14 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Starting to sound like a personal feud Scandum.

Just giving an example. We both know it's not beyond you.
14 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Cratylus said:
Starting to sound like a personal feud Scandum.

Just giving an example. We both know it's not beyond you.


Perhaps you could start a new thread to detail how much I've hurt you.

This thread is about something else.

Thanks! :)

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
14 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
This thread is about something else.

Far from, this thread is about someone fearing an ass clown will take his work, ghetto-rig it, and redistribute it, likely in conjunction with a mudlib since that's an easy way to shove a product down someone else's throat.

You argue he's got nothing to worry about it, and when I point out that in fact there are ass clowns out there you tell me to go post in another thread? You're a strange guy Crat, but we knew that.
14 Jul, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Elanthis said:
Without the ability to distribute modified versions, there's no reason to even release the source at all. The source is entirely useless to anyone.

As opposed to the usual proprietary software situations where an end user is forced to wait for official releases to implement bug fixes and planned/proposed feature additions, that sort of situation at least gives the user the ability to debug/modify their own copy of the source as they see fit. Being unable to release their own version of the code should not be a problem for the user if all they want is to merely use the software for themselves.
14 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Far from, this thread is about someone fearing an ass clown will take his work, ghetto-rig it, and redistribute it, likely in conjunction with a mudlib since that's an easy way to shove a product down someone else's throat.


I think I get it. You think that's what I did with MSSP, right?


Scandum said:
You argue he's got nothing to worry about it, and when I point out that in fact there are ass clowns out there you tell me to go post in another thread? You're a strange guy Crat, but we knew that.


Well you're comparing apples and oranges. Disregarding for a moment
the accuracy of your apparent opinion on the MSSP thing, MSSP is
a community protocol…a specification whose details necessarily
are subject to consensus.

Silenus is talking about licensing, which as far as I know, MSSP
does not have. These really are different topics, and I think it's
a bit rude of you to derail this thread with your apparent vendetta.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
14 Jul, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Well you're comparing apples and oranges. Disregarding for a moment
the accuracy of your apparent opinion on the MSSP thing, MSSP is
a community protocol…a specification whose details necessarily
are subject to consensus.

Not that I particularly care, but when you duplicated my specification in its entirety on the LPMud forum without my permission you were in fact violating my copyright.

Then again, messing with driver software is a lot harder than messing with a specification, so I think Silenus will be safe when it comes to you.
14 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Cut it out already. Enough – just leave it be… this is stupid.
20.0/27