02 Nov, 2013, Jodah wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
The trolling has gone on for 20 years. They won't stop now because you want them to.
02 Nov, 2013, arholly wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Jodah said:
The trolling has gone on for 20 years. They won't stop now because you want them to.

One would hope that because in 20 years people would mature.
03 Nov, 2013, Kjwah wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Kjwah said:
Don't most commercial companies have pretty nifty legal teams? You can be a little more relaxed about your license when you have a legal team and the money to defend it. :D


Most companies do indeed. However, since most companies are creating their products for the sole purpose of making a profit, spending the money on a legal team is part of the investment to ensure a profit is made.

Since ROM is a free MUD engine based on Merc, another free MUD engine which in turn was based on DikuMUD, a violently free MUD engine whose license still prevents any direct commercial gains to this day, I really don't see why they felt their own work was so superior to the work of their predecessors did, that they decided to make such a specific demand. It's as if they wanted to make sure everyone knew THEIR names, but were OK with people not noticing the Merc or DikuMUD authors who did the heavy lifting before them.

Go figure. ;)


Did they(Russ, I guess) say it was superior? Why are you taking such offense to their license when you don't even know exactly why it is? I imagine when you have people avoiding crediting you for work you did and released to everyone for free on the basis of just giving credit, you might get sour. :p

Furthermore, what the licenses of the work before is just that. Their own license. Russ can't change and require them to put all the credits there on an equal footing. I'm not saying he would have wanted to, I personally don't know the guy.

Also, you went on talking about various game companies displaying the technologies they use as the very first thing you see… I see this quite often. Even in AAA games… Even more so in indie games where they don't buy a commercial license for the technology or they don't but the source code license. :D

Anyways, he couldn't make them credit Diku or Merc in the same manner as him so why would he try?


Jodah said:
The trolling has gone on for 20 years. They won't stop now because you want them to.


Why are you here?
03 Nov, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
I might indeed get sour, but I wouldn't take it out on the people who actually follow the license, which are the ONLY people affected by terms in it. The people who are going to steal the code will do so regardless of what the license says. So, the people who are doing the right thing, get shafted by draconian license terms, while the criminals carry on as usual.

This is the same issue people have with DRM in other media (video games, movies, whatever). Those who don't intend to play by the rules, don't care what the rules say. Those who do, have to live with the annoyances which do nothing useful in any way.

I take the same level of offense at having to damage a DVD case trying to peel off all the security tape which assumes I'm a thief, and the same when I have to spin my chair counterclockwise three times while entering a CD-KEY with my left thumb in 10 seconds, to somehow prove I'm a real customer (while the pirates just install and run).

So yeah, I have no issue giving credit. Were I to run a ROM game, I'd happily put their names, the Merc people's names, and the Diku people's names in the login sequence somewhere, and in a nice help entry that people can read at their leisure. But since the ROM folk demand I put their names before everyone else's (including, possibly, my own), I consider them to be arrogant jerks.

You are free to disagree. If you think they're gods and want to grovel and kiss the ground they walked upon, don't let me stop you. :)
03 Nov, 2013, Jodah wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
arholly said:
Jodah said:
The trolling has gone on for 20 years. They won't stop now because you want them to.

One would hope that because in 20 years people would mature.

Yet they don't and the same tired old arguments from 20 years ago are still here today even though we all know no judge will ever enforce a thing against any of us.
03 Nov, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Jodah said:
Yet they don't and the same tired old arguments from 20 years ago are still here today even though we all know no judge will ever enforce a thing against any of us.


Again, people are not discussing these issues out of fear of legal reprisal. The are discussing them because they don't want to come across as disrespectful a##holes or damage their reputation with this very small community. Maybe not being an a##hole or striving for peer approval means nothing to you but it does to most members of this community.
04 Nov, 2013, Kjwah wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
I might indeed get sour, but I wouldn't take it out on the people who actually follow the license, which are the ONLY people affected by terms in it. The people who are going to steal the code will do so regardless of what the license says. So, the people who are doing the right thing, get shafted by draconian license terms, while the criminals carry on as usual.

This is the same issue people have with DRM in other media (video games, movies, whatever). Those who don't intend to play by the rules, don't care what the rules say. Those who do, have to live with the annoyances which do nothing useful in any way.

I take the same level of offense at having to damage a DVD case trying to peel off all the security tape which assumes I'm a thief, and the same when I have to spin my chair counterclockwise three times while entering a CD-KEY with my left thumb in 10 seconds, to somehow prove I'm a real customer (while the pirates just install and run).

So yeah, I have no issue giving credit. Were I to run a ROM game, I'd happily put their names, the Merc people's names, and the Diku people's names in the login sequence somewhere, and in a nice help entry that people can read at their leisure. But since the ROM folk demand I put their names before everyone else's (including, possibly, my own), I consider them to be arrogant jerks.

You are free to disagree. If you think they're gods and want to grovel and kiss the ground they walked upon, don't let me stop you. :)


So, if I disagree with you, I obviously have to think they are gods and I grovel and kiss the ground Russ has paved for people… Even though I don't use RoM… I use my own custom base. I just don't agree with you being such a dick about someone elses license. Don't like it, don't fucking use it.

Don't be fucking dense about it.

Excuse the french… I hate french people. :D
04 Nov, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, that's the reaction I've come to expect from this community.

Don't rock the boat. Don't question. Take it or leave it.

I expect that when I release a new codebase that has a clause in the license saying you have to strip naked and write my name on your belly with a sharpie every time you boot the MUD up, that instead of calling my unreasonable terms stupid and arrogant, you will defend it as a valid license and tell everyone else to stop "being such a dick about it, and use it or don't fucking use it."
04 Nov, 2013, Runter wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm not okay with using software that doesn't clearly grant me my rights to use it within restrictions that I find acceptable to my use. I'm also not going to advise anyone else to do it.

Yes, you're unlikely to find yourself in court.

No, you wouldn't lose in court.

Separating the legal argument and the moralistic one is important.

But there's another angle here as well: the smart one. Even the companies you mentioned earlier with retainer lawyers don't use software they can't get a clearly valid license on.
04 Nov, 2013, arholly wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, I don't think it is "don't ask questions", but respect the work of those gone before. You don't have to like it, but at least respect it. It goes back to what some of the early developers said, the reason they got out of mudding and stopped releasing code is because people were stealing and/or not giving credit. I think it is less a legal argument and more of a respect issue.
04 Nov, 2013, Hades_Kane wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Yeah, that's the reaction I've come to expect from this community.

Don't rock the boat. Don't question. Take it or leave it.


What is there to question? It's a license, you either follow it and thus have permission to use the code, or you don't use the software. That's a pretty cut and dry there…


quixadhal said:
I expect that when I release a new codebase that has a clause in the license saying you have to strip naked and write my name on your belly with a sharpie every time you boot the MUD up, that instead of calling my unreasonable terms stupid and arrogant, you will defend it as a valid license and tell everyone else to stop "being such a dick about it, and use it or don't fucking use it."


Yes, I would defend it as a valid license. Regardless of whether or not it is enforceable or reasonable, those are the terms, both legally and morally, that you have set forth to use your code.

I downloaded a snippet one time, something like mount code or something, I can't recall, and the license for that snippet was to add a line of credit to your greet screen right alongside the likes of Russ Taylor, the Merc and Diku team… FOR A SNIPPET! I didn't question it, I didn't bitch about it on a MUD forum, I just didn't use the snippet. I defend the right of a snippet author to release a snippet that, say, changes the stock invalid message from "Alas, you cannot go that way." to "You cannot go that way." and who may require the entire greet screen (minus other required credits) to be oriented around praising their greatness for such unfathomably awesome code. Would I defend the license as reasonable? No, but would I defend it as valid and should be followed and respected? Yes.

Regardless of whether or not a license seems reasonable or justified or whether it makes the author an arrogant prick is all subjective, what isn't subjective is that a license is what it is, and you either follow the terms/wording of it if you want to use their code, or you don't use their code.
04 Nov, 2013, Hades_Kane wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Jodah said:
arholly said:
Jodah said:
The trolling has gone on for 20 years. They won't stop now because you want them to.

One would hope that because in 20 years people would mature.

Yet they don't and the same tired old arguments from 20 years ago are still here today even though we all know no judge will ever enforce a thing against any of us.


This is an official warning from the Moderator team that continued encouragement of license breaking will not be tolerated here. You have been asked unofficially by several members of the community here to cease and so there has been a chance for course correction before receiving this official warning. This falls under the rule "No promotion of illegal activities." which circumventing or ignoring licenses for code or software falls under the piracy bullet point of that rule. Continued promotion of such activities will result in stronger punitive actions.

The warning has been documented in the Moderator Actions Board here:
http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-4434
04 Nov, 2013, donky wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
I might indeed get sour, but I wouldn't take it out on the people who actually follow the license, which are the ONLY people affected by terms in it. The people who are going to steal the code will do so regardless of what the license says. So, the people who are doing the right thing, get shafted by draconian license terms, while the criminals carry on as usual.

Shitting over the aesthetics of your login screen due to licenses is grating and unappealing. I've had to do it, and hated it. And I've made others do it, and don't regret it.

But the license terms are not draconian. No-one is forced to use their work, and therefore oppressed under a regime of having to fulfil the cumbersome requirements. Anyone who has a problem can go away and write their own code base, and starting areas, or whatever. But the reason they don't want to is that is that it is a lot of work. So therefore they want to take advantage of someone else's effort, but they don't really respect that work.

As for the people who just go ahead and ignore their obligations. Let's say that there's a popular MUD which uses a code base and does not follow the license, and hasn't for years. If someone else takes that popular MUD's work without their permission and uses it, then because that popular MUD never took the legitimate approach, does that popular MUD have a legal leg to stand on? I doubt it, and I'd be surprised if you thought they did. There's a price to pay for not respecting other people's work. And benefits to respecting it. You can always stop observing the license later on, and pay the price knowingly. But can you start observing it later, and really be in the legitimate position you would have been in, had you observed it from the beginning?

Observing licenses sucks as much in the professional world, as it does in the hobbiest mudding world. I looked at no end of low memory, fast, open source database implementations I couldn't use for a job. I couldn't use any, because the GPL would have required open sourcing the whole product. I couldn't ignore that, because I am forced to be professional and accept the onerous terms of their licenses due to the real legal consequences. In a job, if you are not working against the interests of the company, you are obliged to be professional and do the right thing. Doing the right thing in your hobby is a choice it is up to you if you take, and to accept the later problems it may bring on you or your work.

TLDR: Even the people that ignore licenses have to pay a price. One worse than having an ugly login screen.
05 Nov, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
My whole point and argument isn't about accepting or not accepting the license. That's a given. Unless you're a criminal, you have to follow the terms set out, or keep shopping.

My point is, you do NOT have to be silent about it.

People make licenses like this because they can, and because other people have done so in the past and gotten away with it. By gotten away with it, I mean people have accepted those terms and used their products. If you keep your mouth shut and move on, that sends a very weak message, which is easily confused with "your product sucks, so I don't use it."

If you clearly and loudly say "I won't use your product BECAUSE your license is annoying", then there's a chance that maybe future authors will think "Huh, maybe I should think about my license and try to be less annoying."
05 Nov, 2013, Runter wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, I think complaining about it is appropriate. It's a form of education. Although I would say even better is producing something that competes and has a more liberal license.
05 Nov, 2013, Idealiad wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
I agree with quix on this. A license is a social contract, and as such it's a two-way street. Licensers should expect feedback on their license. Of course they're free to do whatever they want with that feedback, but they shouldn't act like it's unexpected or a personal slap in the face when they get it.
05 Nov, 2013, Tyche wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
But since the ROM folk demand I put their names before everyone else's (including, possibly, my own), I consider them to be arrogant jerks.

They don't. The fact is they put their names below the Diku and Merc authors in the release and they did on their own games.
I've exchanged posts and emails with Russ Taylor and Brian Moore. Neither struck me as obnoxious anal retentive arrogant jerks.
I wouldn't conclude that from a license requirement which overall is and was pretty common.

Since I've been keeping stats ROM is by far the most popular running Diku derivative.
The problem with most of these games is the owner's "vision" doesn't extend much beyond making a greeting screen.
05 Nov, 2013, Grieffels wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Guys and gals, I apologize deeply for even asking about this. I will honor ROM,DIKU, and MERC to the
end for allowing me to start with a nicely setup base. I don't care about that, I just wanted to allow for
room of an ASCII I made and I didnt take into consideration the authors before making it the size I did.

This was fixed by adding Diku into the MOTD and giving MERC the helpfile. Not that I care to give them
even more credit and I will find a way to do so after I get my game opened to players (or right before).
I just needed room for that FAT FAT chocobo for one of the several greeting screens I have.

I will say this though. They made code for us to use, that's what they asked for in the terms of using it.
Feel obligated to do it, or don't. It's not like anyone — or at least they shouldn't — come to your MUD
and hate on you for not crediting someone. It's just the fact of honoring what was asked for using it. It's
all choice related. This goes along with all the snippets out there when people ask to be left in the helpfile,
or left credits in the code. I'm sorry but sometimes I don't leave it in the helpfile. I sometimes just make a
credit helpfile or snippets, or something along those lines and drop the name, their mud addy or whatever
information I can get on them into that file giving them thanks. It's all honoring them for the time they
spent for doing something for the public. I mean how many of these guys are going to log into my MUD?
Probably about two of the twenty people I have gotten ideas, some code, or help from. I still give them all credit.

Basically what I am saying, is it's not about getting into trouble, it's not about how long ago it was or how it makes
you feel, it's just honoring them for doing something that helped you out. If they ever were to log into my game, I
would say they would be pleased with seeing their name in a credit file and feel more obliged to help people more
often. It's a feeling of gratification when you know someone gave you what you wished for what you done for them.
ESPECIALLY when it's something as simple as a name drop.
05 Nov, 2013, Runter wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
@grieffels

It depends. Let's say you want to use my code for your website, and I tell you that I'll give you access to my work for free but in return I want my brand listed in a specific place at the top of your home page. You agree, so I give you access. It wouldn't be acceptable to later put my name in a credits page linked on the footer because you need space for a terribly big chocobo.
05 Nov, 2013, Grieffels wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
But you get what im saying. =)
20.0/42