11 Sep, 2007, Scandum wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
From what I've gathered Zmud sales haven't been all that wonderful, which is probably why Cmud came into play.

Cmud is basically the same as Zmud, but without the free lifetime upgrades that are promised when buying Zmud. I guess Zugg's hoping no one will sue him over 30$.


Regarding MXP, I don't quite see the added value. Having to reach for your mouse is annoying, while it's a minor effort to increase the ease of use of the text interface.
11 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
while it's a minor effort to increase the ease of use of the text interface.

I disagree with that: if you have a complex command that is complicated to express even in English, it will be complicated to express it in syntax to the server. And of course you have to remember all the syntax. An MXP interface obviates the need for that to a large extent.

Scandum said:
Cmud is basically the same as Zmud

That's a fairly big "basically", from what I've seen. It seems that he's rewriting all of it, supposedly improving on his mistakes of old. He's adding in new stuff like threading for scripts (but I wouldn't touch his thread code with a 10-foot pole given his disregard for the importance of synchronization). All in all I think given that it's a complete rewrite, it is in fact a different program and thus it seems legitimate for the life-time zMud upgrades to no longer apply. Doesn't mean I think it's good business practice, or a particularly friendly thing to do, it's just not something that you could sue over.
12 Sep, 2007, Guest wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Lifetime upgrades don't normally apply to the lifetime of the purchaser. They generally apply to the lifetime of the product. Which Zugg has unceremoniously slain. No more freebies. Good riddance I say anyway. Zmud is bloatware.
12 Sep, 2007, Scandum wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Scandum said:
while it's a minor effort to increase the ease of use of the text interface.

I disagree with that: if you have a complex command that is complicated to express even in English, it will be complicated to express it in syntax to the server. And of course you have to remember all the syntax. An MXP interface obviates the need for that to a large extent.

Example? Cause I really can't think of anything.

DavidHaley said:
Scandum said:
Cmud is basically the same as Zmud

That's a fairly big "basically", from what I've seen. It seems that he's rewriting all of it, supposedly improving on his mistakes of old. He's adding in new stuff like threading for scripts (but I wouldn't touch his thread code with a 10-foot pole given his disregard for the importance of synchronization). All in all I think given that it's a complete rewrite, it is in fact a different program and thus it seems legitimate for the life-time zMud upgrades to no longer apply. Doesn't mean I think it's good business practice, or a particularly friendly thing to do, it's just not something that you could sue over.

This is the same argument Medievia is making. I've downloaded Cmud out of curiosity and it was exactly the same as Zmud with some buggy beta code added to it. As far as I can see Zugg's in as much (potential) legal trouble as Medievia, though I'm not a lawyer of course.

This of course doesn't mean I disagree with Zugg's decision, though had I been in his position I would simply have changed the Zmud license for new customers.
12 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Example? Cause I really can't think of anything.

Don't have one of the more interesting ones off-hand, but here's something: I would like to edit the 3rd description used for random terrain for terrain type forest. Now was it randomedit forest 3 or randomedit 3 forest? Err… wait… was it the daytime or night-time description, and where do I put 'day' or 'night' into the command to make it work? All of this as opposed to a simple 'click' on the one you want to edit.

And of course, there's the fact that even if a text interface is ok, you still have to remember everything, and some people might not care to know everything inside out, or might simply forget the details of what goes where.

Scandum said:
This is the same argument Medievia is making.

These are very different situations. Zugg is taking his own code and rewriting it. That changes everything…

Scandum said:
I've downloaded Cmud out of curiosity and it was exactly the same as Zmud with some buggy beta code added to it.

Well, you don't know what's under the hood. And we'd need the legal definition of "same product" for this discussion to be remotely accurate.
12 Sep, 2007, Guest wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
This is the same argument Medievia is making. I've downloaded Cmud out of curiosity and it was exactly the same as Zmud with some buggy beta code added to it. As far as I can see Zugg's in as much (potential) legal trouble as Medievia, though I'm not a lawyer of course.


You're a long way from being able to make a Mercthievia argument against Zugg when he's modifying his own code in his own project. Unless you have some sort of proof that Zugg has used another product that he's not crediting it would be wise to avoid making libelous statements.
12 Sep, 2007, Scandum wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Scandum said:
Example? Cause I really can't think of anything.

Don't have one of the more interesting ones off-hand, but here's something: I would like to edit the 3rd description used for random terrain for terrain type forest. Now was it randomedit forest 3 or randomedit 3 forest? Err… wait… was it the daytime or night-time description, and where do I put 'day' or 'night' into the command to make it work? All of this as opposed to a simple 'click' on the one you want to edit.

You'd type edit random, which places you in an interactive editor, where you'd type forest to enter the forest editing section, type night to view all the night descriptions, upon which you'd select the description you'd like to edit.

DavidHaley said:
Scandum said:
This is the same argument Medievia is making.

These are very different situations. Zugg is taking his own code and rewriting it. That changes everything…

Doesn't change a thing in this case because of the end user license.
12 Sep, 2007, Scandum wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
You're a long way from being able to make a Mercthievia argument against Zugg when he's modifying his own code in his own project. Unless you have some sort of proof that Zugg has used another product that he's not crediting it would be wise to avoid making libelous statements.

I'm saying that Zmud users have lifetime upgrades of Zmud and that Cmud might legally still be seen as a Zmud upgrade despite the name change.

If Zugg claims that Cmud doesn't use Zmud code to obfuscate that issue he's certainly comparable to Medievia, though I'm not the one claiming that Cmud is a complete rewrite so it's in fact DavidHaley making libelous statements.

And once again, I'm just curious about the legal aspects, I personally think Zugg has done more than his share by providing 10 years worth of upgrades and even if he's violating the end user agreement I certainly hope no one would sue him over a lousy 30 bucks.
12 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
You'd type edit random, which places you in an interactive editor, where you'd type forest to enter the forest editing section, type night to view all the night descriptions, upon which you'd select the description you'd like to edit.

Compare and contrast the complexity of adding such interactive editors to SMAUG with the relative simplicity of adding hyperlinks. I mean, I could also say "well how about just embedding bash into the MUD and letting the user treat the MUD as a filesystem with vi installed", and so yes, sure, that environment would be great for me, but the amount of work required is unreasonable.

Scandum said:
Doesn't change a thing in this case because of the end user license.

Of course it's different. He owns the intellectual property to his own code, and is free to use part of it in a new product.

Scandum said:
so it's in fact DavidHaley making libelous statements.

Libel! How did I end up being accused of libel??
12 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Scandum said:
so it's in fact DavidHaley making libelous statements.
Libel! How did I end up being accused of libel??

I think I see where the confusion is:
Samson said you might be making a libelous statement because by bringing up parallels with Medievia, you are suggesting that Zugg has stolen code and purports that his modifications makes that code his own.
My statement has been that Zugg is rewriting enough of the code to make it no longer count as the same product.

By definition, I cannot be making libelous statements; to explain why, I think a dictionary reference is in order:

Dictionary.com said:
li·bel
–noun
1. Law.
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
–verb (used with object)
3. to publish a libel against.
4. to misrepresent damagingly.
5. to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court.


Clearly I do not meet the requirements in 1a because I am not making defamatory statements. I don't believe I'm committing a crime here :wink: so that rules out 1b. I'm not accusing somebody, so I am not a plaintiff, and cannot meet 1c's requirements. For the same reason I don't meet 1a, I cannot meet 2… and similarly for the verb form of the word.
12 Sep, 2007, Guest wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
As I said, lifetime upgrades don't usually apply to the lifetime of the user or the developer. They usually apply to the lifetime of the product. Unless you could prove that Cmud is really Zmud with a new name, your claim wouldn't last long in court.
12 Sep, 2007, Scandum wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Samson said you might be making a libelous statement because by bringing up parallels with Medievia, you are suggesting that Zugg has stolen code and purports that his modifications makes that code his own.

Medievia never stole any code, nor am I claiming that Zugg did.
12 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Alright then. I won't get into the Medievia argument since that's a whole other issue. Nonetheless, in order to say that Zugg's "lifetime licenses" apply to cMud, you would need to know the definition of "same" for the expression "same product". Until we have that definition, it is rather futile for us to discuss whether or not cMud and zMud count as the "same product" as far as the lifetime licenses are concerned.
0.0/13