something that's not a reasonable thing to do.



Sure, it happens all the time. Just for example…

Come and play our DragonballZ mudz!!!!!


Mean, but funny as hell. XD
Random Picks
60.0/88