As you seem to have simply repeated yourself, I refer you to previous answers to the same questions. There's really no point in me also repeating myself. :rolleyes:

Not so easy to answer those questions, is it?

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php...

( FYI, for you stat hounds, this is the 3500th post made on this forum. Woot. )

O…K… :thinking:

I see now why I chose a career in econometrics over anything having to do with law. Good god. :stare:

You don't understand the moral difference between an author revoking the rights granted to a licensee who is acting in good faith in respect to the license vs. an author revoking the rights granted to licensee for reasons independent of the license? No I'm pretty sure by now everyone has gotten the point and does understand the difference. A few posters would rather view the issue in simple tribal terms, that is whether Gohan happens to be playing for team Vegeta or team Goku. :-)

What society? Murder is seen as honourable in many cases in the Middle East. If you're wife cheats on you, you kill her, that's not pretty clear to me…

Of course they can, I can accuse you of being a cross dressing whore who slept with his mother. The question is does that make it legally sound. No. They can accuse you of anything they want. Can they win a legal battle based on anything less than accusations with sound evidence? Probably not, can they accuse you anyway? Of course they can.

Seems cut and dry.

Situation 1: I find someone to be selling in-game items which is prohibited by my license and demand they no longer use my code.

Situation 2: I find out that a nigger is using my code and demand he remove it due to my hate of Africans.

PS: The above example is meant to display a hateful scenario and in no way expresses my opinions or beliefs on the concept of caucasian superiority.

Unless of course one actually writes a no negro license clause, then the licensees know the score up front. It'd be a rather obnoxious license. Some have written licenses that specificly list persons like the ROM license. If for example Vryce opened up a mud repository and started distributing mud code, he wouldn't be able to distribute anything from the ROM tree. I wouldn't demand he remove any of my code, unless he was violating my licenses.

you still could have made the point without using the racial slur.

True, but the point was that if someone had a hate for Afircans I assure you their reasoning for saying they could not use their code would indeed include the racial slur.

So you guys are saying, that if you make a sword or any object all its information, description and stats which you came up with yourself, are derived from diku, because diku made the system for in which items are displayed?

Read the thread, Metsuro.

I did, and it was said that if its displayed in the mud, its part of the DIKU license, so thats what I'm trying to figure out… my character… because I put it in the mud, is now part of the it right? thats what was being said because its being used in the DIKU mud, so as long as the character is in the mud, I cant claim it, or sell it in any means?

Metsuro, that's what some people are maintaining. Whereas I'm maintaining that your own added content is yours and yours alone. Even though it's clearly dependent on the use of the Diku codebase to function. It's much like Oblivion or Morrowind plugins. The users who create those can pretty much do with them as they please, and I've even seen them on sale in a few places. Bethesda is well aware that such things go on, and as far as I know they haven't come down on anyone for doing it.

One of the intentions of the Diku licence, as stated by the Diku team, is that you cannot sell any sort of in-game benefit.

In a directory on the mud server is a data file which contains information about your character. You can do whatever you like with it outside of the mud without going against the Diku team's stated intent.

However the mud also uses that data file to initialise certain attributes of your character within the mud. That in-game representation of your character combines two distinct elements: the data file, and DikuMUD.

It is possible to have further elements as well. For example, if your mud were based on Star Wars, then naming your character "Luke Skywalker" and giving him a lightsabre might also cause conflict with George Lucas.

I've grown to wonder what is worse, people who violate open source licenses, or those who create open source licenses.

I think the example of a license that prohibits blacks from using the software is a good example of how odd the entire concept is. Or to place it more into the spirit of the DIKU license: People of all colors can use this software, as long as you act white!

I'm wondering now if creating a racist license would be legal in the US, it's certainly illegal in the EU. Anyways, a renewed effort to encourage people to publish public domain software would be nice.

I dont see how that's the spirit of the DIKU license at all.

At that rate, why even speak, surely someone will be offended and you will need counseling and fines.

I didn't get the memo about OSS being evil. Can someone remind me of the details?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Scandum, you should be careful. Someone might decide you need to be put in rehab. Afterall, anyone with the balls to speak out like that must be sick and need our help.

Not that I can see the logic in saying the Diku license wants people to act white.