"Also agreed; however, if your code is 100% original and unique, not just 100% changed, then you have nothing to worry about because anything that is 100% original (by definition) is not a derivation. And since I'm a soothsayer, I can already see that someone is going to come back with another translation analogy, to which I'll have to point out that translations are not 100% original, blah blah blah. "

I just want to recap from page 2 to about 8 or 9 of things youve said, maybe you can get a memory jog on what it is your saying.

"This method has long been a topic of heated debate within the community concerning license disputes, but as long as either A) you cover your tail and abide by the license(s) regardless, or B) 100% of the code is genuinely your own, then you're OK. It's worth noting that paraphrasing is still considered plagiarizing and in the same way, porting or re-styling does not constitute writing your own code. "

"It's impossible to produce unique code, even using a "clean room" approach. "

"For one, there is no such thing as a truly "clean room".

– If I were to take this approach to creating a new MUD, I could do a pretty good job of identically replicating many chunks of ROM code just by memory. Would this not be copyright infringement? "

"You're absolutely correct - if there is any original code left (which there wouldn't be in the situation we're discussing). "

– That does not help if there are same/similar systems that were unique to the operation of the codebase in the first place, or the 'look and feel' are similar enough to be construed as derivative.

"I know what derivative work is, and you're wrong about concepts (etc.) not being protected by copyright law. " ; "it would be impractical to classify things like this as concepts as defined by copyright law."

– Ok…

"It can never be "proven", unless for some reason you've video taped yourself every second spent plugging away at the code. The best that can be done is logical speculation. I'd venture to say the tests you're referring to most likely amount to nothing more than code comparison, which is an innately horrible indicator of infringement (see my example about ROM in a clean room). "

– Riight.

"Yes, but we're talking about your own code here"

– Just because I make an original painting that is an upside down mirror of the mona lisa does not make it mine. Just because I create a MUD that I wrote in qbasic that plays exactly like a ROM does not make it mine either, 100% original code and all.

"Negative - such copies are not uncontested evidence. There's absolutely no way to "prove" that you (or anyone affiliated with you) created them. As I said, the best that can be done is logical speculation."

"I was quite serious (and right, in the context that I was describing);"

"It's rather illogical for a legal system to be able to pick and choose what derivation is legal and what is not, as does copyright law. It all boils down to their definition of derivation, though, which just so happens not to completely coincide with the actual definition."

– This would be called common sense by the way, certain things are considered core elements, or things for fair use and do no qualify for derivative status under the law due to their broad and sweeping nature. Thus allowing progress to continue, or people to create without fear of retribution for the mere act of breathing, or typing.



"Concepts (by definition) are not tangible. Expression (by definition) is not tangible. Code (by definition) is expression of concepts. The good old transitive property of equality dictates that you're wrong. "

–
tan·gi·ble (tān'jə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1.
1. Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
2. Possible to touch.
3. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
2. Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
3. Law That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.


n.

1. Something palpable or concrete.
2. tangibles Material assets.

ex·pres·sion /ɪkˈsprɛʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ik-spresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the act of expressing or setting forth in words: the free expression of political opinions.
2. a particular word, phrase, or form of words: old-fashioned expressions.
3. the manner or form in which a thing is expressed in words; wording; phrasing: delicacy of expression.
4. the power of expressing in words: joy beyond expression.
5. indication of feeling, spirit, character, etc., as on the face, in the voice, or in artistic execution: the lyric expression embodied in his poetry.
6. a look or intonation expressing personal reaction, feeling, etc.: a shocked expression.
7. the quality or power of expressing an attitude, emotion, etc.: a face that lacks expression; to read with expression.
8. the act of expressing or representing, as by symbols.

Those all sound (by definition) to be tangible… I would say that code is most certainly a tangible form of expression.

"KaVir-Copyrights, patents, and trademarks all have very specific applications. Since we're discussing derivative works of MUD codebases, the chances of anything but copyright applying are pretty slim, as I doubt anyone spent the money necessary to obtain patents on the algorithms in the code, or to obtain trademark rights to the name of the codebase or logos associated with it.
Drrck-
I didn't say copyrights, patents, and trademarks themselves were the same; nor did I claim anything other than copyright law applied to code. Where are you getting that from?

-Copyright law and patent/trademark law are identical with respect to derivation."

– He didnt say they were the same either, though you made a claim that the law for all of them was the same, thus indicating that they were so close as to be universally the same in this respect.

"I find it bewildering that you keep throwing the same quotes at me without understanding the concept of tangibility. "

– lol

"Legal case or not, it's logical speculation. "

Good luck with that in court. 'Your honor, thats just "logical" speculation, haha!'

"legal cases are decided based (at least partially, if not wholly) on logical speculation every day (see: probable cause, motive, intent, et al). This is an indisputable fact. "

– See, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence, et al While your at it, actually try logical 'speculation'

"Appropriate if you have no idea what you're talking about or completely misunderstand what I'm talking about, perhaps… "

– Real mature

"I already told you that it depends entirely on two different definitions of "concept". I understand completely that concepts, as defined by copyright law, are not protected. What I originally claimed (and what seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the way) is that while code may not fall under what copyright law considers a concept, it is unmistakably intangible, and as such, a concept by traditional definition. Likewise, the fact that the U.S. calls football "soccer" doesn't change the fact that in actuality, it's still football.

- Your source defines literal elements as "source code and object code". "

Apparently you have no idea what tangible means, see above definition. Then you even show where something lists code as tangible and ignore that fact heh

"A file is not tangible, any more than a story is. They're both concepts. "

– See above definition…

"I've said from the beginning that what copyright law considers a concept is not in agreement with the definition of concept. When I claimed that you were wrong about concepts not being protected, I also made it abundantly clear that I was referring to the actual definition, and not "concept as defined by copyright law". "

– So you admit that your arguing something that has no legal or literal bearing on the law, or this conversation… interesting.

"I also never intended for that comment about what is or isn't a concept to turn into a full-fledged conversation of its own. It was a rhetorical question posed to prompt abstract thought. Apparently I'm in the wrong place for that kind of thing, though."

– What making irrelevant comments that have no business or place in the conversation?

"I even answered my own rhetorical questions in order to force the point that it was rhetorical (i.e. Is the sky green? No, of course not.). There really isn't any other way to make it more clear - mayhaps you guys should sharpen your detection skills :) "

– It helps when you make a rhetorical question that is actually relevant, elsewise you may get jumped on for it.

"First off, I didn't "blast" or insult anyone, and I think you completely misunderstood my comment if that's how you took it. There are two major types of thinkers in the world: abstract and concrete. Neither is better than the other, so it wasn't meant as an insult."

– I suppose repeatedly telling someone they have no idea what they are talking about because you disagree, or tell the people in the thread to sharpen detection skills arent insulting… uhuh..

"If I take an e-book and start replacing sentences one-by-one until I have a 100% unique work authored by me, I will have the same rights to it as if I had started from a blank Word document. The same applies for code. Where you're getting confused is that all of these articles you keep quoting are assuming at least -some- original work leftover and/or the lack of truly unique code (i.e. only re-styling, porting, translating, etc.). In those cases, I think we can all agree that infringement is going on. The whole derivation tangent has nothing to do with this, and spawned its own mini-discussion."

– Meat and potatoes. If you take an e-book, even though this is a terrible example, and assuming you have rights to modify it, start changing sentences until each sentence is one you literally wrote, however the story itself is still using the same characters, or setting, or names of unique places, it is not 100% your own.

The ebook or any other example related is silly, and really not comparable, so lets go back to code.

If I take ROM, and I literally rewrite every single line of code, that does not automatically mean it is now mine and free of the license. If I took ROM, and used it as a base for certain methods of operation, or a general look and feel for my game, but what I wrote was 100% my own code in c++ it would not be truly mine, nor free of the ROM License.

Just because you completely write or rewrite some code does not exclude you from being bound to a license on X system based on whatever unique systems they implement to do X Y or Z. It is quite possible to come up with something original as regards to a MUD.

100% original and unique is very different from 100% written in the middle of another codebase, or replacing that code, but the end result uses same or similar systems for operation. The former is fine, the latter is not.

-Syn, I tried to stay away from abstract thinking this time for you. Hope it helps. I also refrained from using quotes as allot of this stuff would have been nested, and you requested that it was not. :)

I, for one, am a little tired of seeing you call people immature for no reason at all. Just becuase you disagree with them and they disagree with you does not make them immature. Continual calling of people immature is seen, at least by me, to be immature in itself. It's like telling someone to grow up and then sticking your tongue out at them.

Darwin, he's just trying to deflect the argument off point because he's been so soundly proven wrong, and his legal advice proven to be entirely worthless. This whole thread really has become an exercise in futility.

Alas, such is the way of the dark side of the force…

-Syn, ;)

Yet again, I lost another large response. One of these days I'll learn to copy the contents of the text box before I hit reply.

Anyways, to sum it up, I agreed with about half of your points that you seem to think I disagree with for some reason. The rest of them were one word comments that I didn't respond to or points that completely lost me.

Your definition of "no reason at all" must exclude personal attacks within a debate. Mine happens not to.

Touché.

In light of this, everyone should now open a blank document and the codebase from which you wish to alter to 100% originality and uniqueness simultaneously in separate windows instead of just altering the original. Personally I don't see the difference.

This seems to be the reason for your lack of understanding. Perhaps you should take the time to research the difference and come to an educated conclusion, one not filled with personal beliefs. For this very same reason, it's a good thing that you're not the one making or upholding the laws.

©2008

Copying from one window to another still creates a derivative work (in fact I believe this was the approached used by the Merc team) - it's no different to opening a copy of Lord of the Rings beside an empty book and copying passages across by hand. Even just using the original as a reference could result in a derivative, which is why clean room implementations have one team to create documentation based on the original code, and another to create code from that documentation.

In fact, even subconscious copying can sometimes result in infringement, if there is credible evidence of access to the plaintiff’s work (see ABKCO Music v. Harrisongs Music). There's not really much you can do about this though, other than being aware of it and trying to avoid it where possible.

If you think having the codebase in a different window vs. editing it outright in its own window is going to make one iota of difference, or is anything more than a technicality, then you are sadly mistaken.

I didn't say it would make a difference. In fact, it wouldn't make a difference at all, as it would be doing the same thing in either case. You're the one that suggested it would be different and lead to a totally original work. In either case it would still be a derivative.
The method does matter, especially if you're using someone else's work to start with or reference. The actions of either case could only lead to a derivative work.
©2008

This is is the greatest flaw in your reasoning. You cannot alter or modify anything to be 100% original. The whole point of modification or alteration is to change someone else's work. If it was someone else's work to start with, it will forever more be someone else's work, and unless credited to the author, is nothing more than a plagiarized work passed off as original.

Plagiarism is representing another person's ideas or work as one's own, by copying or reproducing without appropriate acknowledgment of the source. Plagiarism may take the form of direct copying without acknowledgment, summarising without acknowledgment, or developing an idea or thesis from another's work without acknowledging the source. Acknowledgment should take the form usually used in the discipline. Plagiarism includes paraphrasing another's work, with minor changes but with the essential meaning, form and/or progression of ideas maintained, piecing together sections of the work of others into a new whole, or copying non-word based materials such as musical scores, audiovisual material, art or industrial plans of others. Plagiarism may also extend to using experimental results obtained by another person and representing these as the student's own work.

You're both incorrect.

As we've already been over multiple times, copyright laws only protect works, not methods of creation. Also, as KaVir pointed out, editing a pre-existing file is going to create many infringing intermediate works before you can arrive at your original work. So yes, it's possible to create original work beginning from someone else's, but if you want to be within the law every step of the way, you can't create any intermediate infringing works. The simplest way to prevent this is to not edit the original files. Whether or not you use them as a guide as I was suggesting is irrelevant as long as the end product does not infringe.

No, actually they're both correct and you're the one who's wrong, and once more, anyone following your advice would be foolish. You cannot take an existing work created by someone else, wave your magic wand, and have it suddenly become your own original work as though you created it yourself. Derivative works just don't work that way under the law.

No, what I pointed out is that you don't arrive at your "original work". The article I quoted, once again:

"When the first segment of code is rewritten, the new code will be an infringing work if it is substantially similar to the original code, or may be an infringing derivative work if it is a reimplementation in a different programming language. That reimplemented first segment is combined with the remaining parts of the original program to form an intermediate version. Subsequent modifications produce another work. So when you have completed the piecewise reimplementation, you have a set of works, each of whose creation infringes the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright of the original program.

As an analogy, consider the translation of a novel to a different language, something that would clearly be a derivative work. It makes little difference that none of the original words remain, or that the translation was done a little at a time. The resulting translation is still an infringing derivative work.

Even if you completely replace the program with new code, nonliteral elements also protected by the original program’s copyright are likely to remain and infringe – elements like the overall program structure or architecture and data structures that are not dictated by external or efficiency considerations. Although there is no case law on this point, it would seem that the only way to break the chain of infringing works is by some extraordinary act, such as a clean room implementation."



Copyright protection is automatic from the moment the work is fixed in a tangible form of expression; every time you save a file, you'll be creating an intermediate infringing work.

The only court-tested way to create a non-infringing work beginning from someone else's is to document the non-copyrightable elements of their program, and then get someone who's never seen the original program to create a new program using only your documentation.

In practice, about the best you can do once you've seen the code of another mud (which most people who create scratch muds have) is to delete that code entirely before you start working on your new mud - don't even use it for reference. There's still the risk of subconscious copying, but as long as you're creating a different style of game (and avoid doing things the same way as the other codebase whenever possible) your chances of accidental infringement should be (in my opinion) pretty low.

Hehe nice.

I guess reason and logic arent going to work here though.

'The method doesnt matter!' - heh

-Syn

This is correct, as I agreed last post, but only for piecewise reimplementation. If you begin with a blank document, using the original source only as a reference, you will be creating no intermediate works, so infringement will solely depend on your unique work.



Correct again, but this is assuming you're editing the original source (piecewise reimplementation). As I pointed out, this would not be the case if you were only using the original source as a reference, since there would be no intermediate works.



This may or may not be the only "court-tested" way to do so, but it's definitely not the only way in general. Making note of the copyrightable elements and simply leaving them out of your program would suffice just fine. This may be harder than it sounds, due to the risk of unconscious copying, but it's still quite plausible.



Accidental infringement happens all the time, regardless of whether you intentionally use references or legitimately try to create your game from scratch. Even your own game, Godwars II, might have elements within it that are unintentionally infringing on some other work somewhere in the software universe. This does not make you an evil person, and I don't think it's fair to crucify you for it so long as you take steps to rectify such situations if/when you're made aware of them.

drrck, instead of just claiming you're right and everyone else is wrong, cite us some examples of why you believe you're right. You have not backed up your claim with any kind of factual information or linked to any site that would otherwise prove that you are correct. So, please, give us a reason to believe you if you can.

You really do not seem to grasp what makes something derivative, and when people point out the utter flaw in whatever line of logic you assign to certain words seem to gravitate to a new one to try the same thing.

It doesnt work that way, you cant do what you are suggesting. Using Tolkein as a reference and including it in your work makes you a derivative, using DikuMUD as a reference for your work, unless you use things that are strictly fair use or general practice, and documented as such, you are a derivative of DikuMUD… period.

You would have to have nothing that is unique or specific to DikuMUD to not be a derivative.

Opening a blank doc and using DikuMUD as a reference, and coding a MUD based on that reference does not make mine 100% original or unique, nor free of derivative status.

Up down or sideways, you example doesnt work, if you are using something else to create another thing, you still used it, it doesnt matter if you started with a steak and wound up with a hotdog. the outcome is what doesnt matter here, but what is left from the original, the method used, and what exactly you are trying to claim.

-Syn

Correct. Using any copyrightable material from Diku would make your game a derivative, as defined by copyright law, and you'd be subject to infringement penalties. I really don't know why you keep arguing against me, when you're saying the same things I am.



Again, you are correct, and I made this abundantly clear multiple times.



Again, agreed. Using a reference makes it harder to produce 100% original, unique work, but it does not make it impossible or even improbable. I also agree about the "derivative status", but only if you define derivative in the general sense, and not as it pertains to copyright law.



"Using" it and infringing upon it are two completely different things. One is legal and one is not.