10 Jun, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 82nd comment:
David Haley said:
If you're working with code that isn't covered by the license, then you do not have to follow the license. The license cannot restrict your activity on things it doesn't cover! (This is nearly tautological…)
Imagine a license rule that states you must include hello kitty ascii art to any code you publish in order to run the codebase. Wouldn't you agree that this would mean you'd be violating your license agreement if you run said codebase and publish unrelated code without hello kitty ascii art?
10 Jun, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 83rd comment:
KaVir said:
My protocol snippet is more like a specialised library, it should be usable by pretty much any mud written in C (although multithreaded muds would need to change the code to make it thread-safe).
It comes with four install files - Merc/GodWars, SMAUG, TBA and "generic". The first mud to test it for me was a GodWars mud, so I wrote the first set of instructions for them. I also pitched the snippet to Realms of Despair, and created the SMAUG instructions for them. A couple of TBA developers were very interested in my snippet and asked for some instructions for their codebase, so that's where the third set came from. The generic instructions explain in general terms what and where you need to change things, without making any assumptions about codebase.
It comes with four install files - Merc/GodWars, SMAUG, TBA and "generic". The first mud to test it for me was a GodWars mud, so I wrote the first set of instructions for them. I also pitched the snippet to Realms of Despair, and created the SMAUG instructions for them. A couple of TBA developers were very interested in my snippet and asked for some instructions for their codebase, so that's where the third set came from. The generic instructions explain in general terms what and where you need to change things, without making any assumptions about codebase.
I took a look at it and it does indeed appear you could install it in MOO, MUSH, whatever.
Aside: The code does have some problems though. Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't appear to save important state information across calls to ProtocolInput(). See the local bIacMode. It assumes that Telnet sequences will not be broken across socket read/recv calls.
10 Jun, 2011, oenone wrote in the 84th comment:
Tyche said:
Ditto. A file format cannot be copyrighted.
KaVir said:
The file format is outside the scope of the Diku licence.
quixadhal said:
Does it read the DikuMUD file format? If so, then it's a derivative work, since if that file format were removed it wouldn't function.
Vigud said:
Yes. Now tell me how my custom GTK+ widget or the glade file is derivate work of Diku MUD…
Does it read the DikuMUD file format? If so, then it's a derivative work, since if that file format were removed it wouldn't function.
The file format is outside the scope of the Diku licence.
Ditto. A file format cannot be copyrighted.
And if the (C) structures are simple enough, they can't be copyrighted either. Anybody dealing with the file format would come up with the same structures without copying anything from the original code.
10 Jun, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 85th comment:
How does that work with the whole source code clean-room aspect of copyright?
In other words, if you used the source code to determine the file format, rather than reverse-engineering it from the data files themselves, does that drag the license into it?
In other words, if you used the source code to determine the file format, rather than reverse-engineering it from the data files themselves, does that drag the license into it?
10 Jun, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 86th comment:
oenone said:
And if the (C) structures are simple enough, they can't be copyrighted either. Anybody dealing with the file format would come up with the same structures without copying anything from the original code.
Yes and no. I could come up with at least a half dozen different internal representations of the data contained in Diku zone files myself.
quixadhal said:
How does that work with the whole source code clean-room aspect of copyright?
Clean room coding is just a mechanism employed by someone as a defense or to avoid accidental copyright infringement.
The theory being that a group of programmers who have never seen the source code are not likely to create an infringing work.
Proving someone had access to the source is one piece in the chain of evidence in a copyright case.
For software, where the source is widely available, using it as a defense against infringement is practically worthless.
10 Jun, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 87th comment:
Scandum said:
The license in fact says so, but only if you want to run a DikuMUD. The code won't be derived, but you have to abide by the rules of conduct. Someone who doesn't run a DikuMUD can indirectly make money off of it. It's somewhat silly.
Scandum said:
By the same token, the license doesn't say that any C code that will work together with the main DikuMUD code cannot be sold for profit by its author (even if it did say that, it would just be crazy).
The license in fact says so, but only if you want to run a DikuMUD. The code won't be derived, but you have to abide by the rules of conduct. Someone who doesn't run a DikuMUD can indirectly make money off of it. It's somewhat silly.
Well, I re-read the license, and I can find neither of the two things you're referring to:
1. The license begins with "This document contains the rules by which you can use, alter or publish parts of DikuMud…" So, you don't have to run the code to be subject to the license. Anything else would not make sense.
2. Regarding alterations, it says "You are allowed to alter DikuMud, source and documentation as long as you do not violate any of the above stated rules." The above stated rules regarding alternation say that you have to keep the credits in each file, carry over the credits and license with any part of the code if you publish it, and in the credits command. So, if you publish code that you wrote, you don't have to carry over neither credits nor license, even if the code will work with DikuMUD. Anything else would not make sense or have legal power.
Out of curiosity, how many people out there complied with the parts of the license requiring people to email (or snail mail) the creators *before* they publish any part of the code? And what about the part requiring you to email/snailmail your MUD address when you set up a server? I know I've been doing neither…
10 Jun, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 88th comment:
Scandum said:
Imagine a license rule that states you must include hello kitty ascii art to any code you publish in order to run the codebase. Wouldn't you agree that this would mean you'd be violating your license agreement if you run said codebase and publish unrelated code without hello kitty ascii art?
A license cannot ask you to kill your first-born child in order to use the code it covers. A bizarre example, but then again so is adding Hello Kitty to every single future piece of code you ever publish. :smile: If a case like this occurred, you could "violate" the license, be brought to court, and have the illegal clause be thrown out.
plamzi said:
So, if you publish code that you wrote, you don't have to carry over neither credits nor license, even if the code will work with DikuMUD.
Just because you wrote it doesn't mean it's not a derived work. There are pretty specific guidelines for what constitutes a derived work. What exactly you mean by "working with" will determine if your code – even written 100% by you – is covered by the license. This has been covered pretty extensively (I daresay ad nauseam) so I won't get into it again.
plamzi said:
Out of curiosity, how many people out there complied with the parts of the license requiring people to email (or snail mail) the creators *before* they publish any part of the code? And what about the part requiring you to email/snailmail your MUD address when you set up a server? I know I've been doing neither…
We're all filthy scumbag license violators. :wink:
10 Jun, 2011, Vigud wrote in the 89th comment:
I am not.
10 Jun, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 90th comment:
Well I'm glad to hear it, but I think the point may have been lost on you somewhere… I hoped the smiley face and rather strong terms would give away that there was more to the statement but ah well.
It's just interesting that the community is, for the vast majority, completely ok violating that particular requirement and yet other arguably just as odd requirements have been held up as sacrosanct.
It's just interesting that the community is, for the vast majority, completely ok violating that particular requirement and yet other arguably just as odd requirements have been held up as sacrosanct.
10 Jun, 2011, Vigud wrote in the 91st comment:
Quote
Or is it you? Because I wasn't just saying that I'm not a license violator, there's more between the lines. I was bragging about that my MUD complies with the part requiring you to mail your MUD address when you set up a server.
Well I'm glad to hear it, but I think the point may have been lost on you somewhere…
10 Jun, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 92nd comment:
David Haley said:
A license cannot ask you to kill your first-born child in order to use the code it covers. A bizarre example, but then again so is adding Hello Kitty to every single future piece of code you ever publish. :smile: If a case like this occurred, you could "violate" the license, be brought to court, and have the illegal clause be thrown out.
Scandum said:
Imagine a license rule that states you must include hello kitty ascii art to any code you publish in order to run the codebase. Wouldn't you agree that this would mean you'd be violating your license agreement if you run said codebase and publish unrelated code without hello kitty ascii art?
A license cannot ask you to kill your first-born child in order to use the code it covers. A bizarre example, but then again so is adding Hello Kitty to every single future piece of code you ever publish. :smile: If a case like this occurred, you could "violate" the license, be brought to court, and have the illegal clause be thrown out.
I'd think a judge would rule that if you didn't want to abide by the license you shouldn't have used the software, and work out some kind of punishment.
10 Jun, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 93rd comment:
Scandum said:
I'd think a judge would rule that if you didn't want to abide by the license you shouldn't have used the software, and work out some kind of punishment.
You might think that, but you'd be wrong. You can search for "invalid EULA" and see what you find.
10 Jun, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 94th comment:
Quote
It's just interesting that the community is, for the vast majority, completely ok violating that particular requirement and yet other arguably just as odd requirements have been held up as sacrosanct.
Probably because as coders we all hate spams, and I also think that these people, considering they totally put ROM behind them (not even finishing to debug it) would probably just ignore the mail anyway.
12 Jun, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 95th comment:
The license doesn't require them to read such email, nor does it even require that the email be deliverable… only that you send it.
A good faith effort might suggest you google for their current email addresses, but since google, and search engines didn't exist yet when the license was written, they can't even reasonably assume you would do so.
A good faith effort might suggest you google for their current email addresses, but since google, and search engines didn't exist yet when the license was written, they can't even reasonably assume you would do so.
12 Jun, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 96th comment:
David Haley said:
You might think that, but you'd be wrong. You can search for "invalid EULA" and see what you find.
I'll have to agree that the 'I'll violate the license; sue me if you don't like it' approach works well for DikuMUD.
If you're working with code that isn't covered by the license, then you do not have to follow the license. The license cannot restrict your activity on things it doesn't cover! (This is nearly tautological…)
Right, and licenses can say anything. It's very similar to waiver agreements in that regard. That doesn't mean they're legitimate, and furthermore I'm not so sure that intent of the license is important when it does conflict with the rule of law. We always talk about what the intent was, but I'm more interested in what the law says I think.