01 May, 2008, Guest wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
That may be so, but welcome to the messed up world of intellectual property. Not quite the same as a tangible, real object is it? :)
05 May, 2008, Omega wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
I don't know how many times I've seen this topic on this forum, and many other forums, I think its been beaten to death.

Someone always has some new argument to throw into the age-old question of intellectual property and copyright laws, and blah blah blah. This topic was enough to bring me back to say.

Theres no point in beating a dead horse, just like theres no point in this conversation replaying itself every 2 months with a new topic heading, I think everyone needs to take a look at the licences, read it, and if you don't understand what it says, then perhaps you shouldn't be tinkering/toying with it. Plain and simple, and for those whom want clarification on copyright laws and IP, they should consult lawyers on the issue instead of wasting valuable forum space.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and Make War, not love, stop over breeding the planet. Sheesh..
05 May, 2008, Midboss wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Darien said:
… just like theres no point in this conversation replaying itself every 2 months with a new topic heading …


<troll>
Welcome to the wonderful world of MUDs, where there are a staggering 6 topics of conversation! Whether you feel like discussing the Diku license, IRE's business model, Medievia's 'alleged' copyright infringement, the split between coders and builders, or any one of the plethora of identical new projects, or if you'd just like to flame DBZ MUD administrators, I think you'll feel right at home! Simply wait 2-6 months for your desired topic to reappear.
</troll>
05 May, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh, you forgot to mention the wonderful world of MUDs where people drag up old conversations just to complain about how said conversations keep coming back. :tongue:
06 May, 2008, Darwin wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm going to bookmark this post so I can come back to it in 2 months and reply to it again. Seems like the in-thing to do.
06 May, 2008, exeter wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
My personal definitions of "derivative" and "stock" are as follows:

Let X be a codebase.

derivative: A mud is a derivative of X if the implementors created the MUD by modifying the source of X to arrive at the current codebase.

stock: A mud is a "stock X mud" if it is a derivative of X and, from a non-coder's point of view, the MUD retains the look and/or feel of an unmodified X mud.

I realize using subjective terms like "look" and "feel" muddies the situation somewhat, but I think this thread demonstrates that the situation is, in fact, muddy; reasonable people can and do disagree on the meaning of the word "stock."
06 May, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, I think we are all more or less in agreement as to the general criteria for what "stock" means… it would take perhaps a specific example to really test our agreement. Still, I'm not really sure it matters. :wink:

As for derivative, well, there is a rather specific legal definition for that, and it's the only one that matters when things go to court; our personal opinions are completely irrelevant. In fact, even pre-facto our opinions on the legal definition are somewhat irrelevant: in the end of the day it is the court that decides, not a bunch of dudes on a forum.
06 May, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
Aye, we might not all agree on the 'exact' criteria but most likely at least 9 out of 10 of us would agree on any given mud as to whether or not we'd consider it to be stock.
07 May, 2008, Kjwah wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
Didn't read the entire thread…

However, stock in my opinion is pretty much any MUD that only has snippets added if even that.
07 May, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
less than 10-15% of the game being original content
07 May, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
10-15%?? Surely you jest!! It is absolutely clear that it should be 15-25%, and not a percent more. How you could possibly think otherwise is completely beyond me! I think we need to spend another 50 posts debating this topic some more!

:devil:
07 May, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
oh shut up
07 May, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, that was kind of the idea, thank you for noticing… :tongue:
11 May, 2008, Zenn wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, I was pretty surprised that this topic even made it to 50 posts. Rofl.

- Zenn
26 May, 2008, exeter wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn said:
Actually, I was pretty surprised that this topic even made it to 50 posts. Rofl.

- Zenn


You're surprised? The whole topic is a big, steaming pile of semantics. Everybody knows people on the internet love those. :biggrin:
17 Aug, 2008, lspiderl wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
personaly id say as long as you have as majority of new things ( both building and codewise) you can claim to be non stock
or at least heavily modfied which is all that matters in the end

as far as being non stock is concerned i think the biggest thing is the building even if u used all stock races and classes and skills your building should be at least 75% original or more
18 Aug, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
Yay for thread necromancy, to state that what matters is 50%, but actually 75%! :wink:
18 Aug, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Yay for thread necromancy, to state that what matters is 50%, but actually 75%! :wink:


Can we breath new life into this rotten corpse. I put it to you that the precise figures are 51 and 76% respectively. LOL And we all know that heavily modified means new colours and the addition of 26 new races all with the exact same bonuses, the changing of the welcoming screen, editing the wiz list and the renaming of Midgaard to something fantasy sounding and lastly moving a few exits in the merc mud school and editing the newbie gear to have alternate colours to induce an epileptic episode in those predisposed with said affliction.
18 Aug, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
…and the renaming of Midgaard to something fantasy sounding…


Middlegaard?
18 Aug, 2008, Conner wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
The_Fury said:
and editing the newbie gear to have alternate colours to induce an epileptic episode in those predisposed with said affliction.

Aw, man! Someone stole my idea! :wink:
40.0/79