05 Nov, 2007, ralgith wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Upon reading all of these posts and such, I've realized something. I've accidentally violated the Diku/Circle licenses in the most common way. Upon redoing my main login screens, I've left out the credits. This made me wonder, how many other places have I accidentally violated the license in some obscure way (not that the credits is obscure). I was wondering how often you guys have caught yourselves violating a MUD license in some way.
05 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
If you find yourself taking money as a requirement to play the game, chances are that you are violating the license. :wink:

Leaving out credits from an obvious place is probably the easiest way to accidentally violate the license.
05 Nov, 2007, Davion wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Right before I was about to run MUD-Con V I realized the codebase I was using (MercNet) was in violation of the license because it had no helpfile system, no help credits! A small cheesy helpfile command was tossed in to conform to the license, and luckily I got it live before the event! Woops!
05 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I found myself violating the license by not emailing the defunct email addresses and letting them know I was setting up a Diku MUD.

Funny thing is, when I began running my MUD (a previously existing codebase) none of the license stuff was anywhere to be found, so I had never read it, which is another breach of the license I believe. But after downloading ROM and snagging all of the license stuff and putting it with the codebase, and reading everything thoroughly, I think the -only- things I had violated was not emailing them, which I did, only to find all of the addresses defunct.

Come to think of it, all of the discussion about unmeetable clauses in a license making the software unusable… would the email thing do such with Diku?

Previously, back when I tried to help enforce the Diku license, I'd come across people who were apparently just ignorant of it, and after things being brought to their attention, they had corrected it. So I imagine there are numerous "accidental" violations, but in my experience, it doesn't seem like people are very harsh on people about that.
06 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
It's been mentioned a few times before, but a few years back when the IMC networks were a dime a dozen we found that distributing the IMC code at the time along with the codebases it was integrated with was a violation of the GPL due to the additional commercial restrictions the Diku license ( badly ) imposes. I found myself among the list of violators not having realized this was even an issue before that. I of course corrected it in my own distro when I found out, but got viciously attacked by many when it got brought to the attention of others. But in the end everything got sorted out.

As far as people not being harsh on "accidental" violators, I think it's mainly because people are forgiving if you had no intention of doing wrong and when notified you took action to correct it. It's only when folks like Vryce spit on what they've been given that people tend to get angry and upset. Just as other IP holders do when their explicit wishes are ignored.
06 Nov, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
It's been mentioned a few times before, but a few years back when the IMC networks were a dime a dozen we found that distributing the IMC code at the time along with the codebases it was integrated with was a violation of the GPL due to the additional commercial restrictions the Diku license ( badly ) imposes.


It wasn't just the commercial restrictions - the GPL prevents you adding any additional restrictions, so the Diku requirements for credits (both login and internal) and sending an email also make it incompatible with the GPL.

My GodWars Deluxe codebase had the same issue with IMC. I responded by immediately blocking it from being downloaded from my site, then removing the IMC code and (a few days later) enabling download of the new IMC-less version.
06 Nov, 2007, Jindrak wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Right before I was about to run MUD-Con V I realized the codebase I was using (MercNet) was in violation of the license because it had no helpfile system, no help credits! A small cheesy helpfile command was tossed in to conform to the license, and luckily I got it live before the event! Woops!


Somebody didn't read the README that came with the original MercNet distro… :)
06 Nov, 2007, Scandum wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
ralgith said:
This made me wonder, how many other places have I accidentally violated the license in some obscure way (not that the credits is obscure). I was wondering how often you guys have caught yourselves violating a MUD license in some way.

I made some changes in tintin++ 1.97 so it was (code wise) derived from tt++ 1.84 instead of 1.86b. TinTin++ 1.84 had no license, possibly public domain like TINTIN III though there's nothing written down stating so, while 1.86b is GPL. Needless to say that tintin is currently released licensed under GPL, but I figured it could save me some trouble if I wish to release tintin as a binary without providing the source code since I can claim I'm not bound by the GPL being the sole author of post 1.84 modifications.

Not exactly sure if I'm violating anything, but it's somewhat cute and shady.
06 Nov, 2007, Cratylus wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
I used to distribute Dead Souls with a Cygwin executable and
packaged the dll along with it. When I got jumped on because
I didn't make available the dll source, I complied. Then I
got jumped on for linking GPL and non-GPL in the executable
and distributing it.

So now it's a native Win32 executable that is distributed,
no Cygwin involved.

At the time it seemed unduly harsh treatment I was getting,
considering the circumstances. As I was made aware of the
problems I just complied, since I was able to separate
the complainant from the complaint. But I can certainly
understand newbies reacting poorly to scathing denunciations.

Sometimes it seems like folks have more fun playing gotcha
than just forthrightly educating newbie admins/developers.
Maybe being friendly wouldn't help any…it certainly
wouldn't in cases such as Ardwulf and Mediva. But I think
getting all heavy and mean doesn't do much either, other
than foul the air.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

PS Oh and there was that time when I revoked Kyndig's right
to distribute DS, unaware of the ramifications of this given that
DS was GPL at the time. That was a fun one, too!
See: http://dead-souls.net/articles/mudmagic....
06 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
PS Oh and there was that time when I revoked Kyndig's right
to distribute DS, unaware of the ramifications of this given that
DS was GPL at the time. That was a fun one, too!
See: http://dead-souls.net/articles/mudmagic....

Hmm… I'm trying to understand what happened here: reading your page, you revoked the copyright thinking there would be no effect on Kyndig whatsoever, but then revoked the revocation when you realized he wouldn't be allowed to distribute it? (Just making sure I have my facts straight)
06 Nov, 2007, Cratylus wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
you revoked the copyright thinking there would be no effect on Kyndig whatsoever,


Correct. I thought GPL put the code out of my hands, and I
was just making a "statement".

Quote
but then revoked the revocation when you realized he wouldn't be allowed to distribute it?


It wasn't about my suddenly realizing Kyndig wouldn't be able to
distribute it (though I did make that realization), it was about me
realizing I was creating both a conflict with the license, and confusion
as to what my trustworthiness was.
06 Nov, 2007, Scandum wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I used to distribute Dead Souls with a Cygwin executable and
packaged the dll along with it. When I got jumped on because
I didn't make available the dll source, I complied. Then I
got jumped on for linking GPL and non-GPL in the executable
and distributing it.

Exactly the crap I'm trying to avoid, given I distribute wintin++ as a Cygwin executable along with the cygwin dll. If anyone complains I can tell them to shove it.
06 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification.
15 Nov, 2007, ralgith wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, this sure popped up more responses than I figured.
I've had a nice look through of my code, and can't find anywhere else that I violated the license. But again, that doesn't mean someone else wont catch me on it.
I actually brought this up in part because the MUD I used to play went on mudconnector, and hosted by wolfpaw, online since 1998… (still is) and only JUST last year readded the credits to the login. Why? Because someone royally jumped their shit. Threatened them with all kinds of bs (BS because most, if not all, was ridiculous childish shit ;) ). Still, they immediately fixed it, and the guy still kept raving for another week. They eventually banned him. Gee, I wonder why. I myself would do the same if someone got that kinda huffed up self important attitude. So I made a mistake. You noticed. I fixed it. Where's the big deal? STFU. :devil:
0.0/14