The ones that makes you look bad or all of them?

Just this thread. You know, like Graham did.

Maybe you should read the license sometime.

If you publish *any* part of dikumud, we as creators must appear in the
   article, and the article must be clearly copyrighted subject to this
   license. Before publishing you must first send us a message, by
   snail-mail or e-mail, and inform us what, where and when you are
   publishing (remember to include your address, name etc.)

Holy shit, why is this turning into drama?

This is a reasonable argument and anyone who objects is an asshat. Kayle, I only sort-of read what you had to say because it shouldn't need to be any more complicated than this. Everyone else, shame on you for writing so much.

That's the answer to a question Kayle did not ask.
If he wanted to know if I sent an email message to the Diku authors when I published Murk++, then the answer is yes.

Looking over all the licenses, none of them explicitly grant the right to distribute. The only one that comes close is the Diku license which states:


A license is required to grant the rights of an author unto others. And since Samson and I are the authors of SmaugFUSS, unless explicitly stated in a license with any of the FUSS Bases, No one but us has that right.

I'm really tired of the arm-chair lawyering. And I'm tired of reading the posts from non-lawyers throwing around legal terms, and citing legal proceedings with regard to something that has never, and will neer have legal precedence because none of us are going to go the route of spending money on a lawyer for something as trivial as a mud.

This is how it is:
MudBytes is not allowed to distribute the stock FUSS Packages or AFKMud.

If you take offense to that… Well, too god damn bad. This is a right granted to Samson and I under US Copyright law. That's not going to change. And since development of the FUSS bases takes place in the US, MudBytes is hosted in the US, all of this is stored in the US, and the authors are US Citizens… Guess which set of laws covers this? That's right. US Copyright law. Besides, as Koron pointed out, now that SmaugMuds.org is the only place to get it, it's a helluva lot easier to keep things up to date, since I only have to update the packages in one location.

You've all got your panties in a bunch because someone actually exercised their rights to revoke a license and they're not afraid of your arm-chair lawyering, or your precedence. There's one occurence of someone losing their right to distribute. And that's this one. Tyche can bitch and moan about some bullshit precedence all he wants. But that's a totally separate issue, from a totally different author. I'm not Samson, and I don't maintain AFKMud. I'm Kayle, and I maintain SmaugFUSS, SWRFUSS, and SWFotEFUSS. MudBytes has lost their rights to distribute (If they even had that right to begin with since it's not in any of the licenses) the aforementioned code bases, and it won't be changing no matter how much any of you bitch and moan.

If you really think about this. None of us have the right to distribute any of the bases we don't explicitly maintain the copyright on. Since it's not listed explicitly in the licenses.

Now, I'm gonna go ahead, and wash my hands of this entire thread. Arm-chair lawyer all you want now, boys. I'm done giving a shit.

[Edit:] Oh, btw Tyche. QSFP is licensed under GPL. There's no threat of revocation there. So you can at least undo that knot in your panties.
[Edit2:] Another btw, In case there were any doubts: http://www.iguanadons.net/Legalese-329.h... We appear to have the same take on things.

It's freaking ridiculous that this has to come up anyways. I've been reading Mudbytes for a LONG time and never saw the need to post. But seriously? Is this what we've come to that we bicker over stupid copyright issues and piss all over the SmaugFUSS project because there is a mere disagreement with the administrators there? It's no wonder the MUD community is dying and that so many mudders are disillusioned.

There is hardly a single respectable source for MUD information anymore because everyone just bickers and complains about everything. It'd be different if there was some civility in discussion, but it's all hostile.

It's nothing new. Sparing you any sarcasm, I doubt that's the singular reason MUDding has lost popularity.

Organizations are legal entities, and MudBytes is an organization that has a website. Distribution mechanisms don't exist in voids. So… yeah.

Anyhow, lalala, lots of fun to be had here by all. Can't we at least go back to being grumpy about more interesting things? :wink:

This thread has long since served whatever purpose it may have held, so let us cease bickering over the subject.

As a non-bickering contribution, I offer my opinion that when faced
with behavior you find shocking and fundamentally wrong, it is
understandable to reach for whatever means you have available to
repudiate it, and I think that's what was attempted here by the
relevant copyright holders.

I sympathize because it's a position I found myself in a few years
ago. Kyndig was not just banning people he disagreed with, but
people who associated with people he disagreed with. It was all
quite horrible and I viewed it as aggressive damage to a hobby I
desperately loved. And in that context of passion and righteousness
I made the error of announcing a revocation of Kyndig's privilege
to distribute my codes.

The usual suspects got on my back about it, and though I initially
shrugged it off, I eventually came to realize that there is a
delicate understanding and consent among developers not to allow
personal gripes to interfere with licensing. The unfortunate part
is the grotesquely rude way in which this point was made to me,
which greatly delayed my acceptance of it and greatly disinclined
me to adopt any stance other than my original one.

However, I eventually got over myself, accepted that even actively
malicious sadists can make accurate observations about my own
incorrectness, and revoked the revocation. Upon realizing that
the "malicious" part of the malicious sadists would still have a
field day spreading FUD, I set up a separate delevopment branch
that is Public Domain, such that there would be no fear of my
capricious whimsy affecting anyone that adopted it.

Ultimately I fully understand and sympathize with the intent behind
the act under discussion in this thread. I hope that the community,
and in particular the licensing Taliban, will accept the intent as
having been honest and intended in good faith, despite its obvious
lack of wisdom. It is not necessary to rend your prey to shredded
bits at every opportunity, if the point has been made.

It's a fine codebase, and you know they won't do it to devs. Let
them have a mulligan and let's drive on.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

[EDIT: fixed some language for a bitchy little armchair lawyer]

I briefly considered pulling the 'copyright' card on Crat when he re-published a specification I wrote without asking for permission, but as Crat said - get over yourself.

It might however become a future issue with the article section if licensing of content is shady.

I actually suggest reading what he had to say, and then perhaps you'll understand the concerns raised by other mud developers in this thread.


No, you've got your panties in a bunch because we've explained why potential mud owners should be warned about using your codebase - namely, the fact that you've demonstrated a willingness to legally revoke licences based purely on personal grudges.

Is it really so difficult to understand why such uncertainty should be a concern to new mud owners, when they're drawing up a list of the pros and cons of different codebases and trying to decide which to use?

As an aside, I briefly noticed that Samson's monkeys are still throwing faeces from their cage, so I will spell it out for you more explicitly: I do not in any way question your right to revoke your licence based on a personal grudge (although somewhat ironically Samson has ...); I question the wisdom of doing so.

This thread started when Tyche commented "Your biggest problem is using a mud where there's a history of revoking the license". You didn't like Tyche's comment, but he was dead right, and I would give the same warning if someone else were to ask about using your codebase. New mud owners also have a right - they have the right to know the risk they're taking, before they invest thousands of hours work into their mud.

I don't believe telling someone not to use a codebase because of a grude YOU have with one of the administrators is wise either.

Of course not, that should go without saying. The prospective mud owner only needs to be informed of things that could effect them and their future mud.

Well I agree, but I don't think it's really an issue with SmaugFUSS. If anyone here, Davion, Kiasyn, whoever wanted to use SmaugFUSS - Samson or Kayle is not going to remove their right to use it. SO I don't understand why it's such a big deal for someone to be like "OMG Don't use that - they'll revoke your license." When that is something that has NEVER taken place to my knowledge. I think that would be more pertinent for someone starting a mud forum who wanted to open a repository. I think then it would be more appropriate information. It seems totally moot to point that out to a newbie.

Whether it's a big deal or not should be left to the prospective mud owners to decide. They're the ones who stand to lose however many years they've invested into their mud should their rights later be revoked, so it's only fair that they're made aware of the precedent in advance, particularly if they've explicitly asked about the pros and cons of the codebase.

I would want to know, if I were in their position. Wouldn't you?

I would want to know if there was a real issue there. Which there isn't.