22 Nov, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Does not the Diku license require for credits to be in each header that uses code from the original base?
Here's something I've noticed in SMAUG:
/****************************************************************************
* [S]imulated [M]edieval [A]dventure multi[U]ser [G]ame | \\._.// *
* ———————————————————–| (0…0) *
* SMAUG 1.4 (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998 by Derek Snider | ).:.( *
* ———————————————————–| {o o} *
* SMAUG code team: Thoric, Altrag, Blodkai, Narn, Haus, | / ' ' \ *
* Scryn, Rennard, Swordbearer, Gorog, Grishnakh, Nivek, |~'~.VxvxV.~'~*
* Tricops and Fireblade | *
* ———————————————————————— *
* Special clan module *
****************************************************************************/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include "mud.h"


Now, this file may be original SMAUG, but it uses code from mud.h, which was derived from structs.h in Diku.
I don't know much about copyrights, but isn't this in breach of the license?
22 Nov, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
Now, this file may be original SMAUG, but it uses code from mud.h

Does it actually include source code copied and pasted from Diku? Or does it just #include a header file?
22 Nov, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Does not the Diku license require for credits to be in each header that uses code from the original base?

No. It says you cannot remove any copyright notices from the sources, which isn't quite the same thing.

Edit: Unless you mean the license provision that says you must include the copyright when publishing any part of dikumud, in which case if the file has diku code in it then yeah I guess it should have the copyright included, even if the original diku file (structs.h in your example) doesn't have a copyright notice in it.
22 Nov, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, any code you write that refers to CHAR_DATA (which merc used typedef form the original "struct char_data") or any other structures written diku would
need the header right?
22 Nov, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
Well, any code you write that refers to CHAR_DATA (which merc used typedef form the original "struct char_data") or any other structures written diku would need the header right?

I think that's a bit too much of a stretch. If the file has actually copied Diku source code from other files then that's one thing, but if you're just using 'CHAR_DATA' then I don't think there's any need to add the Diku copyright headers.

Of course the mud as a whole will still be a Diku derivative.
22 Nov, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
This is the infamous library vs. module debate, made popular by the GNU folks and their GPL. :)

#including a file and using elements kept in that file is the exact same action as linking a shared library and using elements from it. The only real difference is that one is done at compile-time and influences the code being generated, the other is done at run-time and influences the code being executed.

Copyright notices belong with the code they refer to. If you're including original Diku code (data structures count) in your mud.h, than THAT is where the copyright belongs, not in things that happen to reference it.

Note also that just calling it CHAR_DATA is not enough to infringe copyright. If it were a patent or trademark, yes, but the actual structure might be totally different. If that's not a true statement, then we're all going to be sued by some dying printing press company for using words like "print" as verbs that emit data to the user.
22 Nov, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
If that's not a true statement, then we're all going to be sued by some dying printing press company for using words like "print" as verbs that emit data to the user.

There's probably more chance of that happening than anyone getting sued by the diku team.
22 Nov, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
There's probably more chance of that happening than anyone getting sued by the diku team.

Well that likely depends on how high profile the game is. But I believe the question here was whether the activity was actually legal, rather than whether someone could get away with violating a copyright or licence.
22 Nov, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Well that likely depends on how high profile the game is.

That link only establishes that "the DikuMUD team publicly stated that they find no reason whatsoever to believe any of the rumors that EverQuest was derived from DikuMUD code". I concur, for whatever it's worth, that it's extraordinarily unlikely that the DikuMUD team would actually pursue anybody in a court of law. Of course, as I and countless others have observed, the court of popular opinion as adjudicated by the MUD community is, in many ways, a far worse threat than the unlikely possibility of a lawsuit.
22 Nov, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But I believe the question here was whether the activity was actually legal, rather than whether someone could get away with violating a copyright or licence.

I believe the question was a legal one too, but I was making a separate point.
22 Nov, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
JohnnyStarr said:
Does not the Diku license require for credits to be in each header that uses code from the original base?

now, this file may be original SMAUG, but it uses code from mud.h, which was derived from structs.h in Diku.
I don't know much about copyrights, but isn't this in breach of the license?


No. Definitely not.
23 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
What if I put a notice in the new files saying they aren't for individual sale or consumption but are a part of X package ;p.

Honestly, I haven't put diku/merc/rom headers on my _new_ source files, but the originals have them. If I simply renamed a file I'd definitely leave them of course. They also come up in the credits and help files etc. If I were to release any full files, I'd definitely add the merc/diku/rom or at least put a header in that says they are still bound to those as it is a derivative work (probably the latter, with a link).
23 Nov, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Skol said:
Honestly, I haven't put diku/merc/rom headers on my _new_ source files, but the originals have them.

Assuming the files don't also contain code you've copied from a Diku file, I don't think there's any problem doing that.

I recall someone who copied and pasted literally everything verbatim (except for the copyright notices) into new files, and then claimed that he hadn't removed the copyright notices and therefore hadn't done anything wrong. In my opinion that is a clear violation of the Diku licence, no different from simply removing the copyright notices. If the files contain any Diku code then I think they should have the Diku copyright notice at the top.

If you don't want Diku copyright notices at the top of your own files, it should be a simple matter of organisating the content so that your own files contain only your own code.
23 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Lol no doubt KaVir ;).
I saw that too, forgot who but I was irked for sure.

Naw, on mine it's generally things like 'misc.c' or 'fish.c', is it bad that I've spent 4-5 years on fishing code on a dragonlance mud? Rofl.
23 Nov, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Skol said:
Lol no doubt KaVir ;).
I saw that too, forgot who but I was irked for sure.

Naw, on mine it's generally things like 'misc.c' or 'fish.c', is it bad that I've spent 4-5 years on fishing code on a dragonlance mud? Rofl.

There better be bass! J/k
23 Nov, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
That and brown trout should have about an 80% chance of stealing your lure (which has to be a live worm, they'll ignore anything else). :)
23 Nov, 2009, Skol wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Lol yeah there are bass of a few kinds, a few trout species too, I'll post the 'change' list ;).

/************************************************************
* Fishing v1.1 *
* By David S. Leverich and Scott MacLean (2005) *
* Based on Fishing v1.0, Plains of Nomaia by Scott MacLean *
************************************************************/

/*/–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-<(o)))<(
Fishing v1.2
By David S. Leverich (2005)
Expanded and rewritten from v1.1
121205: Rods now show the line in the water
Fish weights changed, people shown to
be 'is here fishing.' rather than (fishing)
121505: 20 more species added, sunfish bass crappie
Bug fixed so sizes are random
weights based on length vs max/min
Depth caught influences size now.
121905: 15 more fish species.
REEF type fishing pool added
122205: Examine pole now shows what it's doing
Entire examine reworked so its a sentence
rather than container list.
031606: NULL ch error fixed, poles get extracted
)>((o)>–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-*/
/*/–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-<(o)))<(
Fishing v1.3
By David S. Leverich (2007)
Expanded and rewritten from v1.1 & v1.2
021307: Fishing pools up to 1000 feet now (oceans)
Fish line up to 300 lb test
030807: Giant Catfish in lakes!
SHARK ATTACK!!! Great Whites
Sand sharks, Thresher etc.
031407: Fish length weight equations redone.
Fish size now shows in examine
031607: More fish. Lampreys for fresh water
Hammerhead sharks, shark sized catfish…
Price per pound on fresh water fish raised.
031907: Snag code reworked, much nice.
040507: School command, stops fishing first
051807: Line lower/raise rewritten completely
Now based upon sinker weight and char dex
Cost & Max Size of many fish increased.
Some sharks topping 1500 pounds!
052207: Pole length taken into consideration for raise/lower
Deep pools don't require boat IF not water sector
Docks, iceholes etc,
Underwater casting no longer ;p.
Examining pole shows approximate line left.
071307: Examine now shows approximate length and weight.
080207: Line and pole breaking now take into account the
durability of the pole, and line weight.
Five new shark species added.

)>((o)>–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-*/
/*/–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-<(o)))<(
Fishing v1.4
By David S. Leverich (2007)

080407: Fish now pull line out, they fight back!
Dropped perfect looking (spammy), only beat up fish
Show condition in desc.
Only large/small fish indicate size in descs
080807: Fish now bite hooks and bait that are adequate sizes
Hooks and Baits match sizes
Hook sizes increased from 1-3 to 1-10
Bait sizes increased from 1-4 to 1-10
New shop in Caergoth with other sized hooks/lines/baits etc

)>((o)>–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-*/
/*/–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-<(o)))<(
Fishing v1.5
By David S. Leverich (2008)
081508: In act_info.c it now shows bait size if its been
nibbled down by the fish.
081508: act_obj.c it now will usually chew up bait more
when fish get pulled off the hook. Create hole
so that people have something to spend more on.
)>((o)>–__—__—–__—–______——______—–__—-*/


I'm in the process of writing it as leveling skills (rather than rom's 1-100%) have level 1-101, on an exponential exp scale, have to be X level to catch X fish (with a command so you know what you can fish for). The fish have a specific fishing exp range by species (modified by size/condition). Basically so someone can do non-hack/slash type leveling and have other kinds of skilled work. Same with cooking, butchery, tanning, fire building, logging, carving etc.
0.0/17